Have We Got What It Takes to Win?

It was during the great slugfest of 1968, which marked the beginning of a fierce and protracted battle for the soul of America, that I threw my first electoral punch. Doing my bit, you might say, to help Richard Nixon deliver the necessary knockout blow to the Democrats.  Here (I thought) was the Party of Appeasement and watching it go down in flames gave me no end of delight.

Nixon of course would soon requite the favor, sending me to South Vietnam to fight a war that neither he nor anyone else in Washington seemed disposed to win. For unlike poor Hubert Humphrey, whom he dispatched with gratifying ease and thoroughness, the Viet Cong proved a far tougher nut to crack. Indeed, it would be years and years before America threw off her malaise of defeat and dishonor.

And perhaps she never has.  Because if recent events have taught us anything at all, it is that we seem not to have the stomach for this War on Terror. How else does one account for the refusal, endlessly repeated at the highest levels of our government, either to acknowledge the nature of the threat we face, or to summon the will to defeat it?   When the President and all his advisors behave like shrinking violets and recoil even from identifying the problem—Militant Islam on the March!—what hope have we of putting an end to it? I mean, was there even a passing nod in the President’s recent State of the Union speech, to a problem that more and more pre-empts the world’s attention?   How poor our prospects must appear to people who find themselves increasingly in the grip of a terror that is both systemic and widespread; for whom, in the words of the novelist Joan Didion, “the unspeakable peril of the everyday,” means the growing likelihood of being blown up by some suddenly reactivated “sleeper cell.” Who wants to sign on with a nation whose leadership is so feckless, so utterly supine, that it won’t even admit to itself who its enemies are?

When that perfect storm called Vietnam, which Richard Nixon was then fated to inherit, was raging full blast in Southeast Asia, Henry Kissinger, an advisor at the time to New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, urged his friend Bill Buckley to tell the President-elect: “If Vietnam falls, word will go out that while it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, it is fatal to be her friend.”

Did Nixon heed his advice? The jury is still out on that one, although, truth to tell, Vietnam did finally fall. Still, he hired the guy who gave him the right advice, namely Dr. Kissinger, who later on became Nixon’s Secretary of State and chief architect of a foreign policy that orchestrated an end to the war.

Meanwhile, almost a half century later, the Islamic juggernaut looks to be unstoppable in its stated design to subjugate the world to the rule of Allah. And thus permanently sever, in the course of its global conquest, what had once been the ancient and abiding connection between reason and will, mind and heart. If Pope Saint John Paul II insisted upon the nexus in his great encyclical, Fides et Ratio, reminding us of the two wings on which the world may rise to God, it became the recurrent theme of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, to sound the tocsin of what happens when the bird no longer flies. When religion is wrenched free from reason, ethos uprooted from logos, you get an Islamist fanatic tossing bombs that incinerate the innocent.  And when reason is left to it own devices, uninformed by faith, you get secularists so indifferent to God that they cannot even bring themselves to identify the problem.  Much less move against it.

What I am saying is this—that until the United States, and the coalition we’ve forged to fight on behalf of the West, steps up to the plate and really starts swinging, we’re going to lose this war. More than ever, we need to evince a resolute and robust willingness to do whatever it takes to smash these guys and restore right reason to the world. Otherwise, the Kissinger caveat will simply have to be repealed, inasmuch as America will no longer exercise real or strategic credibility in the world, and thus will hardly be perceived as a danger to anyone, certainly not to the forces of organized terror that now threaten the peace. And if Barack Obama, as wretched a Commander in Chief as can be imagined, hasn’t got sufficient starch in his shirt to show that he’ll not only call out the bad guys, but actually go out and kill them, then he is simply not equal to the job. So why then would we have friends if we are no longer willing to protect them from organized Islamic terror?

That is a question that ought surely be on everyone’s mind these days. Where does America stand on the matter of terror sponsored and sustained by Islamic ideology? Is it possible that the country is as reluctant to take charge as our President has proven himself to be? Have we all succumbed to the same paralysis as afflicts Obama and his advisors? Does the marriage of reason and faith, head and heart, no longer apply? Between knowing the right and mobilizing the will to do it? I wish I knew. What I am convinced of, however, is that the country could still be persuaded to rally round the flag on this issue, if it were presented in an honest and straightforward way. As a matter of sheer civilizational survival.

Do we have the sense that the stakes are in fact this high? That, in point of fact, the danger we face is on the order, say, of what Great Britain faced in 1940 when the fury of the Third Reich so imperiled an island race that nothing short of a total showdown with Adolph Hitler could save the West? If Herr Hitler were to win, warned Churchill, and England and her allies were to lose, “then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and care for, will sink into the abyss of a New Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

That was Churchillian rhetoric at its most impassioned and persuasive. His “Finest Hour” speech did more to turn the tide of defeatism than any number of troops and tanks. And he stood entirely alone. “In sum,” writes historian John Lukacs, “he was the defender of civilization at the end of the Modern Age,” a word he uses to define all that stands athwart barbarism.  “At a dramatic moment in the twentieth century,” he concludes, “God allowed Churchill the task of being its principal defender.”

Has he no successors at all? Where are the statesmen today who can summon such eloquence in the defense of civilization?   Are there so few leaders around fired by that same Churchillian vision? Only if, united by the things for which we have a shared love, they know what those things are which constitute a civilizational deposit, and that they are prepared to preserve them even at the cost of their lives.

This is not rocket science. It is a perfectly simple proposition. That unless America sees the current struggle in terms that transcend all other issues save that of the survival of the things we hold most dear—and that we know precisely what those things are, and who is threatening to take them from us—it will not be possible to defeat this enemy.

But like our English cousins in that not so distant June of 1940, who fought and died to liberate a continent, we too had that sense, back in December of 1941, following the shameful attack on Pearl Harbor. We knew that unless we rose up and put an end to so barbarous an act of unprovoked aggression, taking the fight all the way to Japan, we not only would dishonor our dead, their bodies strewn about the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, but the ideals they died to defend.  And it was on the strength of such convictions that the sacrifice of many would sustain us throughout a long and brutal world war.

And while I do believe we had something of that same sense in the aftermath of 9/11, we somehow lost it along the way.  I can still recall a riveting headline I saw shortly after the two towers fell: “The first great war of the 21st century began September 11.” How will it turn out? Indeed, how many of us still think that it is a war worth winning? I pray that it may not yet be too late to try and revive that same sense.

Regis Martin

By

Regis Martin is Professor of Theology and Faculty Associate with the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He earned a licentiate and a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Martin is the author of a number of books, including Still Point: Loss, Longing, and Our Search for God (2012) and The Beggar's Banquet (Emmaus Road). His most recent book, also published by Emmaus Road, is called Witness to Wonder: The World of Catholic Sacrament. He resides in Steubenville, Ohio, with his wife and ten children.

  • joebissonnette

    The prevailing narrative holds that the invasion of Iraq was based on false pretenses and that more legitimate interventions in Afganistan have cost blood and treasure without achieving lasting results. These are serious concerns not addressed here.
    Further, equating the threat posed by Islamism and their terror campaign with the threat to the survival of the West posed by Hitler is over the top. Germany was in ways the most civilized, advanced nation of the 1930’s. The leadership of Hitler, and the power of the German army were hugely menacing.

    • Seamrog

      The tools of war have significantly changed since 1940.

      One islamist with the right tool can kill and maim multitudes.

      To ignore this fact is perilous and naive.

      It is important therefore, to address the islamists, and the networks and societal structures they use to spread their evil.

    • craig

      The big problem with Islamic terror is it is non-Westphalian. Germany’s threat was as one Westphalian state to others and could be measured on those terms. Islam’s threat is as fourth-generation warfare — to exploit the asymmetry by manipulating the site of ‘battle’ to those places and situations where fanaticism, savagery, and rootlessness confer an offensive advantage to the objectively-weaker party.

      The West either has to abandon Westphalian notions of sovereignty altogether, or else enforce them outright, punishing and/or deposing rulers who give aid and refuge to barbarians within their territory. The early Afghanistan campaign was a good example of the latter. We deposed the Taliban regime swiftly and cheaply ; had we only left Afghanistan to its own devices after a short punitive war, it would have been a resounding success and an example to others. Because we engaged in the folly of democratization and nation-building, we squandered that success.

    • JP

      You confuse a convention conquest (Nazis Germany) with a non-conventional one (which is being waged in Europe). Europe’s demographics do not bode well for the West – not in the long run. The question is whether the West will quietly concede defeat in Europe or go down fighting.

    • HItler opened a two front war in a fitt oh Hubris. His initial incursion into Russia was swift and merciless, until a poorly planned for winter stopped him. Had he honored his deal with Stalin, the war might have dragged on until he managed to split the atom.
      Hitler never had a billion adherents. What you seem to forget is that Islam has now lasted for 13 centuries, not 13 years.

  • Vinny

    “…if it were presented in an honest and straightforward way. As a matter of sheer civilizational survival.” Hits the nail on the head. These American Communists who are in charge and others who are empowered, don’t want our civilization to survive.

  • Western civilization is dead. It’s been dying for a while. The death blow was self-inflicted, 1914-1917. Ever since it’s been flopping around on the floor, spitting up blood and gasping for air.
    I predict my children will see Europe overrun, Rome in flames and St. Peter’s a mosque, ditto Chartres and Westminster. People will flee to the U.S. which will break up around racial lines – Blacks in the SE, Mestizos in the SW and the Whites in the NW and parts of Canada. Only when liberalism / leftism has been completely purged, then God will raise up a Charles Martel and Christendom will survive, albeit in a small enclave of the NE U.S.

    • Saddening thought but probably not too far off from reality.

      I actually think war will first engulf Europe long before that and hard nationalism will spread like wildfire.

      • That will be part of the process yes. It’s starting a new cycle now if you watch European politics closely. The citizens are fed up with the elites. Because they did not have sane immigration policies which protected their civilization for the last 50 years or so, the only option left, when the nationalists take power (and they will soon now) the only option left will be mass deportations, concentrations camps and probably worse. This is exactly the fear the left uses to smear the nationalists but it is their suicidal policies that have left no other options. The Europeans will not go quietly into that good night, they will rage against the dying of the light but they don’t have the vigor of a civilization that believes in itself and nationalist fervor is a poor substitute for true religion.

        • However it plays out, it won’t be a bloodless or glorious revolution. If Europe has any hope of survival, it will be with an iron fist.

        • “The citizens are fed up with the elites. ”

          On here, you’ll find people that still believe in elites, they want more elites, and more power to them.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    The last war America unequivocally won was…. Grenada. One Nation Under Nice will be ‘easy pickins’.

  • Harry

    The secular, atheistic ruling class considers the enemy of its enemy its friend. Its enemy is Christianity, which proposes not only the existence of an authority above that of the ruling class, but also that the masses must not cooperate with the godless social engineering of the ruling class because it is diametrically and diabolically opposed to the way humanity should live according to the higher authority Christians believe in.

    The secular, atheistic ruling class is willing to overlook the version of theism present in Islam, which would at some point present them with the same kind of “higher authority” problems as does Christianity. But for now Islam is the friend of the ruling class because of its ferocious opposition to Christianity and its lethal persecution of Christianity. This is why Christians being killed by the thousands in the space of a week by Jihadists in Africa is barely acknowledged by the secular media, but the killing of a relative handful of secularists in France makes headlines around the world.

    Jihad is the best friend of the atheistic ruling class when it focuses on Christians, doing to them what the ruling class can’t as yet find a way to do themselves while maintaining a facade of legitimacy. They are so thrilled with the Islamic assault on Christianity they can’t bring themselves to deal with what will eventually become a threat to their own rule. That Jihad is dangerous to them, too, is made clear by the killings in France just mentioned. They won’t realistically deal with that as long as it is the Christians being killed by the thousands and secularists being killed by the handful.

    • Exactly, the left is willing to wage Jihad against Christians vicariously through the only people on earth with the chutzpah to actually do it.

      They’ve miscalculated, however. The Left will be consumed just as quickly, if not quicker, by their transplanted denizens. Europe has the political power they want. They will get it. Europe has basically handed it over on a silver platter.

    • Greg Groebner

      Harry, this is a good posting, but just who are these amorphous “secular, atheistic ruling class” bogemen?

      • Harry

        Greg, you wrote elsewhere on this page:

        “In the US, the concrete effect of this has historically not been so much the problem of Islam, but rather the Jews. The Jewish subculture has grown and has been allowed to now become predominant in matters of entertainment and news, the financial sector of the economy, the legal positivism of the judiciary, and the poisoning of US foreign relations. And never-ending war.”

        So it is the Jews who are the bogeymen? Have you been reading the works of Joseph Goebbels lately?

        • Greg Groebner

          Harry, again, beside for the Rockefellers, just just who are these amorphous “secular, atheistic ruling class” bogeymen?

          And yes, certainly, the Jewish culture has been a large factor — really, a decisive factor — in many modern ills.

          – Abortion? – check.
          – The Iraq War? – check.
          – the banker bailout? – check

          Here’s another interesting observation, make of it what you will: Vice President Joe Biden, speaking of “progressivism” in general, and
          homosexualism in particular, lauded: “Think — behind of all that, I bet
          you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social
          media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry.”:

          • Greg Groebner

            But I will add that the real problem is not so much the Jews, as it is the power vacuum that was left behind when the idea of separation of Church and State was adopted as an ideal. At that juncture, it was just a matter of time before the coarsest rose to the top.

            • Harry

              The real problem isn’t the Jews at all. The “separation of church and state,” which, as you know, does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, was intended to prevent the establishment of a state religion. This was a good idea. Never in the wildest dreams of any of the founders did “separation of church and state” mean the establishment of atheism as the de facto state religion, which is what it has become.

