Wednesday, December 23, 2015

CROSS-COUNTRY CHECK-UP ON MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES

On June 28th, 2015, CBC’s nationwide Sunday call-in show was about whether Canada should receive more refugees and migrants than it already does. The discussion soon turned into a conversation about immigrants generally. Before addressing what I heard on this episode, I will offer a little number-crunching commentary. Keep in mind, that in light of Trudeau’s plan to flood our country with Muslim refugees of dubious virtue, this topic remains extremely relevant, and will become more relevant as the months and years pass. 

Under just one program (the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program) Canada employs about 25,000 migrants per year presently. Each migrant may stay in the country for up to eight months at a time; many migrants come back year after year; and some of them come back regularly for decades. You could say that, practically speaking in many ways, migrants are just immigrants by another name. Then we have the refugees. Canada accommodates more than 20,000 refugees per year. These numbers are comparatively paltry beside the broader fact that this nation has been absorbing about 250,000 immigrants per year for many years now. Do we really need to bring in 50,000 poorly screened refugees from the middle-east? They should stay where they are and build themselves a democracy.  

For a country of just 36 million or so and that has a low birth rate, 250,000 immigrants per year is an astonishing number. It does not take a stats guru or a professor of sociology to figure out that a quota like that will radically change the face of the country before long. Canada’s face has already noticeably changed. We all experience the evidence of this when we can’t understand what the new bureaucrat on the other end of the phone is trying to articulate. If we can’t understand her English, has she been assimilated? Is she not changing the face of Canada? Should she have that job if she can’t speak the language properly? How much money was spent on this woman to get her to the point of getting a government job, the salary for which, by the way, will be forked over by the taxpayer? The figures over at Immigration Watch peg the cost of immigration at over 23 billion dollars annually. That’s a lot of money to spend on people you import to take your jobs! Ask my friend’s son if he can get a job in Calgary. Go and look at your local fast food joint and count the number of visible immigrants you see at the counter there. They are standing in the place of your teenager who can’t find work. They are standing in the place of your college student who needs seasonable or nighttime employment. They are costing us, not only money and jobs, but hope. They are causing many of us, in particular our youth seeking entry level employment, to border on despair. These immigration figures need to be reduced dramatically. When a small country that is not growing much by birth rate imports that many foreigners annually who will not properly assimilate, erosion of whatever Canadian culture we have left inevitably results. Lack of assimilation resulting in the erosion of Canadian culture is why Muslim ‘honor’ killings are happening here now, which killings are not only dishonorable but deserving of the death penalty. Lack of assimilation resulting in the erosion of Canadian culture is why the CBC is always wondering and puzzling about what defines Canada. They don’t know what defines it anymore because multiculturalism has made it to mean anything. The Swedes have been puzzling over their new identity as well. Every nation that does not assimilate its immigrants will struggle with an identity crisis. About 375,000 babies are born in Canada yearly. That is not much more than the number of immigrants who are added to our population. And it needs to be noted that many of these babies are the babies of immigrants, for immigrants reproduce at a higher rate than the rest of the population. As our older folks die off, the pace at which immigrants encroach quickens, and the cultural change effected by them increases. If the immigration rate is not cut back, especially in light of the favoritism that our agencies extend to immigrants, more dyed-in-the-wool Canadians will be dismissed at the employment lines, more ‘over-qualified’ Canadian resumes will be regulated to the trash without due consideration, and more turbans and veils will stand in the place of your bright-eyed girls and your earnest boys. It doesn’t matter how skilled and diligent a person is, when, regardless of merit, the job he applies for has already been reserved for a visible minority. 

Visible minorities are favored in this country, which means that others are treated unfairly. Some of us are getting irate about holding the dirty end of that stick. An immigrant does not even have to be seen to be favored. He can be favored by the ear as well as the eye. Back to Cross-Country Check-Up’s coast to coast call-in show. “Should Canada receive more refugees and migrants?” That was the question. I remember beginning to wonder why all the callers were saying ‘yes’ to the question. Then it dawned on me that the callers all sounded alike. They all sounded like first generation immigrants from second and third world countries—countries like Syria, Turkey, and Eritrea. Not surprisingly, such callers wanted no limits put on immigration at all. Then I recalled how Cross-Country Check-Up screens its callers. For example, during their ‘recommend a book’ episode, I called in to recommend a classic Christian tome on the nature of God. Upon the reception of my call, the screener water-boarded me with questions that were more suitable to be posed to a terrorist; then I was put on hold until my line went conveniently dead a couple of minutes later. Is it a coincidence that every single caller during hour one of the refugee/migrant episode sounded like a visible minority? It is not unjust to suppose, given CBC’s treatment of me in the past, that objectors to the question were screened out. Calls from a few objectors were received in hour two; but I think that this was allowed in order for the bias to not be so obvious. People tend to remember what they heard last. So the impression of bias is lessened by this maneuver of letting objectors get through near the end. Not only was CBC biased in the callers they accepted, but they stacked the deck with guests too. It would have been easy to find guests who would take issue with the open door policy that CBC was peddling. But CBC is not our public broadcaster; CBC is our biased broadcaster. It speaks for certain segments of the public; it does not, and will not, speak for all persons equally, even though ‘equality’ is its pretended idol. 

When an objector was permitted to speak, the usual line was thrown at him by the host: “We’re a nation of immigrants.” This line is calculated to silence any opposition to what would amount to open borders for all. It reminds me of how leftist Americans try to silence righteous critics of Obama’s dictatorial ways by crying racism every time that president’s policies and orders are justly criticized. Immigrants are not the same as they once were; and we do not treat them as we once did. Comparing hard-working immigrants of old to newfangled immigrants who are on-the-take is hardly a fair comparison. It is like comparing a basket of good apples with the odd bad one in it, to a basket of spoiled apples with the odd shiny one in it. When you spoil immigrants as soon as they get off the boat or plane, you are more likely to end up with whiners than workers, or users than helpers. I once saw a turban-attired man wheel his shopping cart through the check-out without paying for the jugs of milk that he had stowed underneath. It took me off guard, and the sight of his kids threw me off some more, and by the time I had decided to say something, it was too late. This is what I am talking about. The man was a cold-hearted taker. He was a thief. There is no justification for it. My guess is that had I gone outside, I would have witnessed him getting into a late model car. Immigrants have an aversion to cars that don’t look new. Have you ever noticed that? Try to spot one driving a beater. The beaters are for your sons and daughters who can’t find jobs. Since that incident at the supermarket, I have steeled myself to never overlook theft again. The passivity and hesitation that got the better of me that day still nag me, and I am thankful for it. It means that I’m leaning on the right side even though I don’t always respond in the right way. This immigrant was no doubt helped by government agencies and programs that the rest of us don’t even know exist, and what thanks does he extend? He steals from the citizens of the country that was kind enough to adopt him and to nurture him with all manner of perks and goodness! Because he won’t get his hand cut off for stealing, he reaches forth his hand to steal. 

We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of pilgrim descendants, with immigrants thrown in. There is an answer, too, regarding the line that the Indians were here first. If you believe that the Indians have a claim to your land and property on the basis of having been here first, give them all you have, and you, you move to somewhere like Iraq. You don’t like that idea? Then consider the truth: our pilgrim fathers occupied this land that was being used for almost nothing but savages killing each other, which they are still doing on reserves. Almost every Indian who is murdered in Canada is murdered by a fellow Indian. The Indians forfeited this land by their behavior on it.             

The most memorable moment of this episode (the low point for the host) was when an Indian called in and said ‘no’ to more immigrants. “We’re all refugees,” the Indian said, “except Indians.” Her meaning was that no one belongs in Canada except the Indians. This was an uncomfortable moment for the host because the CBC favors both immigrants and Indians. To a CBC host, a choice between an Indian and an immigrant is like choosing between a bag of gold and a big shiny diamond. To reasonable Canadians, however, the choice between the two is like a choice between a trumped up liability and a cooked up debt. To make matters even more pathetic, the Indian went on to say that we should help Indians only, even though her first point was that we should all emigrate! Most callers who were allowed to say their piece could not think beyond the basic fact that Canada is a large country geographically. There is lots of space in Canada. Therefore let everyone in who wants in. That was as far as the analytical part of their minds could go, as if the only criterion to consider in the matter of mass immigration were geography! No talk of all the logistical costs, or of government assistance, or housing, or health care, or lawsuits by pouting, unsatisfied immigrants; no talk of how, when, and for how long the taxpayers will be paying for the placement of all these immigrants across the broad spaces of our great land. Just bring them in; there’s lots of room!   