              I should note here that atheism is a faith-based belief system. One can’t prove God isn’t there. That belief must be taken on faith, and the discoveries of modern science now make it clear that the faith required by atheism is an irrational, blind faith. We now know it was virtually impossible for the Universe to have mindlessly configured itself such that life was even a possibility, and then mindlessly and accidentally assembled dead matter into what we now know life to be: super-sophisticated, digital information-based nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond our own.

              The false interpretation of the “separation of church and state” has become the basis for the establishment of what is far worse than a theocracy: An “atheocracy” that props itself up by indoctrination propagated in government funded public schools. This is necessary because the faith atheism requires is irrational. The atheocracy is hostile to other faith-based belief systems that only require a very reasonable faith. And it is extremely hostile to the notion that there is an authority above its own. This is why they insist on keeping other faith-based belief systems out of the public school system.

              • Greg Groebner

                Harry, I only partially disagree with the above; but once again, just who are “the secular, atheistic ruling class”? Just five names would be a good start.

                Or is it just a literary device, kind of like in a fairy tale? Myself, I prefer “big, bad wolf.”

                As far as your “‘atheocracy’ that props itself up by indoctrination propagated in government funded public schools”, might you consider Randi Weingarten an important player here (the current president of the American Federation of Teachers, a member of the AFL-CIO, and former president of the United Federation of Teachers)?

                There are very many “secularists”, but very few “militant secularists.” In the American context, secularism is quite simply that public formula which Jewish interests deem palatable.

                • Facile1

                  Maybe instead of naming names for the “secular, atheistic ruling class”, one should really look at worldviews that oppose the Christian worldview. Worldviews have inescapable conclusions that can be fatal.

                  The first worldview is the “secular, atheistic ruling class” — ‘There can be no sin because there is no GOD.’
                  The second is “feminism” and LGBTQ — ‘Sex is Love.’
                  The third is Islam — ‘Homicide and suicide as pathways to heaven.’
                  The fourth is Judaism — ‘The justification of temporal power to end suffering.’
                  The fifth is Protestantism — ‘Divine Right of Kings’

                  • Greg Groebner

                    Facil1, this is a valid point, but not all world views have the means (money, personnel, mass media access, etc). to carry out their bad beliefs into large-scale practice. Thus, I would think that they fall in priority if considered as “existential threats to Western civilization”, as seems to be the gist of the article. Ownership of modern mass media in the USA is quite telling (see Joe Biden’s “85%” remark above). That is one of the many problems with Democracies — whoever has money and media access effectively controls elections; and can build coalitions, even while lacking actual members of adherents.

                    • Facile1

                      But swaying the ‘moneyed’ begins with worldview. Worldview is persistent. The ‘moneyed’ come and go.

                    • Greg Groebner

                      “Moneyed” seems to be fairly closely associated with worldview. And, “the love of it…”, you know the rest. The worldviews on usury have had huge impacts on civilizations. In the Western context, I would argue that there are two worldview factors that define “modernity”: the institutionalization of usury, and the rejection of a geocentric cosmos.

                    • Facile1

                      What problem are you really trying to solve?

                      Are you trying to solve immediate threats to your own security and well-being?

                      Or are you trying to be an instrument of GOD’s peace?

                    • Greg Groebner

                      Facile1, I’ve posted here because the initial comments were glowing on what is a terrible article from Mr. Martin. It is this kind of writing that leads to war: a trusted person writes outside his subject area, unknowingly spewing the talking points of those who are really his enemies; using Christians as the proxy to fight their enemies. This war-by-proxy is what Harry commented on top, and I strongly agree with it; as apparently also do the many up-voters. My slight addition to his main point is that it may be extremely relevant to have at least some hint of who these faceless-warriors-by-proxy are; and how they might be manipulating the message.

                      It is fairly obvious that Mr. Martin takes popular propaganda at face value, whether that be about Churchill or Muslims. Scrolling further down, I see that there are now many comments addressing both of these issues; quite astutely in several cases. Would Mr. Martin have written this article if the Charlie Hebdo attack hadn’t occurred? Whoever was actually behind the attack, they are probably pulling out their hair in frustration because the public is so stupid that they cannot see a false-flag even when it is intentionally designed to be seen.

                      It is actually kind of ironic: the pundits and public have become so dumbed-down that anything beyond the most graphic shock forms have become ineffective as propaganda.

                      So, Facile1, the above round-about is why I have posted on Harry’s fine comment. However, my main point is further below, the paragraph starting with “Many modern political problems in the West are directly related to the fact that we no longer have an official vision of an idealized State consonant with a Christian mission…” As long as we continue to embrace the false principle of the separation of Church and State, a great civilization will breathe its last, and vast swaths of people will not even be baptized.

                    • Facile1

                      The STATE (whether secular or theocratic) can have no place in the kingdom of GOD.

                      1. On the necessity of government

                      If Jesus Christ thought government was necessary, he would have established a Theocracy (like Muhammad did) and not simply a Church.

                      2. Law as moral pedagogy

                      It does not belong to the purview of the State to legislate morality.

                      Re: Mark 2: 23-28 The Disciples and the Sabbath.

                      “As he was passing through a field of grain on the sabbath, his disciples began to make a path while picking the heads of grain. At this the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?” He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry? How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?” Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. That is why the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath.”

                      3. The order of politics

                      When the State takes upon itself what rightfully belongs to God, it is committing idolatry.

                      In Matthew 22:19-21, Jesus said “Show me the coin that pays the census tax.” Then they handed him the Roman coin. He said to them, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?” They replied, “Caesar’s.” At that he said to them, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”

                      Love GOD and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Then there will be no need for government and its taxes.

                    • Greg Groebner

                      Anarchic, Libertarian nonsense.

                      – Jesus Christ created a Church, which is intrinsically a governing body.
                      – Individuals owe allegiance to God.
                      – States also owe allegiance to God, both as being composed of individuals, and also as the corporate society; insofar as this is possible in that society. Who are you as an individual to impose anarchic nonsense on a Christian society that wishes to construct that Society according to their proper understanding of the implications of Christianity? Anarchy is not a God to be served.

                      1. According to you anti-government rationale, why did Jesus Christ establish a Church? Why not simply “LOVE GOD FIRST and love your neighbor as you love yourself”, to use your words?

                      2. “It does not belong to the purview of the State to legislate morality.” – Rubbish, pro-abortion rubbish. Indeed, morality is one of the few things that is worth legislating upon the larger society. At the local level, there may be benefits from legislating non-moral issues, such as norms for uniform sizes and packaging of boxes, such as does the Postal Service. Speed limits are moral pedagogy, as well as an application of the ethical norm that “saving lives (and fuel) is more important than saving a few minutes of time”.

                      Your Scriptural quotation does not even relate to the topic, as far as I can see. What is the logical nexus?

                      3. This Scripture passage flatly refutes your assertion. When the State does not render what belongs to God, it is committing idolatry. Thus, the State has obligations to God, just as does the individual. The State is not exempt from the order of Creation. Thus, the State has an obligation to build toward the moral order — and even the Revealed order, insofar as this is workable.

                      “LOVE GOD FIRST and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Then there will be no need for government and its taxes.” – And from where did you pull this nugget? I.e., please show where this assertion is based on either reason or Revelation. So, please fix the bridge on my road, and I will tell the taxpayer-funded contractors that they can go home for a warm meal. Also, I should add that you’ll freely serve them that meal.

                    • Greg Groebner

                      @Facile1 – and, according to your reasoning, is there ever a time when a parent can do “moral pedagogy”? If so, how about grandparents and the extended family? If still so, how about the greater extended family of the tribe and the organic State?

                      Or, according to your Christian Libertarianism, is it only proper for there to be some kind of “love”, devoid of all “moral pedagogy”?

                    • Facile1

                      Non sequitur.

                    • Facile1

                      Yes. Jesus was called an anarchist and hung on the cross for it.

                      I’m not opposed to being called an “anarchist”. Christianity does turn the world on its head. But I am sure libertarians will be offended if you include me with them.

                      And I don’t care to fix the bridge on your road. Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. There is only one road and you’re not on that road.

              • former atheist

                1. On “separation of church and state” – Jesus himself was
                the first to declare the importance of “separation of church and state” when he declared that “Give back to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar;give back to God what belongs to God …”.

                But yes, now with the outrageous adoption of the most glaring stupidities as law in some states, it has indeed meant the establishment of atheism as the de facto state religion – with the added blight of loss of freedom of speech against social evils.

                The Evil One has come to rule.

                2. Yes, it actually takes more faith to be a non-believer in
                God.

                … which is interesting – that even atheist scientists inadvertently make admissions to the reality of God:

                Admission by Professor George Wald (a non-believer Harvard biologist): “There are only TWO possibilities as to how life arose.

                “One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a super natural creative act of God. There is NO THIRD POSSIBILITY.

                He admits that “Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter, was scientifically DISPROVED 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.

                “That leaves us with the ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION — that life arose as a SUPERNATURAL creative act of God. [But] I will NOT accept that philosophically because I DO NOT WANT to BELIEVE in God.

                “Therefore I CHOOSE to believe in that which I know
                is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE…” (Scientific American 199, September 1958,
                p.100).

                NOTE: In other words “I DON’T WANT to BELIEVE IN GOD and this decision WILL PRECLUDE all my scientific observations. I DON’T CARE FOR TRUTH because it challenges my ego
                – so I will continue to believe what I can see is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.”

                NOTE how:

                – This kind of approach to science of IRRATIONAL ABSENCE of LOGIC and un-paralleled ARROGANCE is described by Professor Edward Feser as the ULTIMATE “SUPERSTITION” (his book: “Atheism – The Last Superstition”).

                – That in fact it is “atheistic materialism” which actually UNDERMINES science!

                – Important to NOTE that Professor Austin L. Hughes (Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina) also WARNS us that this type of “science” [as practiced by Stenger and Lewontin and Wald] is actually “SCIENTISM”

                – and WARNS that the DANGER of this “SCIENTISM” (science distorted by inaccurate, incoherent criteria) is that it has much in common with SUPERSTITION.

                Interesting that G K Chesterton said that when people stop believing in reasonable faith, they begin believing anything that might happen to suit themselves – especially to those who are
                extremely hostile to the notion that there is an authority above themselves.

          • No check:
            The principal architect of TARP. Henry Paulson. (Follower of Mary Baker Eddy).

            • Greg Groebner

              Goldman-Sachs, Bernanke, now Jacob Lou, etc. etc. But really, the fear of Congress knowing that AIPAC and the “secular, atheistic ruling class” might be watching.

              • Funny thing. You can’t spell a three-lettered last name. Now off to your skin heads meeting.

                • Greg Groebner

                  Yeah, I saw that. I’ve misspelled or misCapitalized a buch of things today (I sit 8′ from the monitor). A question: are you able to edit after you post? I’ve been posting as a guest, and that has no option to make fixes.
                  Although I mispelled Lew, why did you include only Paulson? There are bunch more names involved in that bank situation. By the way, Paulson is a Goldman-Sach crony. Lloyd Blankfein, Alan Fishman, Stephen Roach, Martin Feldstein, Barney Franks and Gary Ackerman (House Financial Services committee). Include Greenspan and Geithner. There are many more, but you also have Internet.

                  • Greg Groebner

                    Clarification on “Include… Geithner” is not to mean that he’s Jewish, but that he is commonly thought to be Jewish. It is a top Internet query and also had found its way to his Wikipedia page. The Jewish culture has played a decisive role in the corruption of banking in the Christian West; and hence the assumptions are not really surprising.

                    A few more contemporaries: Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Jon Leibowitz, Steven Rattner, Alan Blinder, Jason Furman, Peter Orszag. And it seems that being Jewish has become a requirement for the position of the Federal Reserve chairman.

                  • why did you include only Paulson?
                    A single exception disproves the general statement.

  • Castilleon

    A truly excellent article! Very insightful and readable. I really appreciate this understanding that we are in a civilizational battle.

    But what needs to be added is that there is no great defender of Western Civilization like Winston Churchill today because Western Civilization is currently incapable of producing one.

    Islamic Civilization is founded on the great and diabolical lie that is a false religion; and its flaws are readily apparent. Yet why is it winning this civilizational battle? It is simply because the West has committed civilizational suicide. We have lost the animating faith that, to quote Chesterton, “drove great Godfrey like a catapult over the walls of Jerusalem, and brought great Sobieski like a thunderbolt to the gates of Vienna.” We are contracepting and aborting away our future. We are slaves to the all-powerful state that wishes to set itself up as a deity that demands our total loyalty while forcing a toxic theology of tolerance, relativism, and scientism down our throats. These heinous ideals have, to an extent, even infected the membership of Holy Mother Church.

    As a civilization and a Church, we are not taking a stand because we have lost everything that we used to stand for.

    Yet, “to them who love God, all things work together unto good.” (Romans 8:28) We should not, therefore, look on those gathering darkness with fear, but hope. Did not Our Lady of Fatima promise that her Immaculate Heart would triumph? Have recourse to her! Pray her Rosary, as she asked us at Fatima! God’s plan is still in motion. Trust in Him!

    • The church cannot be destroyed, Our Lord already won the victory, but that has little to do with whether or not Western civilization, that particular way of life and thought that runs from Athens, to Jerusalem and Rome, and through London (to use Kirk’s formula) survives. Don’t confuse the two.

      • Castilleon

        I know full well that the Church will last until the end of time. But you are mistaken as to whether or not the Church’s influence is determinative as to whether or not Western Civilization survives. It was the Church which built the current manifestation of Western Civilization following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and produced medieval Christendom, the most noble of all societies which produced many of the Church’s greatest saints. Western Civilization began slowly dying once the Protestant rebellion and its subsequent evils destroyed the unity of Christendom and steadily eroded the influence of the Church in the running of the state. It has now reached the point where the Church’s moderating and ennobling influence on states is no longer felt in the West (the “separation of Church and State” has seen to that), and we are left with all the refined cruelties of a society separated from God.