The truth is that a lot of the immigrants who want to come over have been responsible for changing their own countries into failed states. Is it wise to receive Iraqi men, for instance, who were part of that well-furnished, US-trained military that fled before terrorists who came to town with a few guns on the backs of trucks? What honorable citizens they would make! Will cowards make good citizens? Prospective immigrants to Canada ought to be screened with as much vigor as CBC screened my call. My call was screened in order to deny Christianity; each prospective immigrant needs to be screened in order to deny violent religions like Islam, persons who can’t speak English, those who remain committed to their old countries, those whom we suspect will import violent cultural values, and those whose work ethic is suspicious. Yes, we should be merciful enough to accept some refugees who cannot presently help themselves. But even these must be screened in order to weed out potential offenders, malingerers, and activists. Immigrants fall into several groups: workers, malingerers, agitators, offenders, and terrorists. Some fit into more groups than one, and the importation of each group needs to be scaled back, even the workers group. If we do not begin to slam down the engine break on our multicultural motor, we are going to have Muslim thugs burning cars in Canada, not just France; we are going to have Muslim thugs raping girls in Canada, not just Sweden. The Swedes have been told to integrate into the ‘new’ Sweden because it is contrary to the spirit of political correctness and multiculturalism to ask the immigrants to do the integrating! (See I am Swedish, but I live in ‘Absurdistan’ on YouTube.) Mass importation of persons from the Middle-East and Africa is causing Europe to drink a cup of wrath straight from the uncivilized edicts of the Koran. We do not love our own citizens when we accept persons to live alongside them who are comfortable with Sharia Law and theocracy in the name of Allah. Those who have an ideology of non-negotiable violent totalitarianism in their mind as the ideal society to strive after cannot integrate, assimilate, and live in peace with persons who believe in capitalism, democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. These people who are mired in civil wars, tribal conflicts, and guerilla warfare must be witnessed to from afar and must be left to their own devices in the hope that revolutions will sort them out or that their share of iniquity will soon be as full as that of the Amorites had to be before their land was taken over (Genesis 15.16.) It may be that the people we import from zones of strife will be the means to our punishment for polluting our land with the blood of babes. But it is better, as David did, to hope for God to judge us by plagues instead of barbarians (2 Samuel 24.)                

The Bible says to love thy neighbor. Is that not proof that we should open our borders to all? Who are our neighbors? Our neighbors begin with those who are nearest. And each Canadian neighbor is in debt. So if we have federal, provincial, and regional debts, we should take care of those debts before we attempt to care for hundreds of thousands of immigrants year after year. By reducing the immigration rate and by reserving immigration for those who are philosophically sound, if not financially secure also, we can more easily climb out of our deficit, begin to pay down the debt, and thereby help our neighbors closest to us. And who are our closest neighbors? Our closest neighbors are our fellow taxpayers who come from the ranks of our relatives, our friends, our next-door chums, and our rising generations. The first thing that a soldier does during a chemical attack is put on his own mask. Then he is fit to help others put on theirs. In the same way, it is by protecting ourselves first that we are better equipped to help others. We will make life better for the immigrants that we let in by first putting our house in order. We love our distant neighbors best when we first become good neighbors locally. Imagine a country that is austere enough to pay down its debt and avoid future deficits; then imagine the good that it can do for its citizens, its carefully selected immigrants, and even those who must remain abroad. If we love ourselves, our neighbors, and the world, that must be our ideal with respect to immigration. We must aim to make this nation a place most longed for by foreigners, not based on the freebies it hands out, but on the basis of its freedom from debt, violence, and dictatorial factions like the Muslim Brotherhood. This can only be accomplished by implementing a sensible, wise, cautious, and what many would falsely label, ‘draconian,’ approach to immigration. Once we plumb the meaning of draconian, we soon learn that it would be most draconian to import Muslims unthinkingly, for the Muslims are the ones who own that religion which is most in line with Draco’s ways: for Draco, as legend has it, prescribed the death penalty for even petty offences, which is precisely the kind of injustice that passes for justice in countries ruled in the name of Allah.    

Friday, December 11, 2015

DISPARITY BETWEEN THE GENDERS

I heard something on CBC Radio on July 8th, 2015, which demonstrates how dishonest the feminists are. I do not know why the CBC even reported on the story because it brings to light certain embarrassing disparities between the genders. So the CBC reported the following facts about a chess competition that was set to culminate in Greece: 83% of the competitors were boys; and most of the girls who were in the competition were in categories that were less competitive. The following observations ought to be drawn from this news: (1) even though girls are being pushed into domains that they have no desire to be part of, their numbers are low; (2) when they do enter these domains, they do rather poorly. 

The CBC’s rationalizing counterattack came in the words of a girl. This girl said that it’s not that the boys are smarter, it’s about who works at it more. At best, if we are to believe this opinion, we have to admit that girls are lazier, for they do not work at it as much. The truth is, they are not lazier than boys; their interest in chess is just lacking; and it is lacking because girls are less disposed than boys to play at games of an intellectual nature. Another girl was more humble, and did the right thing by saying that we should never mind focusing on boys versus girls. The CBC and radical feminists will never quit stirring up conflict between the genders, though. Even if women ended up excelling men in every arena, the feminists would hammer away against men anyway, for they resent their own hearts for pining after men no matter what they do to convince themselves that men are no longer desirable or necessary. 

Men are more inclined to do brain work. They are better thinkers. It comes down to this: men are smarter. There is no game that puts brain power to the test more than chess does. When it comes to competing in that game, boys and men outclass girls and women. It should be okay to state facts. The CBC is ashamed to do that. Now that girls and women have had a leg up for a few decades and have been given so many more advantages than boys and men, it is becoming obvious that we have little reason to bewail the lack of opportunities that girls and women have had throughout history in fields requiring intellectual brawn. It has always been right to train boys up for pursuits that are mentally demanding, and to reserve girls for the more domestic and supportive pursuits. Eve was created as Adam’s helper, not his leader, not his competitor, not his intellectual equal. We should be thankful that for the better part of history, we have operated according to this part of the Genesis pattern. The best writers have been men; the best painters have been men; the best scientists have been men; the best composers have been men; and not one good preacher has ever been a woman. If we had operated according to a feminist pattern, imagine the dark ages that we would now be living in! 

Now that women have more liberty than ever to compete—now that they are favored for positions of power based on their gender rather than the merits of their work, what do we see? Men are still outpacing women intellectually in virtually every arena that one can think of or check out. Women are weaker; women are not as smart; women are more easily deceived. The Bible has revealed all of this long ago. God is not afraid of the facts. We should imitate his example. Women are better at giving birth, nursing babies, and cleaning house. So it must be admitted that they surpass men in some things. Occasionally, women excel even at writing. When that happens, they write something like this: “Woman was made for man’s delight;/Charm, O woman, be not afraid!/His shadow by day, his moon by night,/Woman was made” (Christina Rossetti, A Helpmeet for Him.) Feminists hate poetry like that, especially when it comes from a woman’s pen, in this case, Christina Rossetti’s 19th century, Victorian quill. 

Why do feminists scorn such truth? Why are they so dishonest about the disparate abilities of boys and girls and men and women? They are dishonest because they are wicked, unsaved sinners. That is the root cause of their bitter, rationalizing ways. What occasions their dishonesty is the large pool of facts that they do not like. They are always avoiding facts, falsifying data, and rationalizing every detail or story that does not support their hope that women are greater, better human beings than men are. They are always pitting men against women, as if the genders ought to be continuously at war with each other. 

The more wicked citizens among us have just elected a Liberal band of debased persons to govern the affairs of this country. The gullible greenhorn at the helm, so submissive to women and fringe groups is he, made sure that his cabinet conformed to gender parity and minority favoritism. That makes him, not a fair man who hires persons based on merit, but a sexist and a racist. Boys and men will continue to be unfairly treated in order to arrive at the perverted feminist vision. Indeed, this unfair treatment will go on overdrive now. 

A lot of damage will be done by the unbiblical Liberal setup, and we will all suffer, not just boys and men. Those who will suffer the most are the boys and girls who are being brainwashed to believe that the differences between the genders ought to be denied and erased. The years of Liberal rule will cost us much more than a Conservative mandate would. It will cost us more money because of the deficits and useless inquiries that are promised. It will cost us more lives because abortion will have less conservatism to curb it and because medical suicide will be legalized and abused. It will cost us more love because only hatred can be promoted by such policies. 

In a feminist-friendly environment, Christians can take comfort in the fact that the Bible has prophesied that, by and large, men will rule over women until the end of time. That’s the teaching of Genesis 3.16: man shall rule over woman. Whatever evil things balky women are devising to do in the name of feminism, no one less than God himself is standing in the way of the fullness of evil that they want to implement. To this fact, a hearty Amen should be stirred up in every Christian heart.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

WHY DON'T MUSLIMS VOTE?