        Western civilization has lost its animating soul- the Church. As with all bodies which are separated from their souls, it is decaying, and the results are hideous to behold. It will fall to the Church once again to build a new civilization, and the approved private prophecies of saints state that this rebirth of civilization will be even greater than the Christendom of old.

        • michael susce

          “which produced many of the Church’s greatest saints”. That is the answer. Many of those on this site have shown themselves to be intellectually able to grasp the truth of the current situation. The next step is to become a saint. Are we willing to take that step? And as one who is wrestling with this issue, the two are definitely not the same. God bless.

  • phranthie

    Good article! But it’s much worse: America and Britain can be accused of kindling the whole inferno of the Middle East. Kerry, Haig and others were also sneakily aiding the Sunni extremist factions in Syria and too ready to believe all their accusations against Assad. And now I believe the West has been stirring up things in the Ukraine and Russia, again backing the wrong side. When we lost our Christianity it seems we also lost our marbles.

  • St JD George

    I don’t know. In line with the article last week I personally hate to prophesize because I don’t have a clue, though I have inclinations. I think back on the unity the country had for a few hours after 9/11 before the crowd who felt America had it coming started to vocalize and wonder what would it take to achieve real lasting unity, or if it’s even possible. I don’t know if you intended to reflect on Jesus’s message today in the gospel about a nation divided can not stand or not, but if not I will. Satan loves division, particularly separating man from Christ’s body and it’s pretty clear that Satan is gaining the upper hand at the moment in the west. I think God may have a hand in this, as a way of reminding us that it is his will that will be done as his favor turns from the nations who once proudly proclaimed his divinity but now melt away into indifference, secularism or worse accepting false religions that are not of peace. The accumulation of mammon, concern for length of life instead of fullness and quality of life, and distractions that come from being comfortable seem to have the effect of making us a stiff necked people. I mentioned the other day about there probably will be a renaissance in the church again, but maybe less do to the leadership of our Pope than when we reach bottom and people’s eyes are opened again that statism is a failed religion, and that ultimate power and salvation lies in Christ and not men. It pains me to think that is what it would take, but perhaps Jefferson was wiser than I even if he didn’t think of it quite exactly that same way, a prophet.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    Why should we suppose the Jihadists will be successful in Europe, when they have been so singularly unsuccessful in majority Muslim countries?

    Assad is still in power in Syria, Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were sent packing by the Egyptian army, with the support of most of the educated middle class, the Arab Spring did not bring the Jihadists to power in Tunisia, but rather a democratic constitution enshrining women’s rights and freedom of belief and worship, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are stable.

    In fact, the Jihadists have achieved their limited successes only in societies that have already broken down, owing to long-standing sectarian, ethnic, religious or tribal divides.

    • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

      How succeed? Our President is more Pro Muslim Brotherhood than the EGYPTIANS.

    • Seamrog

      One has to acknowledge the brutal tactics employed by Assad, Saud, el-Sisi et al. that keep the more troublesome among them ‘in line.’

      Cameron doesn’t seem to use that bag of tricks.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        If the mass of their populations had bought into the Jihadist dream, they would be out of power.

        To quote Talleyrand, “Governing has never been anything other than postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the mob will hang you from the lamp-post, and every act of government is nothing but a way of not losing control of the people.”

    • joebissonnette

      Fear mongering about the Jihadist threat just doesn’t ring credible. The only real threat to the West is dying from self-inflicted wounds.
      While it is true that terrorist organizations abroad should be dealt with more decisively and terrorist sympathizers at home should be indulged less, this is all a bit of a sideshow. The real existential threat comes from within.

  • This morning I stopped at a donut place on the outskirts of a mid sized inner city.
    I requested a coffee and a breakfast sandwich. After placing my order and being told “ok”, I pull around and the clerk tells me that they are out of flatbreads and offers me something else, but due to her tongue stud and road noise, its unintelligable.

    She repeats it with the same results and then another employee says something to her and she says we might have more flatbreads in the freezer. Rather than committing to this freezer search of indefinite time, I said, I’ll just have a coffee (which was free, due to my loyalty coupon).

    The girl (late teens, early 20’s) looks befuddled and starts pushing register keys. This continues until she calls for help. I said can you please just return my five dollar bill and complete this after I leave? . The other employee finally gets the magic beep and the origina; clerk hands me ones. After I pull away, I realize she handed me six ones.

    Seven decades ago, high school graduates of that age were building and flying bombers with slide rules, sextants and Norden bomb sights. The ones that remained made change with a pencil and a paper.

    How does this end well?

    • LarryCicero

      Reminds me of a woman who said when I calculated the change due in my head, ” You must be middle-aged.”

    • St JD George

      Or a little more broadly (somewhat in keeping with your Kimmel clip last week) … we don’t need no stinking bill-of-rights if it means getting behind a new world order. You probably noted these today too, but just in case:

      http://www.infowars.com/video-americans-want-obama-to-repeal-the-bill-of-rights/

      No wonder the elite crowd are looking for boltholes in New Zealand when things hit the fan.

      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/panicked-super-rich-buying-boltholes-5044084

      • If you haven’t watched the 2006 film “idiocracy” you should. Especially the beginning where the bright, ambitious couple keeps postponing natality.

        • St JD George

          Don’t watch too much any more, though I am going to make time for American Sniper. Given it’s winter I’m sure I can find some time waiting for spring to get here. I’ll look for it, thanks.

  • JGradGus

    A very insightful essay Professor. Thank you. I may hold onto a couple sentences from the 6th paragraph and quote you from time to time: “When religion is wrenched free from reason, ethos uprooted from logos, you get an Islamist fanatic tossing bombs that incinerate the innocent. And when reason is left to it own devices, uninformed by faith, you get secularists so indifferent to God that they cannot even bring themselves to identify the problem.”

  • St JD George

    How about some Papal inspiration from today’s Mass:

    “God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline,” citing Saint Paul, “timidity and shame are the enemies of Christians.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/26/pope-francis-no-place-for-wimpy-christians/

  • John

    It is important to remember what Pat Buchanan (who is not a fan of the racist, war-mongering Churchill who destroyed Britain and paved the way for Stalinist genocide) said: The Charlie Hebdo
    publication in France was also insulting and blaspheming every version
    of orthodox Christianity when it depicted the God the Father and His
    Son, Jesus Christ, as being involved in an incestuous sexual
    relationship. Who has a vested interest in blaspheming both
    Christianity and Islam as part of a world-wide ideological and political
    game plan? Clearly, it is the global Zionist network which desires to
    assert the Talmudic doctrine of Jewish racial supremacy on a global
    basis, and to convince comatose Westerners that their primary enemy in
    the world is Islam, and not the Zionist hijacking of their own banking
    system, culture, government, media, and educational establishments. The
    Frankfurt School and its Institute of Social Research which
    destroyed the older Christian civilizations in the West in partnership
    with the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL) by subverting
    Europe and the United States with pornography, sexual perversion
    including the LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transsexual) agenda, and the
    abortion/euthanasia industries, is working its demonic magic through all
    kinds of Jewish-funded media outlets and NGOs to solidify its hold on
    the Western world, even as it also seeks the subversion of the Islamic
    societies and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Eric Margolis concedes that the Charlie Hebdo publication is financed by Rothschild banking interests in France. Simply follow the trail of the money.

    Charlie Hebdo’s
    financiers and handlers clearly seek to falsely equate mainstream Sunni
    and Shia Islam with the Wahhabi and Takfiri fanatics comprising the
    ISIS and al-Qaeda organizations, and to discredit Islam generally in the
    West, even as orthodox Christianity is also lampooned. Both Islamic
    and Christian movements must be infiltrated from within with sexual
    decadence, paid intelligence assets, and internal disorder. The final
    strategy in the quest for Zionist global supremacy and the final victory
    of the so-called New World Order will involve the realization of the dream of launching the War of Civilizations envisioned by the Project for the New American Century
    and its bedfellows. This will necessitate pitting Sunni Islam and Shia
    Islam against one another as adversaries, and pitting what remains of a
    Christian remnant in the West against both Islam and Putin’s Russia. Divide and Conquer is the age-old methodology used by this evil monolith.

    While I cannot absolutely prove it, I agree with Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts that the Charlie Hebdo
    affair has all the earmarks of a False Flag operation conducted by the
    Israeli Mossad, the British MI6, and the American CIA. It is ludicrous
    to believe that the national security police states erected in Europe
    and the United States would be providing money, political, and
    logistical support to ISIS in a clear attempt to overthrow President
    Assad in Syria (a clear Zionist objective as a prelude to attacking
    Iran), and then would subsequently fail to effectively monitor the
    comings and goings of hundreds of these Wahhabic terror elements
    traveling with apparent impunity between Syria and both Europe and the
    United States. These travels are being allowed for a purpose, which is
    to deliberately enact incidents of this kind, diverting Western public
    attention from the Hidden Hand financing and directing these operations,
    as well as diverting public attention from ongoing Israeli atrocities
    in Palestine, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Additionally, I believe France
    was being punished for its public deviations as of late from the
    wholesale support of the Zionist agenda demanded by the power elite in
    the West. I refer to the French Parliament’s recent pro-Palestinian
    vote (s) in public session, and President Hollande’s urging of a
    reassessment of the wisdom and utility of the economic sanctions being
    imposed on Putin’s Russia.

    I
    believe there are additional cracks in the canvas being painted by the
    real perpetrators of this incident, including the convenient leaving
    behind of an Identification Card in a getaway car by the alleged
    assailants, and the equally convenient killing of the accused by the
    French police. Dead Men Tell No Tales. . . . Just ask Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Netanyahu
    is a war criminal and murderer simply taking advantage of the Zionist
    controlled media in France specifically and the West generally. He
    obviously wants to justify his regime’s criminal policies in Palestine
    and Gaza by posing as a defender of human rights and freedom of
    expression in the West against “Islamic Jihadists”. It is the established Zionist strategy to make the aggressor and the criminal perpetrator appear as the aggrieved victim.
    This is especially outlandish, given the legal persecution and
    economic marginalization of scholars and political activists in the West
    who have criticized Israel, or who have questioned aspects of the
    establishment Zionist narrative on what happened in World War II and
    during the runup to the establishment of the Zionist state in 1948. What Dr. E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars refers to as the “Jewish control of narrative” has served Netanyahu and his predecessors quite well, especially in the United States.
    How many Americans know about the Zionist bombing of the King David
    Hotel in 1946? The Lavon Affair in 1954? The dispute between JFK and
    Ben Gurion in 1963 over the Israeli nuclear weapons plant at Dimona in
    the Negev? The Meyer Lansky Jewish Crime Syndicate connection to the
    anti-Castro Cubans, to James Jesus Angleton of the CIA, and the
    Giancana-Trafficante-Marcello-Roselli led crime syndicates in the United
    States who were all provably involved in the JFK assassination? The
    NUMEC nuclear raw materials thefts in Pennsylvania in the United States
    for Israel’s weapons program? The Pollard-AIPAC-Ben Ami spy cases? And
    the Arnon Milchan financing of Oliver Stone’s JFK movie which diverted
    public attention from the Israeli connection to the events in Dallas in
    November of 1963? What about the Israeli role in 9-11
    and the subsequent coverup of this fact by the Israeli citizens
    assigned to direct the official American governmental investigation of
    the event?

    The
    Zionist-controlled Western media has perfected the Orwellian inversion
    of truth and falsehood, victim and perpetrator ongoingly. Look at Syria, where the existence of “Jihadic extremists” being decried in France and the West for involvement in the Charlie Hebdo
    affair are being simultaneously financed, trained, and introduced into
    that country by the United States, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation
    Council (GCC) states, Turkey, and Jordan for the express purpose of
    overthrowing the Alawite regime of President Assad. Look at the
    criminals installed by coup d’etat last February by the
    United States, Israel, and the EU in the Ukrainian regime headquartered
    in Kiev, with all of the atrocities committed by this regime in the
    eastern part of that country since, including the shootdown of Malaysian
    Airlines Flight MH17 falsely attributed by Western media to Vladimir
    Putin or Russian ethnics under his control, and the horrific Odessa Trade Union building burning.

    It is noteworthy that the mastermind of these crimes, Petro Poroshenko, joined Netanyahu in Paris for the Charlie Hebdo protests.

    These
    illegal actions continue the NATO encirclement of Putin’s Russia in
    complete contravention of George H. W. Bush’s explicit promises to
    Gorbachev and Shevardnadze after the end of the old Soviet Union. This coup d’etat is
    also another way of punishing Putin for effectively stymying (for now)
    American and Israeli plans to employ overt military force against Assad,
    even as Jewish and CIA financed NGOs in Russia are attempting to
    subvert Putin and Russian Orthodox Christian resurgence from within by
    employing the Frankfurt School types like Pussy Riot and Elton John to
    attack nationalistic culture and morality in that country. It is all a
    part of the playbook of the New World Order, as is the False Flag Charlie Hebdo incident and the Orwellian inversion of truth and falsehood, victim and perpetrator, that has predictably followed.

    • Seamrog

      Congrats on getting it all figured out!

      What would we do without people like you who can ferret the ‘real’ truth out of every headline?

      Sad that the recurring theme of your lunacy is always “It’s the Jew’s fault!”

      • Greg Groebner

        What did the deleted comment say?
        “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Voltaire

        • Crisiseditor

          If you want to read about the Zionist Conspiracy, read “John’s” post in the comment section of “Assuming the Worst.” Voltaire is wrong in this case. The commenter simply cut and paste his excessively long conspiracy theory rant here, which we don’t permit.

          • Greg Groebner

            OK, thank you, makes sense.
            (As an aside, it must be a baneful job to monitor. Thank you for it.)