So the CBC wants to know why the Muslim turnout is low on voting day. They’re concerned, you see, because Muslim votes would be liberal votes, would they not? Why not do a call-in show over the radio to see what the problem is? What happens then? 

I took some notes as the broadcast proceeded. This was an episode of Ontario Today some time shortly before the federal election in the fall of 2015. The host had a guest drop in to help cheer on the Muslims and to encourage them all the way to the voting booth. She popped into the discussion every time a Muslim was less than exuberant about voting, which was often. Ten callers were received during the one hour program. Nine of them were Muslim; one was a virtually unknown liberal candidate. 

Here is how it all went down. The first caller was against voting because Canada was at war with Isis. The second caller voiced the same concern, though it was stated more generally. The third caller was the liberal candidate, who said he agreed with the first two callers. The fourth caller admitted to voting variously, but was careful to affirm a hatred for Harper and an approval of the war against Isis. The fifth caller said he was a voter, but that he found Harper to be anti-Muslim. Caller number six was a voter, but against ‘warmonger Harper.’ This caller was concerned about the language barrier that Muslims face in Canada. The barrier was a roadblock to voting, the caller complained. Caller seven admitted to being a voter, but was quick to add that Islam forbids Muslims to vote in a system that is not Islamic. The eighth caller was a voter, but stated that he believed the barrier to be that Muslims falsely believe that it is wrong for Muslims to vote. The ninth caller was a voter who railed against Harper’s foreign policy and was upset about his position on the niqab and his hard words against jihadi terrorists. The tenth and final caller was a voter as well. This one stated that Muslims are more engaged in policies abroad, by which he meant that they are more attached to their countries of origin, which are Muslim.

The liberal candidate being against any hard sentiment toward jihadi Muslims is no surprise. No further comment necessary on that. In summary, only one Muslim out of nine approved an aggressive stance against Isis. Five did not approve. That is, of course, scary, because if you’re a Muslim who is not against Isis, should that not make us wonder if you’re a Muslim who is for Isis? Barbarians are out to cut off the heads of anyone who is not Muslim or not Muslim enough. If it is not just to go to war against such people, then I guess nothing would qualify as a just war in the minds of some people. Another interesting gleaning concerns the complaint about the language barrier. If the free language programs that we offer to immigrants are not making immigrants fluent enough to cast a ballot, then we should wonder if these programs are not just make-work projects for teachers who get paid for poor results. Such programs might be a tax burden that benefits Canada very little. Isn’t it right to expect immigrants to learn the language of the people whose country they want to profit from? If your English is so broken and halting that you cannot get through the process of casting a ballet, you have not been assimilated; assimilation should be mandatory for all immigrants who want to be Canadian citizens, should it not? Maybe the most interesting comments were the ones about it not being lawful for a Muslim to vote. When you come from a country that dictates who your leader will be and when the Koran is your guidebook, voting in a democracy will seem strange and improper. Observe the following difference: the New Testament assumes that a Christian will reside where the magistrate will not be Christian and it urges Christians to pray for peace and justice to reign; the Koran commands its followers to obtain power in the name of Allah by violent means and to maintain power by suppression. 

If one letter represents ten opinions or perhaps even a hundred or more, the same might be the case regarding callers. Well, five Muslim callers out of nine opposed any opposition to Isis. How many Isis sympathizers do we have in Canada, do you think? I think, many.

Here is a blend of deductions from the foregoing information and my opinions based on other research that I’ve done. Many of our Muslim citizens are okay with Isis and they secretly approve of, or support, terrorism. Many of them are too attached to their dictatorial origins to want to learn our language or to cast a vote. Many of them prefer Sharia Law to democracy, coups to elections, and Imams to politicians. Many of them are quiet regarding any position on Isis and terrorism in general. When insurgencies begin to come on strong, they cheer: on the inside when standing before ‘old stock’ Canadians, and on the outside when standing before ‘Allahu Akbar’ devotees. ‘Warfare is ordained for you,’ it says in Surah 2.216 of the Koran. Fighting, to the informed adherent of Islam, is the passageway to a better world. So it says in Surah 4.74. Islam is a religion of war; war, to Muslims, is regarded as a gateway to Allah’s paradise. Many Muslim citizens of Canada, as ignorant as they are about their Islamic heritage and their unholy book, have learned at least that much. They are so steeped in the primitive Islamic mindset that they hesitate to say a disparaging word about the most violent groups of human beings that the world has ever been cursed to support. Some Canadian Muslims are afraid to speak out against their bloodthirsty brethren, though they would like to. But many others are in love with the prospect of Islamic power in Canada, even it means that Canada could become a war-torn state just like the one they came to Canada to escape from. 

Liberals want change because deficit, corruption, and the progress of immorality are attributes that they’re most comfortable with. Muslims want change because they’ve never been able to get comfortable with the idea of a peaceful society. Liberals and Muslims deserve each other, and conservatives are stuck with both of them. Liberals kiss Muslims to court their vote and donations from Arabia; Muslims kiss their own and give others the Judas kiss. Are these hard words? If you are a Muslim, why not disprove me by renouncing your Koran that calls for tyranny? Coming to Canada, or to any democracy, as a Muslim, is hypocritical. Either stay in a country that implements your Koranic laws, or renounce your faith and come on over. You can’t be a practicing Muslim and democratic at the same time; the Koran forbids it. Be true to your faith, or give it up for something better.

Some Muslims like it when they get here because it strikes them as a sudden relief to not fear rape moment by moment and to not have to dodge bullets daily. But after they’ve been at peace for a while, with no one to rob them, molest them, intimidate them, or kill one of their family members, they begin to yearn for the old comfortable ways of oppression, lashings, blood feuds, and beheadings. 

Thursday, December 3, 2015

THE FREETHINKER, 'PROGRESSIST' MINDSET

The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti went to France to do some pre-suppositional journalism after the massacre took place in November. While there she interviewed some Parisians. I am glad that she interviewed the young hipster Parisians because they were the principal targets on that now infamous night of terror.

When asked about the attacks on their fellows and on Parisian society, these postmodern hippies had little to say. But what they did say revealed a lot. A hippie is a person who rejects the notion of absolute truth, authoritative norms, and social conventions. A hippie also advocates nonviolence. So I mean it when I call these tidy, dainty, soft-spoken French citizens hippies. They do not look like the hippies of the sixties. But their hearts and philosophies are one. 

They call themselves Freethinkers and ‘Progressists.’ What do they mean by these appellations? Freethinkers are those who have discarded Revelation. Traditionally, this has meant the discarding of biblical doctrines, ethics, and certainties. Nowadays it means the discarding of any text that might be put forward by anyone as authoritative. And what does ‘Progressist’ mean? ‘Progressist’ is a French malapropism. What these French youth mean to say when they confess it, is that they see themselves as ‘Progressives.’ What is a ‘Progressive’? The word ‘Progressive’ is virtually synonymous with ‘Freethinker.’ A Progressive is for emancipation from oppressive superstition. To the Progressive, oppressive superstition is whatever purports to be authoritative, in particular the Bible and its patriarchal structure. 

How progressive and freethinking are these well-kept, genteel French youth? Are these postmodern hippies emancipating themselves from oppressive superstition? Do they really regard nothing as authoritative? Au contraire, they believe what they are taught to believe; they say what they are drilled to say; they act as they are trained to act. Their teachers, professors, media, celebrities, and politicians have so thoroughly pacified them into submission by systematic indoctrination that they are nothing but docile and resigned when terror strikes. Are they emancipated from the powers that be? No, not at all; they are so submissive to the establishment that they fall in with it step by step, cowering to Islamic oppression and the encroaching edicts of the Koran. Like the establishment has taught them, they refuse to identify the enemy. What do they call Isis? Islamic terrorists? Bloody barbarians? No, they call Isis ‘Daesh.’ I have read that Daesh is an Arabic acronym for Isis. That seems correct, for I have heard it used by Middle-Easterners in their native tongue to do exactly that. Some pundit said that ‘Daesh’ sounds insulting to members of Isis. If ‘Daesh’ is just an acronym for Isis, there is no reason to believe that the word is insulting, however. It is likely no more insulting than the word ‘Isis.’ The only reason the word ‘Daesh’ is being used by Europeans to identify Isis is because it makes it easier to live in denial of who the enemy is. It makes it easier to deny that the enemy has something to do with Islam. The word ‘Isis’ is too easily fathomed, you see. It has become common knowledge that Isis refers to an Islamic State of some sort. The word even sounds like Islam just a bit. Using the word ‘Daesh,’ on the other hand, allows you to identify the enemy as nothing but a boogeyman. You would not go to war against a boogeyman, would you? You would not change your routine for a boogeyman. Using the word ‘Daesh’ allows you to stay in your cocoon—until Isis strikes a blow so hard that your cocoon is completely blasted and becomes irreparable, that is. ‘Daesh’ is a meaningless, inoffensive sound for postmodern hippies to utter when they are asked probing, uncomfortable questions about what’s going on. 