  • Buchanan

    On February 4th, President Bush eulogized the life of Winston Churchill. The president described Winston Churchill as a “great man” and quickly zeroed in on the mistress that both Bush and Churchill share: war. “He was a prisoner in the Boer War, a controversial strategist in the Great War. He was the rallying voice of the Second World War, and a prophet of the Cold War.” Indeed, there doesn’t seem to have been a war—or an opportunity for war—that Churchill wasn’t associated with during his long career.

    Bush also recited Churchill’s famous retort that “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it” adding that “history has been kind to Winston Churchill, as it usually is to those who help save the world,” surely hoping that history will be kind to George W. Bush.

    Except this history is a myth. The truth about the real Churchill—the Churchill that few know—is that he was “a man of the state: of the welfare state and of the warfare state” in Professor Ralph Raico’s turn-of-phrase. The truth about Winston Churchill is that he was a menace to liberty, and a disaster for Britain, for Europe, for the United States of America, and for Western Civilization itself.

    Not since fictional personages like Hercules and Zeus, have so many myths been attached to one man. As we will see, the Winston Churchill we’re told about is not the Churchill known to honest history, but rather a fictional version of the man and his actions. And these words and actions have produced our mainstream “patriotic political myths” as John Denson calls them, which are merely the victor’s wartime lies and propaganda scripted into the ‘Official History.’ The Churchill mythology is challenged by honest history, and the reality about Churchill involves hard, but necessary truths.

    Churchill the Opportunist

    Of course, central to the neocon mythology built up around their almost deified idealization of Churchill is that he fought for (in Bush’s words comparing Tony Blair to Churchill), “the right thing, and not the easy thing,” right over popularity, principle over opportunism.

    Except that isn’t true. Churchill was above all a man who craved power, and a man who craves power, craves opportunity to advance himself no matter what the cost.

    When Churchill entered politics, many took note of his unique rhetorical talents, which gave him power over men, but it also came with a powerful failing of its own. During WWII, Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, noted of Churchill “His real tyrant is the glittering phrase so attractive to his mind that awkward facts have to give way.”

    However, Churchill had other failings as well. The Spectator newspaper said of Churchill upon his appointment as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911: “We cannot detect in his career any principles or even any constant outlook upon public affairs; his ear is always to the ground; he is the true demagogue. . . .”

    The great English classical liberal John Morley, after working with Churchill, passed a succinct appraisal of him, “Winston,” he said, “has no principles.”

    Entering politics in 1900, Churchill (the grandson of a Duke and son of a prominent Tory) naturally joined the governing Conservative party. Then in 1904, he left the Conservatives and joined the Liberal party, and when they were in decline Churchill dumped them and rejoined the Conservatives, uttering his famous quote “It’s one thing to rat, it’s another to re-rat.” Churchill allegedly made his move to the Liberals on the issue of free trade. However, Robert Rhodes James, a Churchill admirer, wrote: “It was believed [at the time], probably rightly, that if Arthur Balfour had given him office in 1902, Churchill would not have developed such a burning interest in free trade and joined the Liberals.” Clive Ponting also notes that “. . .he had already admitted to Rosebery, he was looking for an excuse to defect from a party that seemed reluctant to recognize his talents.” Since the Liberals would not accept a protectionist, Churchill had to change his tune.

    It’s not a surprise that this neoconservative administration and its apologists in the tamed media laud and venerate Churchill, for he was as President Bush described him; a man who was synonymous with war. Churchill loved war. In 1925, he wrote, “The story of the human race is war.” This is untrue, but Churchill lacked any grasp of the fundamentals of true, classical liberalism. The story of the human race is increasing peaceful cooperation and the efforts by some to stop it through war. However, for Churchill, periods without war offered nothing but “the bland skies of peace and platitude.”

    Without principles or scruples, Churchill as a prominent member of the Liberal party government naturally played a role in the hijacking of liberalism from its roots in individualism, laissez-faire, free trade and bourgeois morality, to its transformation into the “New Liberalism” as a proxy for socialism and the omnipotent state in Britain and in America.

    Churchill was also a famous opponent of Communism and of Bolshevism in particular. One of the reasons why Churchill admired Italian Fascism was Churchill believed that Mussolini had found a formula that would neutralize the appeal of communism, namely super-nationalism with a social welfarist appeal. This is a domestic formula for power that still appeals today, if the Bush Administration is any indication. Churchill went so far as to say that Fascism “proved the necessary antidote to the Communist poison.”

    Then came 1941. Churchill made his peace with Communism. Temporarily, of course. Churchill gave unconditional support to Stalin, welcoming him as an ally, even embracing him as a friend, and calling the Breaker of Nations, “Uncle Joe.” In his single-minded obsession with destroying German National Socialism (while establishing his own British national socialism) and carrying on his pre-World War I British Imperialist vendetta to destroy Germany, Churchill completely failed to consider the danger of inviting Soviet power and communism into the heart of Europe.

    Of course, his self-created mythology–chiefly through his own books–states that he sensed the danger and tried to warn Roosevelt about Stalin, but the records of the time do not prove this out. In fact, Churchill’s infatuation with Stalin reached the point where at the Tehran conference in November 1943, Churchill presented Stalin with a Crusader’s sword; Stalin, who had murdered millions of Christians, was now presented by Churchill as a defender of the Christian West.

    But if one was to sum up Churchill’s passion, his overall reason for entering politics, it was the empire. The British Empire was Churchill’s abiding love. He fought to expand it, he defended it, and he created his decades-long hatred of Germany because of it. The Empire was at the center of his view of the world. Even as late as 1947, Churchill opposed Indian independence. When Lord Irwin urged him to bring his views on India up-to-date by talking to some Indians Churchill replied “I am quite satisfied with my views on India, and I don’t want them disturbed by any bloody Indians.” So much for democracy.

    Churchill the Socialist

    Churchill made a name for himself as an opponent of socialism both before and after the First World War, except during the war when he was a staunch promoter of war socialism, declaring in a speech: “Our whole nation must be organized, must be socialized if you like the word.” Of course, such rank hypocrisy was by now Churchill’s stock-in-trade, and not surprisingly, during the 1945 election, Churchill described his partners in the national unity government, the Labour Party, as totalitarians, when it was Churchill himself who had accepted the infamous Beveridge Report that laid the foundations for the post-war welfare state and Keynesian (mis)management of the economy.

    As Mises wrote in 1950, “It is noteworthy to remember that British socialism was not an achievement of Mr. Attlee’s Labor Government, but of the war cabinet of Mr. Winston Churchill.”

    Churchill was converted to the Bismarckian model of social insurance following a visit to Germany. As Churchill told his constituents: “My heart was filled with admiration of the patient genius which had added these social bulwarks to the many glories of the German race.” He set out, in his words, to “thrust a big slice of Bismarckianism over the whole underside of our industrial system.” In 1908, Churchill announced in a speech in Dundee: “I am on the side of those who think that a greater collective sentiment should be introduced into the State and the municipalities. I should like to see the State undertaking new functions.” Churchill even said: “I go farther; I should like to see the State embark on various novel and adventurous experiments.”

    Churchill claimed that “the cause of the Liberal Party is the cause of the left-out millions,” and attacked the Conservatives as “the Party of the rich against the poor, the classes and their dependents against the masses, of the lucky, the wealthy, the happy, and the strong, against the left-out and the shut-out millions of the weak and poor.” Churchill berated the Conservatives for lacking even a “single plan of social reform or reconstruction,” while boasting that his “New Liberalism” offered “a wide, comprehensive, interdependent scheme of social organisation,” incorporating “a massive series of legislative proposals and administrative acts.”

    Churchill had fallen under the spell of the Fabian Society, and its leaders Beatrice and Sidney Webb, who more than any other group, are responsible for the decline of British society. Here he was introduced to William, later Lord Beveridge, who Churchill brought into the Board of Trade as his advisor on social questions. Besides pushing for a variety of social insurance schemes, Churchill created the system of national labor exchanges, stating the need to “spread . . . a sort of Germanized network of state intervention and regulation” over the British labor market. Churchill even entertained a more ambitious goal for the Board of Trade. He proposed a plan whereby the Board of Trade would act as the economic “intelligence department” of the Government, forecasting trade and employment in Britain so that the Government could spend money in the most deserving areas. Controlling this pork would be a Committee of National Organisation to plan the economy.

    Churchill was well aware of the electoral potential of organized labor, so naturally Churchill became a champion of the labor unions. He was a leading supporter of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906 which reversed the judicial decisions which had held unions responsible for property damage and injuries committed by their agents on the unions behalf, in effect granting unions a privileged position exempting them from the ordinary law of the land. It is ironic that the immense power of the British labor unions that made Britain the “Sick Man of Europe” for two generations and became the foil of Margaret Thatcher, originated with the enthusiastic help of her hero, Winston Churchill.

    We can only conclude by Churchill’s actions that personal freedom was the furthest thing from his mind.

    Churchill and the First World War

    The Great War destroyed European culture and the commitment to truths. In their place, generations embraced relativism, nihilism and socialism, and from the ashes arose Lenin, Stalin and Hitler and their evil doctrines that infect contemporary culture. In the words of the British historian, Niall Ferguson, the First World War “was nothing less than the greatest error in modern history.”

    In 1911, Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty, and, during the crises that followed, used every opportunity to fan the flames of war. When the final crisis came, in 1914, Churchill was all smiles and was the only cabinet member who backed war from the start. Asquith, his own Prime Minister, wrote: “Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate mobilization . . . has got all his war paint on.”

    Churchill was instrumental in establishing the illegal starvation blockade of Germany. The blockade depended on scattering mines, and classified as contraband food for civilians. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions created to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. One of the consequences of the hunger blockade was that, while it killed 750,000 German civilians by hunger and malnutrition, the youth who survived went on to become the most fanatical Nazis.

    The Lusitania

    Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear, but it is clear that he did everything possible to ensure that innocent Americans would be killed by German attempts to break the hunger blockade.

    A week before the disaster, Churchill wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.”

    The Lusitania was a civilian passenger liner loaded with munitions. Earlier, Churchill had ordered the captains of merchant ships, including liners, to ram German submarines, and the Germans were aware of this. The German government even took out newspaper ads in New York warning Americans not to board the ship.

    Churchill, by helping engineer the entry of the United States into the Great War, set in motion the transformation of the war into a Democratic Jihad. Wilsonianism lead to the eventual destruction of the Austrian Empire, and the creation of a vast power vacuum on Germany’s southeastern border that would provide fruitful opportunities and allies for Hitler’s effort to overturn the Versailles Treaty.

    But Churchill was not a strategist. All he cared for, as he told a visitor after his Gallipoli disaster, was “the waging of war, the defeat of the Germans.”

    Churchill Between the Wars

    Churchill, who had been appointed Colonial Secretary, invented two client kingdoms, Transjordan and Iraq, both artificial and unstable states. Churchill’s aim of course was not liberty for oppressed peoples, as his admirers like to claim for him, but for Britain to dominate the Middle East to ensure that the oil wells of Iraq and the Persian Gulf were securely in British hands.

  • Buchanan

    Part II:

    The Crash of 1929

    In 1924, Churchill rejoined the Conservative party and was made Chancellor of the Exchequer, where he returned Britain to the gold standard but didn’t account for the British governments wartime inflation, which consequently severely damaged exports and ruined the good name of gold. But, of course, Churchill cared nothing for economic ideas. What interested him was only that the pound would be as strong as in the days of Queen Victoria, that once more the pound would “look the dollar in the face.” The consequences of this decision had a far-reaching and disastrous impact on western civilization and the consequent appeal of socialism, Nazism and communism: the Crash of 1929.

    It was Churchill’s unrealistic exchange ratio that caused the Bank of England and the U.S. Federal Reserve to collude to prop up the pound by inflating the U.S. dollar, which in turn fueled the speculative boom during the 1920’s that collapsed when the inflating slowed.

    Churchill’s fame—and his mythology—originates during the period of the 30’s, especially for neoconservatives, for whom it is always 1938. However, Churchill’s hard line against Hitler was little different from his usual warnings about pre-war Imperial Germany, and his hard line against inter-war Weimar Germany. For Churchill saw Germany at all times and in all ways as a threat to the British Empire. A threat that had to be destroyed and forever kept under heel. For instance, Churchill denounced all calls for Allied disarmament even before Hitler came to power. Churchill, like Clemenceau, Wilson and other Allied leaders, held the unrealistic belief that a defeated Germany would submit forever to the shackles of Versailles.

    And what the neocons forget, or don’t know, is that Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin acknowledged in the House of Commons that, had they told the people the truth, the Conservatives could never have won the 1936 election. “Supposing that I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must be armed, does anyone think that our pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry?” It was Neville Chamberlain who began the rearmament of Britain after the Munich Crisis, the arms which Churchill would not have had during the Battle of Britain, including the first deployment of radar, which Churchill mocked while in opposition in the 1930s.

    Moreover, Churchill’s Cassandra-like role during the ’30s emerged largely because Churchill moved from one impending threat to the next: Bolshevik Russia, the General Strike of 1926, the dangers of Indian independence, the abdication crisis in 1936. During the ’30s Churchill was the proverbial Boy Who Cried Wolf. Maybe his neocon admirers could have learned that lesson about Iraq.

    But as in all things, even with this Churchill reversed himself. In the fall of 1937, he stated:

    “Three or four years ago I was myself a loud alarmist. . . . In spite of the risks which wait on prophecy, I declare my belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still believe that there is a good chance of no major war taking place in our lifetime. . . . I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism.”

    And in his book Step By Step written in 1937, Churchill had this to say about the Mortal Enemy: “. . .one may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” One has to wonder if Churchill was referring to himself in his hypothetical example.

    The common mythology is so far from historical truth that even an ardent Churchill sympathizer, Gordon Craig, felt obliged to write:

    It is reasonably well-known today that Churchill was often ill-informed, that his claims about German strength were exaggerated and his prescriptions impractical, that his emphasis on air power was misplaced.

    Moreover, as a British historian noted: “For the record, it is worth recalling that in the 1930s Churchill did not oppose the appeasement of either Italy or Japan.”

    Churchill and the Second World War

    After Munich, Chamberlain was determined that Hitler would have no more easy victories, and when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, Britain declared war on Germany, and Churchill was recalled to his old place as First Lord of the Admiralty. An astonishing thing then happened: the President of the United States by-passed all the ordinary diplomatic channels and initiated a personal correspondence, not with the Prime Minister, but with Churchill. These messages were surrounded by a frantic secrecy, and culminated in the imprisonment of Tyler Kent, the American cipher clerk at the U.S. embassy in London. Some of these messages contained allusions to FDR’s agreement prior to the war to an alliance with Britain, contrary to his public statements and American law.

    Three months prior to the war, Roosevelt told King George VI that he intended to set up a zone in the Atlantic to be patrolled by the U.S. Navy, and, according to the King’s notes, the President stated that “if he saw a U boat he would sink her at once & wait for the consequences.” The biographer of George VI, John W. Wheeler-Bennett, considered that these conversations “contained the germ of the future Bases-for-Destroyers deal, and also of the Lend-Lease Agreement itself.”

    In 1940, Churchill at last became Prime Minister, ironically enough when the Chamberlain government resigned over Churchill’s aborted plan to pre-emptively invade Norway. After France’s armed forces were destroyed by the Blitzkrieg, and the British army fled towards the Channel, Churchill the conservative, the “anti-socialist,” defiled the common law by passing totalitarian legislation placing “all persons, their services and their property at the disposal of the Crown,” i.e., into the hands of Churchill himself.

    During the Battle of Britain, Churchill gave perhaps his most famous speech, in which he plagiarized the French Premier Georges Clemenceau, and where he uttered his famous phrase “If the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will say, “This was their finest hour!” This calls to mind another man’s boast about a thousand year Reich. Churchill also hinted at his plot to drag America into the war: “. . .we shall never surrender, and even if . . . this island . . . were subjugated . . . then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.” But like Marxist Revolutionaries, Christian Millennialists and other assorted cranks, Churchill was not at all interested in “God’s good time” or any other presumed unearthly schedule, and he worked night and day to collude with Roosevelt to get America into the war.

    As PM, Churchill continued his policy to refuse any negotiated peace. Even after the Fall of France, Churchill rejected Hitler’s renewed peace overtures. This, however, more than anything else, is supposed to be the foundation of his greatness. Yet what opportunities were lost to a free France and Britain and the Low Countries before 1940 to re-arm and negotiate military defense strategies? What of the time lost that could have been used to study the Blitzkrieg method of warfare before it crashed through France? The British historian John Charmley made the crucial point that Churchill’s adamant refusal even to listen to peace proposals in 1940 doomed what he claimed was most dear to him: the Empire and a Britain that was nonsocialist and independent in world affairs. One could add that by allowing Germany to overrun its weaker neighbors when peace was possible it probably also doomed European Jewry as well. How many more millions of Jews and other Europeans were murdered because of Churchill’s stupidity? But it is politically incorrect, and even possibly a hate crime to suggest that better alternatives were available during World War II than those made by the Allies. Just because something turned out one way does not mean that was the only way it could have turned out or was the best result. Somehow, it is controversial to say this.

    The peace camp realized something that escaped Churchill the empire romanticist: even the British Empire and her vast resources alone could not defeat the concentrated power that Germany possessed in Europe. And even more after the Fall of France, Churchill’s war aim of total victory could be realized only by embroiling the United States in another world war.

    As an aside to the French-haters, what they forget is that, if the U.S. army had met the Wehrmacht in 1940, it would have fared considerably worse than the French Army. National chauvinists, however, prefer their petty hatreds.

    Involving America was Churchill’s policy in World War II, just as it was Churchill’s policy in World War I, and would be his policy again in the Cold War. Churchill put his heart and soul into ensuring Roosevelt came through.

    In 1940, Churchill sent British agent “Intrepid” to the United States, where he set up shop in Rockefeller Center, where, with the full knowledge and cooperation of Roosevelt and the collaboration of federal agencies, “Intrepid” and his 300 agents “intercepted mail, tapped wires, cracked safes, kidnapped, . . . rumor mongered” and incessantly smeared their favorite targets, the “isolationists” (i.e., Jeffersonians) as nazis and fascists.

    In June 1941, Churchill, looking for a chance to bring America into the war, wrote regarding the German warship, Prinz Eugen: “It would be better for instance that she should be located by a U.S. ship as this might tempt her to fire on that ship, thus providing the incident for which the U.S. government would be so grateful.”

    Churchill also instructed the British ambassador to Tokyo, Sir Robert Craigie, “the entry of the United States into war either with Germany and Italy or with Japan, is fully conformable with British interests. Nothing in the munitions sphere can compare with the importance of the British Empire and the United States being co-belligerent.”

    In August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill met at the Atlantic conference. Churchill told his Cabinet “The President had said he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. . . . Everything was to be done to force an incident.”

    After the U.S. had officially entered the war, on February 15, 1942, in the House of Commons, Churchill declared, of America’s entry into the war: “This is what I have dreamed of, aimed at, worked for, and now it has come to pass.”

    This deceptive alliance illustrates another of Churchill’s faults. His subordination of political aims to military planning. Churchill made war for the sake of making war, with little regard for the political results that follow. He once even told Asquith that his life’s ambition was “to command great victorious armies in battle.” And World War II was his opportunity. Churchill and Roosevelt were both willing to do anything to destroy the menace of Nazi Germany, at a time when Hitler had killed perhaps several hundred thousand, and to do so they would ally with Hitler’s former ally in the invasion of Poland, Joseph Stalin (the Soviet Union had even been invited to join the Axis in 1940), who had already murdered tens of millions. But why is it conventional wisdom that compromise with one dictator at a vital period would have been immoral while collaboration with an even greater dictator with genuine global ambitions was the mark of greatness?

    The truth is Churchill cared for nothing but Britain. The lives, homes and cultures of non-Britons he took and destroyed without a care or second thought. What sort of ‘conservatism’ requires the murder of millions of defenseless innocents? Winston Churchill was a man who along with Roosevelt, Hitler and Stalin, probed just how far Western Civilization could fall in just six short years of time.

    Churchill threw British support to the Communist Partisan leader Tito. What a victory for Tito would mean was no secret to Churchill. When an aide pointed out that Tito intended to transform Yugoslavia into a Communist dictatorship on the Stalinist model, Churchill retorted: “Do you intend to live there?” What a humanitarian.

    Of course, in Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were confronted with a man who had an overall political aim for the war. Stalin knew what he wanted to achieve from the destruction of Germany. For Churchill, his only aim was to beat Hitler, and then he would start thinking of the future of Britain and Europe. Churchill said it in so many words: “It was to be the defeat, ruin, and slaughter of Hitler, to the exclusion of all other purposes, loyalties and aims.”

    Churchill’s aim was in his words, the “indefinite prevention of their [the Germans’] rising again as an Armed Power.” Not surprisingly, instead of making every effort to encourage and assist the anti-Nazi resistance groups in Germany, Churchill responded to the feelers sent out by the German resistance with silence, thus helping to prolong the war and the killing. Even more shockingly, Churchill had nothing but scorn for the heroic officers after their failed assassination attempt on Hitler in July 1944, even as Hitler was enjoying their filmed executions.

    In the place of help, Churchill only offered Germans the slogan of unconditional surrender, which only prolonged the war further. And instead of promoting the overthrow of Hitler by anti-Nazi Germans, Churchill’s policy was all-out support of Stalin. Returning from Yalta, Churchill told the House of Commons on February 27, 1945 that he did not know any government that kept its obligations as faithfully as did the Soviet Union, even to its disadvantage.

    The War Crimes

    That Churchill committed war crimes—planned them, aided and abetted them, and defended them—is beyond doubt. Churchill was the prime subverter through two world wars of the rules of warfare that had evolved in the West over centuries.

    At the Quebec conference, Roosevelt and Churchill adopted the Morgenthau Plan, which if implemented would have killed tens of millions of Germans, giving the Germans a terrifying picture of what “unconditional surrender” would mean in practice. Churchill was convinced of the plans benefits, as it “would save Britain from bankruptcy by eliminating a dangerous competitor.” That the Morgenthau Plan was analogous to Hitler’s post-conquest plans for western Russia and the Ukraine was lost on Churchill, who according to Morgenthau, drafted the wording of the scheme.

    Churchill even brainstormed dropping tens of thousands of anthrax “super bombs” on the civilian population of Germany, and ordered detailed planning for a chemical attack on six major cities, estimating that millions would die immediately “by inhalation,” with millions more succumbing later.

    But Churchill’s greatest war crimes involved the terror bombing of German cities that killed 600,000 civilians and left some 800,000 injured. Arthur Harris (“Bomber Harris”), the head of Bomber Command, stated “In Bomber Command we have always worked on the assumption that bombing anything in Germany is better than bombing nothing.”

    Churchill brazenly lied to the House of Commons and the public, claiming that only military and industrial installations were targeted. In fact, the aim was to kill as many civilians as possible. Hence the application of “carpet” bombing in an attempt to terrorize the Germans into surrendering.

    Professor Raico described the effect of Churchillian statesmanship: “The campaign of murder from the air leveled Germany. A thousand-year-old urban culture was annihilated, as great cities, famed in the annals of science and art, were reduced to heaps of smoldering ruins. . . .” No wonder that, learning of this, a civilized European man like Joseph Schumpeter, at Harvard, was driven to telling “anyone who would listen” “that Churchill and Roosevelt were destroying more than Genghis Khan.”

    According to the official history of the Royal Air Force: “The destruction of Germany was by then on a scale which might have appalled Attila or Genghis Khan.” Dresden was filled with masses of helpless refugees running for their lives ahead of the advancing Red Army. The war was practically over, but for three days and nights, from February 13 to 15, 1945, British bombs pounded Dresden, killing as many as 135,000 people or more in three days. After the massacre, Churchill attempted to disclaim responsibility; even casually saying “I thought the Americans did it.”

    The terror bombing of Germany and the killing of civilians continued as late as the middle of April, 1945. It only stopped, as Bomber Harris noted, because there were essentially no more targets left to be bombed in Germany.

    In order to kill a maximum number of Germans, Winston Churchill dismissed politics or policy as a ‘secondary consideration,’ and on at least two occasions said that there were “no lengths of violence to which we would not go” in order to achieve his objective. In fact he said this publicly in a speech given on September 31, 1943, and again in the House of Commons, on February 27, 1945, when unbelievable lengths of violence had already taken place. If Hitler had uttered this phrase, we would all cite it as more evidence of his barbarism. Yet, when Churchill utters it, his apologists palm it off as the resoluteness required of a great statesman, rather than describing it as an urge for mass, indiscriminate murder.

    Of course, Churchill supported the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in the deaths of another 200,000 civilians. When Truman fabricated the myth of the “500,000 American lives saved” to justify his mass murder, Churchill felt the need to top his lie: the atomic bombings had saved 1,200,000 lives, including 1,000,000 Americans. It was all just another of Churchill’s fantasies.

    Yet, after all this slaughter, Churchill would write: “The goal of World War II [was] to revive the status of man.”

    Churchill and the Cold War

    Among Churchill’s many war crimes, there are also those crimes and atrocities for which he is culpable that occurred following the war.

    These include the forced repatriation of some two million old people, men, women, and children to the Soviet Union to their deaths. Then there were the massacres carried out by Churchill’s protégé, Tito: tens of thousands of Croats, Slovenes and other “class-enemies” and anti-Communists were killed.

    In the wake of the armies of Churchill’s friend and ally, the mass deportations began. But Churchill was unmoved. In January 1945 he said: “Why are we making a fuss about the Russian deportations in Rumania of Saxons [Germans] and others? . . . I cannot see the Russians are wrong in making 100 or 150 thousand of these people work their passage. . . . I cannot myself consider that it is wrong of the Russians to take Rumanians of any origin they like to work in the Russian coal-fields.” Here Churchill, the great friend of liberty as Bush described him, approves of slavery. About 500,000 German civilians were enslaved to work in Soviet Russia, in accordance with the Yalta agreement where Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that slave labor constituted a proper form of “reparations.”

    Then there was the great atrocity of the expulsion of 15 million Germans from their ancestral homelands in East and West Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, and the Sudetenland, pursuant to Churchill’s mad plan to violently uproot the entire polish population and move Poland westward, which he demonstrated with a set of matchsticks, and to Churchill’s acceptance of the Czech leader Eduard Benes’s plan for the ethnic cleansing of Bohemia and Moravia. Around two million German civilians died in this process. An entire ancient culture was obliterated. This sort of cultural jihad used to be something conservatives opposed. Today’s neoconservatives instead, who evidently embrace the Marxist doctrine of sweeping away the past, would surely argue that in order to create, one must first destroy, or in that old Stalinist phrase, to make an omelet, you must first break a few eggs.

    A large factor in the litany of Churchill’s war crimes was his racism. Churchill was an English chauvinist, a British racist, and like Wilson, loathed the so-called “dirty whites,” the French, Italians and other Latin’s, and Slavs like the Serbs, Poles, Russians, etc…. Churchill professed Darwinism, and particularly disliked the Catholic Church and Christian missions. He became, in his own words, “a materialist to the tips of my fingers,” and fervently upheld the worldview that human life is a struggle for existence, with the outcome the survival of the fittest.

    In 1919, as Colonial Secretary Churchill advocated the use of chemical weapons on the “uncooperative Arabs” in the puppet state of Iraq. “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas,” he declared. “I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes.” Some year’s later, gassing human beings to death would make other men infamous.

    An example of Churchill’s racial views are his comments made in 1937: “I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place.”

    In Churchill’s single-minded decades-long obsession with preventing a single hegemonic power from arising on the European continent that would pose a threat to the British Empire, he failed to see that his alliance with Stalin produced exactly that. “As the blinkers of war were removed,” John Charmley writes, “Churchill began to perceive the magnitude of the mistake which had been made.” Churchill is alleged to have blurted out after finally realizing the scale of his blunder: “We have slaughtered the wrong pig!”

    But it was too late. For decades Churchill worked for the destruction of Germany. Yet only after Stalin had devoured half of Europe did this “great statesman” realize that destroying the ability of Germany to act as a counterbalance to Russia left Europe ripe for invasion and conquest by a resurgent Russia.

    By 1946 Churchill was complaining in a voice of outrage about the Iron Curtain of tyranny that descended on Eastern Europe. But Churchill helped to weave the fabric.

    With the balance of power in Europe wrecked by his own hand, Churchill saw only one recourse: to bind America to Europe permanently. Thus Churchill returned to his tried-and-true strategy, embroiling the United States in another war. This time a “Cold War” that would entrench the military-industrial complex and change America forever.

    Conclusion

    With his lack of principles and scruples, Churchill was involved in one way or another in nearly every disaster that befell the 20th century. He helped destroy laissez-faire liberalism, he played a role in the Crash of 1929, he helped start WWI, and by bringing in America to help, prolonged the war and created the conditions for the rise of Nazism, prolonged WWII, laid the groundwork for Soviet domination, helped involve America in a cold war with Russia, and pioneered in the development of total war and undermining western civilized standards.

    Chris Matthews described Churchill as the “man who save[d] the honor of the 20th century.” Rather than this great accolade, Winston Churchill must be ranked with Karl Marx, Woodrow Wilson, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the destroyers of the values and greatness of Western civilization.

    And it is fitting that the Library of Congress exhibition is entitled “Churchill and the Great Republic” because few men have done more to overthrow the American Republic(s) and institute the great centralized global war machine that has taken its place.

  • St JD George

    These might be better posted against William Kilpatrick’s column last week, but in a way relevant here today too.
    Who are you going to quote?
    http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/obama-and-koran-%E2%80%94-glazov-gang
    Care to write an essay?
    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/pentagon-creates-essay-contest-honor-saudi-king-muslim-world

    • Tamsin

      Nonie Darwish is great. (first video)

      • St JD George

        Indeed. Her calm demeanor and personal experiences make her entirely relevant and believable.

  • Tamsin

    I think that the Obama administration won’t admit the religious dimension of the problem of terrorism because they won’t admit the legitimacy of religious dimensions.

    That there is a religious impulse, they believe as an article of their faith in biological evolution. Conscience is an artifact of consciousness in society. Obama and his fellow travelers also believe it is simply a matter of time before we consciously evolve ourselves beyond any dependence on supernatural revelation. Which conveniently supports every politician’s instinct to kick all costs down the road.

    They want to say all religions are nonsense, but can’t, because it would be politically inexpedient, so they say the next best thing: all religions are equal… equally bad insofar as they constrain the will of the political elite.

    Charles CW Cooke has a good line: when you radicalize Christianity, you get the Amish. When you radicalize Islam, you get international terrorism.

    • HigherCalling

      “all religions are equal…”

      Is this not effectively the language of the First Amendment?
      Does it not effectively diffuse the truth claims of all religions in order to accommodate any number of religions without regard to which of them is true?
      Does it not reject the notion that a particular religion is the true religion and that the State could benefit from its guidance?
      Does it not relegate religion powerless and forever subordinate to the power of the State?
      Does it not formally declare the impossibility of a truly Christian polity in America?
      Is it not an obvious antecedent of atheism?
      Aren’t our 21st century ruling elite atheists the theological descendents of 18th century ruling elite deists?

      • Is this not effectively the language of the First Amendment?

        No, it says the government isn’t an oracle of truth. So, do you trust your soul to politicians or just aspire to be a subject of the crown and a good Anglican?

        • HigherCalling

          Sorry for all the questions. I’ve been trying lately to distinguish between the Catholic notion of liberty and the modern, Western notion. (Brought on by the follow-up to Charlie Hebdo).

          Do you think the First Amendment, both as written and as applied in policy over 226 years across society, is consonant with the Catholic definition of Liberty (expressed by numerous popes over the centuries) or with Catholic Social Teaching?
          Would you say it is lawful (i.e. within natural law) for a regime to “grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, or of worship”? (quote from Libertas, Leo XIII). In other words, is everyone really entitled to his own opinion?
          Would you say that the Secular/Enlightenment/Protestant/American notion of liberty is an improvement on the Catholic notion of liberty?

          • Here’s what I think. I don’t want some fat and libidinous King

            • Facile1

              What do you mean by PHOS? The genus of sea snails? Penn Home Ownership Association? Something else?

              • Pseudo Hyper Orthodox.

                • Facile1

                  What does it mean? It doesn’t exist in google. Can you give me examples?

      • Greg Groebner

        HigherCalling is correct.

        Many modern political problems in the West are directly related to the fact that we no longer have an official vision of an idealized State consonant with a Christian mission. The roots of this are quite obvious: Protestants (and then, quite recently, Catholics) have embraced the pragmatic truce of “religious liberty for all” and “freedom of conscience” in the public sphere, without any regard for truth or historic claims. We have ceased to plan and organize for the extension of the Kingdom of God, because we are afraid to come to a public conclusion on this foundational matter. We have willingly tied our own hands in believing that Church and State should not plan and work toward the Common Good. In the absence of this godly planning, however, others still did plan and scheme and work toward milestones and goals using the apparatus of the state to achieve their aims. They have been given an open playing field, and now we are surprised to see that they do not play nicely.

        In the US, the concrete effect of this has historically not been so much the problem of Islam, but rather the Jews. The Jewish subculture has grown and has been allowed to now become predominant in matters of entertainment and news, the financial sector of the economy, the legal positivism of the judiciary, and the poisoning of US foreign relations. And never-ending war.

        • IF I was HC, I’d be concerned with your endorsement.

      • Facile1

        HigherCalling, you are correct.

        The Founding Fathers actually meant “all (Christian) religions are equal …” But even in this they were also incorrect because Protestant and Catholic are not the same.

        Protestants believe in the “Divine right of Kings (or Heads of State)”. And you see this in the growth of the power of the Federal Government as opposed to the states. And the growth of state government as opposed to the local governments. Etc.

        The Catholic Church goes in the exact opposite direction. We believe in “subsidiarity”, the smallest unit of which is the family.

        • HigherCalling

          Thanks, Facile.
          Truth be told, all of those questions were semi-rhetorical. I have my own answers to all of them. I asked them in order to spark some thinking on what I’ve come to think is a central question confronting Western societies: the question of Liberty, and whether it can be sustained apart from Truth and moral virtue — in other words, is Catholicity imperative in sustaining true freedom? Moreover, I’m hoping Catholics become inquisitive enough to identify the origins of the modern concept of liberty, the philosophical and effective reasons why it is unsustainable, just how much it differs from liberty as defined by the Catholic Church, and why Catholics should be very leery of it. I’m realizing more and more that even serious “conservative” Catholics in America are not willing to go with the Church on the topic of Liberty, choosing instead to side with the Secular definition based in Enlightenment-bred Protestantism. They get extremely touchy on the subject of liberty, even when confronted with the explicit teachings of their Faith… .

          • Facile1

            “is Catholicity imperative in sustaining true freedom?”

            The short answer is ‘yes’.

            “Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, ‘If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’”

  • Kevin

    Call them sheeple. Lemmings. Zombies. New World Order mind control slaves.

    Whatever you call them, the drooling dimwits chanting “we are Charlie” are the all-time greatest argument for Rockefeller-style eugenic euthanasia. (Which, incidentally, should start with the Rockefellers.)

    And don’t get me started on those “world leaders” who led le défilé des idiots. These scumbag-psychopath “leaders” are the worst terrorists on earth. Take Netanyahu – please! Where are the black ski mask guys with AK-47s when we need them? Somebody call in a drone strike!

    But seriously, folks, it isn’t easy being a three-digit-IQ Muslim in a world full of one-digit-IQ infidels. Frankly, I’m getting tired of trying to explain things to people who should know better…a category that includes pretty much everybody who isn’t too stupid to live.

    It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s gotta do it.

    First, this Charlie Hebdo thing (dramatic drum roll) is the most obvious freakin’ false flag imaginable. If inside jobs were hamburgers, this one would come with “the works” –throw-down ID in an abandoned getaway car, Police Commissioner conveniently suicided, intel-cutout patsies murdered, blatantly fake “terrorist kills cop” propaganda video…it doesn’t get any better (or should I say worse) than this.

    But just because it was a false flag doesn’t mean that Muslims are always going to put up with obscene, blasphemous attacks on their Prophet. If you publish garbage like Charlie did, you are asking to get hurt…just like if I were to publish an obscene drawing of your mother or daughter or sister, only more so…MUCH more so. If you publish an obscene attack on my mother or sister or wife or daughter (assuming I had a daughter) I am going to be very, very angry with you…and you had best hope that I manage to control my anger…and, more pertinently, choose not to serve you a dish of cold revenge some day, perhaps years from now when you least expect it.

    You will be facing the same situation – except a whole lot more grievous – if you obscenely insult my Prophet. A whole lot of us Muslims are just that way.

    We’ll struggle all-out to control ourselves. Maybe 99% of us, or even 99.9%, will succeed. But if one day somebody loses it and goes off on you, you shouldn’t pretend to be surprised.

    Maybe you don’t hold anything sacred, not even your womenfolk’s honor. Or maybe there are certain “fighting words” that you’d feel compelled to avenge. Maybe I could walk up to you in a bar and start talking trash about your female family members and you’d turn the other cheek. Then again, maybe you wouldn’t. If I tried that, and got my ass kicked, or even got my ass shot, would you organize a million moron march in my memory? The thought of a million morons marching down the Champs Elysées carrying signs reading “Je suis Kevin”…c’est trop délicieux.

    So yes, many Muslims will grow very, very angry if you cross the line in obscenely attacking their prophet. That is a well-known fact…background knowledge for the psy-op specialists tasked with staging murderous PR stunts to keep the clash-of-civilizations a-clashing.

    And that’s how this false flag was arranged: Find some creep cartoonists who are practically begging for Muslims to come after them…and then dress up your blue-eyed (!) Special Forces guys in ski masks and stage a professional slaughter.

    Next, whip out the genocide propagandists and useful idiots.

    I have seen more out-and-out lies in the Charlie Hebdo propaganda stories than even I imagined the MSM could be capable of. A few examples from my favorite Mossadnik rag will suffice.

    The Huffington Post published a gargantuan genocidal big lie story: These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over. But that’s a lie. This story features only relatively inoffensive Charlie Hebdo cartoons. It leaves the really sick, obscene stuff out. People who read this mendacious Huffington Post piece, and who don’t understand that it was a false flag, are going to think that the Charlie Hebdo creeps were – as so many “house Muslims” disgustingly intone – “innocent.” Bullshit. They were vicious, evil, blasphemous pornographers pumping out genocide propaganda. And rather than being murdered by blue-eyed Special Forces officers dressed up as Wahhabis, they should have been tried, condemned, and hanged, whether for genocide propaganda in a secular courtroom, or for blasphemy in an Islamic one. (The genocide I am referring to, of course, is the 9/11-false-flag-triggered War on Islam, which has killed more than one million Muslims, ruined the lives of tens of millions, and aims at eradicating Islam in part by targeting its sacred symbols for blasphemous, pornographic annihilation.)

    HuffPost, a well-known Zionist mouthpiece, also published another Goebbels-style propaganda lie, this time by an author with a Muslim name. I am referring to Fathima Imra Nazeer’s sickening To Prevent Another Charlie Hebdo, Reconsider the Example of Muhammed. This airhead (or Mossad operative using an Islamic pen name) begins by invoking the “good Muslim vs. bad Muslim” dichotomy:

    “Many Muslims are rightfully outraged by the attack on Charlie Hebdo way more than they would ever be offended by some caricature of Muhammed. Unfortunately, there are some Muslims who are quick to justify this atrocity as well.”

    The “good Muslims” she cites are the pathetic, Guantanamo-terrorized house Muslims who are complicit in their own genocide; while her “bad Muslim” is the illiterate idiot Anjum Chaudary, London’s walking, talking advertisement for Islamophobia. This is a classic false dichotomy, like Bush’s “either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” And like Bush’s line, it was designed by Zionist psy-op specialists as part of the ongoing effort to delegitimize self-defense-while-Muslim.

    Nazeer then slanders the Qur’an, saying: “The Quran encourages the killing of ‘those who spread mischief’ against Allah and Muhammed.” That’s a big lie. If you follow her link, you’ll find it goes to a passage that might be roughly translated as:

    “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

    “Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

    The passage – which was revealed in, and refers to, the context of a desperate defensive war – says nothing about “spreading mischief against Allah and Muhammad.” Instead, it clearly states that to merit capital punishment or exile (and we know from the rest of the Qur’an that mercy is preferred, so it will probably be mere exile) the war criminal must be guilty of all of the following:

    *Waging war against God.

    *Waging war against God’s messenger.

    *Striving to cause corruption. (The Arabic word fasad indicates a very strong, extreme form of corruption; the word mischief, which connotes the naughty tricks of children, is light-years away from the correct meaning. In other words, the war criminal must be working really, really hard to do really, really terrible things.)

    Only a very uncharitable mufti would say that Nazeer, by viciously slandering the Qur’an and the Prophet in her lying article, was guilty of all of the three parts of this crime. If I were called for Islamic jury duty, I would vote to let her off with a reprimand. It could be that she has psychological problems, or perhaps her grotesque mistranslation is an innocent mistake.

    I’m joking, of course. There is no such thing as Islamic jury duty, and if there were, I would find a way to get out of it.

    And of course Nazeer’s article, dumb and offensive as it is, is a (bad) argument, not an act of obscene blasphemy. It’s the kind of free speech everybody agrees we need to protect.

    The Qur’anic passage Nazeer mistranslates is revealing. It suggests that in a desperate, defensive war to defend a community founded on the sacred, the worst crimes merit the harshest punishments…but that repentance and mercy are better than punishment.

    Which, like everything else in the Qur’an, displays its profound understanding of human nature. Any community founded on the sacred – and all communities are, one way or another – will fight to defend itself and what it holds sacred…and the more desperate the struggle, the more powerful and nastier the enemies, the more harshly will attempts at order-restoring justice be meted out. To take one historical example, when the US was collapsing from the Great Depression, it began executing people in far greater numbers than ever before or since. A decade later, the desperation felt by all the belligerent parties during World War II led to their committing unprecedented atrocities.

    The Qur’an acknowledges this reality – that people sometimes have to do terrible things to defend themselves or restore order, as was the case in Medina – but sets strict conditions and limits, and reminds us that mercy is always better. The general Qur’anic outlook might suggest that the ramp-up in executions in 1930s America was reasonable if unfortunate, while the atrocities of World War II (including the Allies firebombings and nuclear bombings of civilians and deliberate starvation of millions of Germans after the war) transgressed all limits and were a complete abomination.

    This acknowledgment that desperate people will resort to desperate measures, is applicable to the situation of Muslims today.

    Since the Western powers-that-be have forced the ludicrous official story of 9/11 down our throats – a story that 80% of Muslims worldwide know is a lie – we Muslims feel, rightly or wrongly, that we are in desperate straits. Over a million have been murdered for this lie. Tens of thousands have been tortured. Our religion is under genocidal attack.

    But we must not fight back by stupidly lashing out…and providing our enemies with the propaganda ammunition they seek.

    There is a famous “Muslim anger management” story:

    “Caliph Ali was once fighting in a war imposed on Muslims, and the chief of the Unbelievers confronted him. During the fight, the Ali was able to overcome his enemy, who fell on the ground and Ali was about to kill him. The enemy, knowing his fate, had no hope so he spit on the face of Ali. Ali immediately got up and left him alone. The man came running to him and asked, ‘You had a chance to kill me since I am a Polytheist; how come you didn’t use your sword?’ Ali said, ‘I have no personal animosity toward you. I was fighting you on behalf of God. If I had killed you after you spat on my face, then it would have become my personal revenge which I do not wish to take.’ That Unbeliever chief became a Muslim immediately.”

    If you insult my Prophet (or female family member) and I strike you out of anger, that is a failure on my part. A natural failure, one that we might hope and pray will not be judged too severely by the only Judge who counts; but a failure nonetheless.

    The greater jihad is the struggle for self-control, the struggle to be a better person. The lesser jihad is the struggle to defend the community…whether by force of arms, or by waging “the best jihad…(which) is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant.”

    Obviously we need a whole lot of both varieties these days.

  • Craig Roberts

    The war was lost the moment that the enemy was defined as ‘terror’. Just like the war on ‘poverty’ and the war on ‘drugs’ it is impossible to fight a war against something that is not a person or a nation of persons. Unfortunately for us Islam is suffeciently dispersed among nations that conventional war is impossible. And so we must resort to something else. Perhaps prayer, a short commodity in a secular nation.

    • Chanankat

      an ounce of prayer and a pound of deportation.

  • Greg Groebner

    I very much hope that a man of voting age really does not think like this. Mr. Martin, you need to read some revisionist history from Churchill’s time and forward; or at least try to do a few Internet searchers when a breaking news story does not seem to jibe. I should be constructive but there is so much wrong, it will take too long to organize a critique. But here are a few: a) Churchill was a warmonger and was self-aware of it (see Pat Buchanan’s “The Unnecessary War”). You’re still living on Allied war propaganda.; 2) the U.S. President and elected officials are comparatively rank amateurs pitted against generational professionals. That’s what happens when we Westerners decided to reject Altar & Throne; There will always be rule by a few — the only variable being whether these persons can liven openly and honestly, or instead become figures of the darkness and shadows. 3) “militant Islam” may be a problem in the Middle East and Europe. The problem in the USA is the Jews. To test who is in control, use Voltaire’s maxim and try to criticize. 4) Do you have some kind of idea that the West will build a new Crusade? Yes, indeed, they already have. First steps after killing the leader and destroying the country’s money system is to push porn, abortion, and sodomy. 5) The West is not controlled by Christians. Do you expect a bunch of Internationalists to fight for Christian interests? 6) The West is not even controlled by elected politicians on the national level. In my own state, the two leading candidates for Senate — both backed by Jewish money (Franken a Hollywood Jew, and Catholic McFadden from the Lazard Group) — had collectively 66x more than the first of the grass-roots candidates. 7) The remnants of cultural traditionalism overwhelmingly sided with the Axis Powers against the Communists during WWII, rather than vice-versa as did the Allies. Like it or not, that was the situation. If Churchill was fighting for the survival of Western civilization, then why did things fall apart so quickly after the Axis were exterminated? 7) As an elected official at the national level, it is ludicrous to think that Obama is going to clean-up. How would he even know how to do it? I suppose if the Mormon had been elected, you’d also expect him to some how know how to defend Western=Christian civilization. 8) If Obama were to really “clean-up”, he’d need to go after so many black-ops, and Mossad and cult pedophile rings that he’d run out of hangmen before even getting to the Muslims. 9) Do you think “Building 7” fell down by itself? 10) Was Ghaddafi part of “militant Islam”? 11) how about Saddam Hussein? 11) How was Islamic State doing when Hussein was in power? 12) In spite of the well-meaning efforts of tens of thousands of bureaucrats and soldiers, Iraq was deliberately destabilized by a handful of Jewish neo-cons and a trusted Catholic front-man — watch the documentary “No End in Sight”. 13) Why does ISIS have convey transports of Toyotas said to have been purchased with U.S. funding.
    14) Why do people still pretend to believe in the charade.

    Honestly, Mr. Martin, I hope you stay away from such subjects in your teaching. I don’t know the truth of these matters, but some of the contradictions are so obvious that it is impossible to push for constructive action in the current state of affairs through the usual channels. There are things that need to be done, but urging the “President” to do “something” is like giving a child a hand grenade.

    • Seamrog

      I don’t know what is worse – when your ilk stumbles across this website, or when the homosexualists do.

      You are equally as disturbed and deranged.

      Get thee behind me.

  • False-flag Burner

    Imagine – a bunch of French, CIA and Mossad special forces, one of them or a combination of the three, attack a racist, Moslem-insulting publisher in Paris and a kosher supermarket at another end of town – killing altogether 17 people, notwithstanding the ‘suicide’ of the French police chief in charge of investigating the atrocity.

    A million and a half people in Paris take to the streets – about 6 million throughout Europe – all screaming or carrying posters with a maddening, inexplicable “Je Suis Charlie” – depicting an utterly brainwashed mindset, brainwashed for decades with Washington directed mind control.

    They do not know, do not want to know, that the Charlie massacre was yet another staged event, another false flag that will eventually give their masters green light to intensify their ‘wars on terror’ around the globe. Terrorists are mostly Muslims; so is their dictum. Before the massacre, the powers that be identified three Muslims as the perpetrators of the crime to come. Soon after the Charlie attack, they sent killer squads to massacre them, before anybody could question them. The fight on terror – don’t leave witnesses behind.

    The millions of demonstrators’war cry is literally asking the western armies, led by NATO to turn- and speed up their brutal killing machine in the Middle East – to exterminate the Moslem population.The western public has been told and is constantly being told by the western powers dominated main stream media thatMuslims are at the heart of all evil; when in fact quite the contrary is true. The West under neoliberal leadership (sic) has become a horrifying merciless killing machine.

    That’s Paris Charlie revisited and in a nutshell. – That’s our neoliberal ‘civilization’ – with a purpose.False flag written all over the walls of Charlie Hebdo’s blasphemous infrastructure. Waging even more savage war on the 1.6 billion Muslims.Killing 17 people by Empire and its stooges, will allow Empire and its stooges to kill more millions, perhaps tens of millions, to exterminate this ‘evil’ Muslim sect of ‘terrorists’. A ‘terrorist’ is anybody who doesn’t bend to the empire’s boot. That doctrine has been impregnated in western minds ever since another false flag killed on 9/11 about 3,000 people in New York, allowing the beginning of the eternal war – wars, one succeeding the next – the criminal Bush-Blair legacy of the 21st Century.

    The Afghanistan invasion of empire directed NATO forces was to control the TAPI pipeline project (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India), for which the Taliban were unwilling to negotiate with the Bush family, nor with a secret Congressional commission in 2001. The project is as of this day a bone of contention – and a good reason for Obama to leave a permanent ‘residue’ of troops in Afghanistan.

    To keep a roving mindless populace tight – local false flags, à la Boston Marathon bombing are necessary to intensify repression, abrogate ever more civil liberties – and this even on demand from the very people affected by the repression. They want more security, more protection.

    As with Charlie Hebdo, the bad guys were pre-identified,so that when the secret special forces launched their ugly plot, they were easy to trace and chase – and kill. One of the designated ‘perpetrators’ in the Boston case and all of them in Paris. Dead men don’t talk.

    The Bostonians literally invited armed police to take over their streets and invade their homes. In Paris the marchers of 1.5 million people were silently screaming, “Hollande go to war and free us from evil! “ –What a depressing joke this is. It would be laughable if it weren’t that serious. – It is one more step won by the neoliberal empire – a step towards full dominance and subjugation of the populace.

    The Washington funded AlQaeda-turned-Taliban-turned-AlQaeda Osama BinLaden was made responsible for the Twin Tower’s collapse – in no time. And in no time, two years to be exact, the wind shifted. Iraq’s Saddam is the culprit. The power of the msm – in combination with the brainless masses works wonders.

    Saddam, the newly designated culprit of the New York 9/11 monstrosity triggered the war on Iraq – the empire taking over the country’s riches, her oil wells; at that time the world’s cheapest oil to bring to the surface – and making sure that Saddam would not tell who helped and incited him to wage an eight-year war against his neighbor Iran, and who gave him the poison to gas in 1988 the Kurds in the North, and especially, that he would not convert his forced dollar denominated sales of hydrocarbons into euros, as he unwittingly announced – he had to be executed. He received a world stage hanging, propaganda for justice, for American justice – justice of the exceptional people, supported and road-mapped, as always, by the banking backed ‘chosen people’.

    The Bush-Blair led ‘coalition of the willing’ slaughtered more than a million and a half Iraqis, mostly civilians;women, children and elderly; creating other millions of refugees. Countless people murdered in Afghanistan. In parallel the NED-induced (National Endowment for Democracy) infamous machinery of ‘regime change’ produced the so-called Arab Spring which had nothing to do with spring, but everything with devastating one Middle Eastern and North African country after another. The obliteration of Libya and Syria through NATO bombing and NATO prompted civil wars, and more brutal and bloody conflicts all over Mother Earth.

    Obama’s personally directed drone war on Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Turkey – and the list goes on – is further fomenting and funding local unrest, killing masses of defenseless people.

    It is American judgment over nations by war. ISIS, a US-EU-NATO creation, generously funded by the empire and its European and Middle Eastern stooges, as a rebel force to fight Syrian troops and to take over Iraq, is torturing and slaughtering in the (concealed) name of the neocon empire, other thousands of people.

    ISIS, supplied with cutting-edge weaponry by the US and NATO, is assailing Iraq, where George W. Bush notoriously declared in May 2003, two months after his shock and awe invasion, “Mission Accomplished”.

    Not to mention the horrifying eight more years of war Iraq and her people endured until Obama ceremoniously announced the end of war, pulling out US troops in 2011– not without leaving a core presence behind, though.

    As Eduardo Galeano, the famous revolutionary Uruguayan writer and philosopher said – once US troops are in a country, they never leave. Hence, the more than thousand US military bases around the globe.

    Wars must go on. The US neoliberal economy depends on them. The war machine and its ramifications contribute more than 50% to the US GDP.

    Without wars, the country would collapse. All peace talks and negotiations initiated or feigned by Washington are fake, a deception, propaganda for the goodness of the naked emperor. Kudos for the exceptional nation.

    World peace would mean a black hole for the United States, demise.

    In both cases, Iraq and Syria, ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) – the Sunni caliphate having merged in 2013 with Syria’s al-Nusra Front – and whatever other names the ‘rebels’ may morph into –are paid to fight national armies unwilling to bend. In turn, they are justifying US interventions, bombing the same ISIS they created, though only a little bit, to make believe, lest ISIS might really be wiped out. Recent US helicopter food and ammunition drops behind ISIS Iraqi lines testify to the west’s double standards and deceit.

    In reality, when bombing ISIS, NATO is bombing Iraq and Syria for regime change, and as an added icing on the cake, to grease the US war machine, the ever hungry military industrial complex.

    Estimates have it that US carried out and inspired wars and conflicts around the globe have killed over ten million people in the last decade and a half.

    That’s neoliberal ‘civilization’ – murdering 17 to kill millions – making billions by weapon manufacturing and selling, plus more billions by stealing hydrocarbon – the God of Energy of our ever growth-lusty western greed economy; and making even more billions by converting small-holder agriculture which still today feeds 80% of world population – into pesticide-implanted genetically modified food production, the Monsanto world.

    As if this destruction, annihilation and misery of war and mass killing were not enough, there is reconstruction after war, another bonanza for the destroyer. The words of former World Bank president, Robert Zoellick, also known as the US neoliberal trade tsar, will not be forgotten, when he said in the midst of NATO devastating Libya in 2011 – “We hope that the World Bank will also be involved in the reconstruction of Libya.” Well, this wish has not come through yet, but in other war-torn zones it has.

    After destruction comes reconstruction with all the neoliberal strings attached, financial robbery of public goods, reduction of pensions, minimum wages, social services, privatization of education and health, expropriation and privatization of natural resources by foreign corporations –and the list goes on, all requisites of extreme austerity measures as conditions for the sacrosanct IMF, World Bank and ECBso-called rescue packages.

    At times, countries whose existence remains somehow important for the empire, like those in Southern Europe, will be driven into misery without physical war, just by financial abuse and economic slavery. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and even Italy, were driven to the abyss of suffocation by the all-powerful, but appallingly criminal troika, the IMF, ECB and the European Commission.

    After coercing or replacing their elected governments with neoliberal puppets, mostly former Wall Street execs, as is the President of the ECB, they – the troika and their masters – forced these countries into debt, after debt and more debt – debt that is virtually unrecoverable in a generation; debt that causes astronomical levels of unemployment, Greece, Spain and Portugal, hovering above 25% and 65% among the young people, slashing social services, health care, pensions, leaving a huge proportion of their population in absolute poverty and in physical and mental misery.

    And who funds all these atrocities – wars and financial devastation? – Wall Street, the extended arm of the Zionist-Anglo-Saxon controlled monetary system, and its puppets, the FED, IMF, World Bank, European Central Bank and their subordinate European mega-banks. Naturally.– Who else?

    All of these neoliberal mayhems are guided by the invisible hand of the PNAC – the Plan of a New American Century, designed by Zionist Washington think tanks, the tail that wags the dog. The PNAC foresees the annihilation of the Middle East, the pocketing of Europe by implanting puppets – done! – and finally the encircling and eventual subjugation of Russia and China – the ascent of a Washington directed One World Order.

    It shall not happen. There is hope in the solid alliance of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, of Russia and China; a strategic economic and defense pact, the western media are silent about. The less the public knows of the truth, the more it will adore the ‘exceptional nation’, as its one and only master – so goes the theory of western self-adulation.

    Neoliberalism wants it all, the supremacy of the 1% – addressing the lowest common denominator in human kind – greed, using the main stream media concocting lies and deceptions to nurture more greed which in turn is the engine that fuels the neoliberal doctrine of private property, of privatization of public goods, privatization – stealing – of other countries natural resources, the steady pursuit of instant profit, of police and military oppression of the few who refuse to comply. A Win-Win-Win situation – energy, food and money, as per Kissinger’s infamous dogma– who controls energy controls continents, who controls food controls people, and who controls money controls the world.

    Neoliberalism, the religion of the West, is the epitome of evil, of destruction of civilization itself.Neoliberalism – thanks to its unifying factor of greed, has ravaged the west like brushfire and taken over the world in less than 30 years, a feat grander than that achieved by mono-theistic Judo-Christianity in over 2000 years.

    Citizens of Mother Earth – BEWARE ! – Wake up ! Open your eyes and ears ! – Become vanguards of a new world, new values – where the neocons and their globalization bite the dust, and where local production for local markets funded by local banks propels solidarity and harmony into new generations of mankind.

    • Facile1

      Are you Muslim?

  • Jill

    As it remains unclear who might have actually sponsored the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, if indeed anyone did, a great deal of speculation about motives and resources is perhaps inevitable. If one goes by the traditional “cui bono” standard, who benefits, there are perhaps two possible beneficiaries. One would be a terrorist sponsoring group which would be able to claim credit for a dramatic success against a major western government that is regarded as an enemy because it has been participating in wars against Islamic states. Terrorist organizations routinely make such claims after an attack because it establishes their bona fides and serves as a magnet for volunteers and donations from supporters. Very often the claims are suspect, particularly as many terrorist actions are now decentralized franchise operations that are carried out without direction or support by so-called “loners.”

    The other possibility is Israel. Israel would benefit from an Islamist terrorist incident in France and would have powerful motives for allowing or encouraging such an attack to take place. First, it would reverse what it would see as a deplorable trend in France (and in Europe) to support Palestinian statehood, which Paris and other European governments endorsed at the United Nations on December 30 th. Second, it would dramatically shift the narrative in the media away from the continued brutal treatment of the Palestinians. And third it would heighten anti-Islamic sentiments and get the Europeans back on board for the perpetual war on terror, which inextricably links Muslims to terrorism and effectively makes Israel’s enemies the enemies of both Europe and the United States.

    To demonstrate what the actual Israeli government viewpoint might be, one has only to recall the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s satisfaction when he first heard about 9/11. He said “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq, swung American public opinion in our favor.” Netanyahu knew that the attack could be manipulated to inextricably tie the United States to the Israeli view of the nature of Islamic terrorism and what to do about it. In that he was correct and the U.S. has been paying the price for a disproportionate and misguided counter-terrorism policy ever since. Netanyahu’s bizarre performance at the Charlie Hebdo solidarity parade in Paris also suggests that he is prepared to milk the current situation for the maximum political advantage, both for himself and for Israel.

    But in spite of the clear evidence that Tel Aviv would like to see more terrorist attacks in Europe, even hypothesizing that Israel might be directly involved or knowledgeable in some way regarding Charlie Hebdo produces the predictable response, i.e. that it is anti-Semites who are making such a suggestion and that Israel is not so cynical or evil as to engage in such activity. One pundit casually dismisses speculation that the attack might have been engineered by “specifically the mystical supermen of Israel’s Mossad. Such a theory is stupid and scurrilous, as well as on so many grounds self-evidently incorrect.” The author does not explain why it is “self-evidently incorrect.”

    A false flag operation is one in which the sponsors adopt a false identity, most often pretending to be from a different country or adhering to a different organization than that which they actually represent. Because Israel is reviled in much of the world, Israeli agents do not regularly tell anyone about their true affiliation. And Israel has a long history of both black and false flag operations going back to the Lavon Affair in 1954 in which the Israelis sought to blow up the United States government offices in Alexandria and blame it on the Egyptians. It has also frequently used non-Israeli passports, many provided unknowingly by immigrants from the U.S., Canada, Europe and Oceania, to cover the agents involved in its more creative overseas operations. When operating against Iran, the Israelis have sometimes pretended to be Americans as they knew that few Iranian dissidents would want to cooperate with Israel.

    A great advantage Israel has for carrying out black operations is its stable of diaspora Jews who come from Arab countries, speak Arabic fluently and understand both the culture and Islam. Using false passports and identities, they could easily pretend to have links with either al-Qaeda or the Islamic State and it would not be that difficult for them to infiltrate small radicalized groups or connect with disaffected individuals in target countries. In the past when terrorist organizations were tightly controlled from the top it would have been difficult to pass as an adherent of such groups lest one be checked out and exposed, but the decentralization of terrorism over the past ten years has greatly reduced that possibility.

    At the heart of the argument against any Israeli involvement is the belief that a false-flag operation would be too complicated to execute. In reality, the greatest difficulty is to avoid getting caught by the local police authorities while one is pretending to be someone else, a risk referred to as blowback.

    The targets that one is trying to motivate to undertake some terrorist act will generally be gullible and willing to cooperate once access to a group is attained and credibility is established. An analogy with how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operates inside the United States would not be inappropriate. The FBI works with the National Security Agency (NSA) to identify dissidents by monitoring email transmissions and telephone calls. It then insinuates an informant into the group who uses a false identity and pretends to share the views of those being targeted. At that point it all becomes somewhat murky, at least if the FBI account is to be believed.

    For the FBI informant to motivate and possibly enable the would-be terrorists to actually commit a crime would be regarded as “entrapment” which is itself an impropriety by law enforcement that would render inadmissible any evidence developed for a possible prosecution. But recent anti-terrorist legislation provides maximum advantage to prosecutors who only have to demonstrate some kind of material or other assistance to terrorism. Consequently, the line drawn regarding encouraging an action and enabling it has since 9/11 become somewhat blurry, even when the informant provides the targets with weapons that do not work or bombs that cannot explode. In practice, most alleged terrorists arrested in the United States are incapable of carrying out a terrorist act but they are nevertheless successfully prosecuted. This is due to the involvement of the informant and it is widely believed that the informant more often than not actually enables the planning for the crime to take place.

    In reality, the FBI informant plays the same role that an Israeli or other agent might play in infiltrating a group and motivating it to carry out a terrorist attack. The potential targets could be identified online using Israel’s highly sophisticated technical resources and an agent might wait for an opportunity to make nonthreatening contact. Once contact is made, the relationship would be developed to the point where the agent becomes an active collaborator and makes suggestions about what might be done. He then gradually withdraws from the activity and lets the targets execute their planned attack.

    I am not suggesting that either Israel or any other government was behind the two terrorist attacks in Paris but it would be foolish to rule anything out. Knee jerk reactions against conspiracy theories are frequently as irrational as some of the theories themselves but anyone who is open minded should appreciate that some very strange things have happened over the past fourteen years. 9/11 critics are regularly derided as crazy “truthers” but anyone who has read the entirety of the 9/11 Commission Report might very well come to the conclusion that there is a lot missing, to include the redacted section about a possible Saudi Arabian connection. I have in the past noted that the possible leads involving Israel and Pakistan have also failed to be investigated adequately and included in the report. One might reasonably consider that the principal role of government currently is to spin a narrative that exonerates its own behavior, making truth a rarely encountered commodity.

  • mollysdad

    It’s true, we don’t have the stomach for the War on Islam. That’s why, in less than 30 years, the United States, Canada and all the great nations you see on the map of Europe, will have ceased to exist, having been absorbed into the Islamic Caliphate.

    The reason we (as nations) don’t have the stomach for the War on Islam is that we’re not convinced of the truth of Christianity, much less that Jesus is the full and final revelation of God after whom there will be no further public revelation.

    We aren’t convinced that Islam is a public blasphemy and sedition, and we can’t get rid of that nagging doubt that the Muslims may be right.

    The Islamic juggernaut looks to be unstoppable in its stated design to subjugate the world to the rule of Allah. Indeed, it is unstoppable, because the Muslims alone have the unbreakable will to fight and to give all for final victory. We don’t. That’s why our defeat is inevitable.

    Indeed, how many of us still think that it is a war worth winning? To be honest, I have my doubts that it is. A nation that introduces same-sex marriage and persecutes the Church into silence is a nation which is not worth defending.

    For my part, I’m glad I don’t have children. No sons for them to behead, no daughters for them to rape and enslave. None for them to convert to Islam.

  • Facile1

    Have We Got What It Takes to Win?

    No.

    As long as we keep aborting in the womb the manpower needed to win this war, the answer will be ‘no’.

  • Tom

    Until we have the courage to apply the rule of law to our prisoners then we cannot claim to be authentically Christian. We shouldn’t invent legal black holes where a fair trial is impossible. This short sighted and unethical view serves as a recruiting ground for young Muslim men.
    For every innocent civilian killed in Iraq or Syria or any other country by a US soldier or a US drone you may as well factor in increased US military and civilian casualties at the hands of aggrieved relatives. This isn’t necessarily Islam but is more likely a sense of injustice,familial or nationalistic.
    You mention Churchill. At Tony Blair’s peak there was constant reference in the media to him being the next Churchill. I’m almost persuaded there is such a thing as a Churchill complex whereby modern politicians must mark their greatness with other people’s blood. Would that we would have more boring politicians. More Eisenhowers who knew the danger of political ambition matched to military might.
    Finally, we carry a tremendous responsibility for the destruction of stable states such as Iraq and Syria and the consequent decimation of their Christian population, originally at our hands and then at the hands of aggrieved nationalists who have been persuaded by injustices perpetrated against them that all Christians are trigger happy westerners.

    • RufusChoate

      Ahh no.

      • Tom

        Chieftain o the pudin race.

  • Jdonnell

    The article takes a leap over all those things that the author would be uncomfortable about. Even his “Vietnam did finally fall” leaves out that the US fell there, even after Nixon’s drastic expansion of it into other countries. The dominoes, however, did not fall. The art. skips over Nixon’s criminality and more importantly it jumps to the “war on terror” without mentioning Bush Jr.’s lies and war criminality that got the US into more wars. Presumably, the author voted for W. not once but twice.

    • RufusChoate

      Ahh yes, Nixon’s criminality, during the 1972 election, there were hundreds acts of burglary, arson and vandalism committed against… Republican Party headquarters around the country and the Left has always outdone the Right in corruption and criminality but that is a pointless observation because the real problem with Nixon was his involvement with outing Alger Hiss and the revelation of the American Liberal as a Soviet Leftist.

      • Jdonnell

        You talk nonsense. Nothing done in the way of burglaries (that are mostly in your imagination) was comparable to Watergate, which was an act that threatened the very foundation of our democratic system. Your specious charge is part of a myth that bears comparison with the Black Legend about Catholics.

      • Jdonnell

        Bringing in Hiss makes you sound as if you think Watergate was concocted and didn’t happen.
        Real Republican crimes of recent vintage include the lies of the Bush Jr. administration that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the waste of trillions of taxpayer dollars. Those are war crimes of the highest order.

        • RufusChoate

          Watergate was an inconsequential campaign dirty trick initiated by John Dean currently on the Left. It was never as serious as you and your fever swamp Leftist friends believe.

          The whole Bush lie meme is dead and gone as a campaign tool . The establishment left had the same intelligence data through the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and still voted for all of the Wars. The first Iraq War ended with a Cease Fire not a surrender. Bush merely double down on validate the casus belli of 1991.

          You’re simply not bright enough to figure out you were played for a simpleton.

          • Jdonnell

            “Inconsequential.? Just a crime intended to subvert the democratic process with wire tapping, etc. Dean is a question himself. Right after the mess, he stayed at a Florida hotel in a small town where some of Nixon’s main supporters lived, incl. the senator who had tried to squelch the affair.
            As for the Bush lie, it is not a matter of a campaign issue; it’s a matter of justice. He and his slimy friends like Chaney are war criminals. The Dems were suckered by his lies into voting for the war. They too are not blameless since it was clear to anyone who looked at all closely at the news that no proof of WMDs had emerged. Nada.
            Your head-in-the-sand views are a willful denial.

MENU