Here is how these freethinking kids are so easily instructed to submit instead of emancipate. Some propaganda is put out there by the ‘Progressist’ Media that the youth are regularly indoctrinated by; the youth come to the media with open uncritical minds, calmly fall to their knees, close their eyes, open their mouths, and receive the ‘Progressist’ wafer. 

Here is the kind of wafer that these progressive youth consume without freely thinking. On The Current, Piya set up this little propaganda vignette to close her hour with on November 23rd. The vignette was about WW2 slogans. As the story goes, in 1939 some slogans were commissioned by the British government to boost morale and to motivate. The two slogans that were actually issued were about courage and freedom. What is emphasized in the vignette, however, is a third slogan. It was commissioned, but never issued. Over two million copies of the slogan were commissioned; that is, made. But not one of them was issued; that is, used. The slogan was shelved. The slogan went like this: “Keep calm and carry on.” To romanticize the passive slogan, the story is told about a copy of it being found, over fifty years after the commission, in an obscure bookstore. “Tsk, tsk,” we are supposed to think, “how sad that it was never used! and yet how wonderful that it was rediscovered!” 

What message are Piya and her team sending by this vignette? “Never mind courage and freedom; just calmly carry on as usual; there is no Isis; there is no trouble; there is no reason whatsoever to be concerned about the present Islamic Crusade that is being waged; there is no reason to worry about this ghastly terrorism that is threatening the civilized world; it’s all just a boogeyman. Even though 130 of your fellow citizens were more coarsely killed than common pigs are slaughtered by a farmer, just calmly carry on and everything will work itself out. Some crazy thing called ‘Daesh’ is responsible; you don’t have to understand it; you don’t have to oppose it; you don’t have to do anything but go about your normal routine. Don’t let the boogeyman scare you.” 

That is the message and that is exactly what these French youth are doing. They are just calmly carrying on. No doubt on the inside they are in turmoil and confusion, questioning everything; at least we hope so. I’m not saying that these French youth even heard this piece of propaganda. My point is that this charming, deceptive, palliative vignette is the kind of thing that is being pitched to gullible youngsters and it is the kind of thing that they readily and uncritically accept, in spite of their profession of faith in progressive, freethinking philosophy. They may not be submitting to the Revelation that they have been brainwashed to think is oppressive. But they are submitting to their Leftist Masters, and thereby presenting their soft necks to their Muslim Overlords. They have avoided the peaceful Revelation of Jesus Christ; but they are being chained, link by link and step by step, to the most violent false religion of our time—maybe the most vicious, hideous form of religion that the world has ever seen. They are being chained into compliance with Islam and Sharia Law, not by force like the slaves were chained, but merely by propaganda vignettes that any ten year old child, properly brought up, would be able to deconstruct. That is what makes this postmodern form of progressive freethought so pitiful. 

Western progressives are more powerful than their Middle-Eastern oppressors, but yet they are willingly oppressed, not by a religion that merely tells you not to sleep around, but by a religion that will kill you for doing so. Formerly, the church just asked women to cover their heads during a church service. How oppressive! The progressives will not put up with that! But as progressive as they are, they willingly come under the yoke of a religion that demands women to be covered head to toe no matter where they go. Exchanging the bad old Christian patriarchy for Islamic oppression is like exchanging a father who cautiously gives you freedom to go out with your friends for a tyrant who will kill you for having a drink with your friends after work. Freethinking, progressive thought, because it has scorned God and has refused his kind, reasonable word, ends up in bondage to fanatical religion of the most unreasonable, cruel kind. 

It is a judgment, is it not? Do you want to keep on sinning, sleeping around, and drinking to excess? You do not want to receive the message of repentance, faith, and decent living that the Christian religion is about? What if God decides not to draw you to his message on account of your stubborn determination to keep on sinning? What if God is so sick of you slandering his name by the term ‘patriarchy,’ that instead of drawing you to himself for mercy, he draws murderous Muslims to you in order to punish you for your continued obstinacy and disobedience? Commenting on Psalm 103.8, where the mercy, patience, and kindness of God are extolled, George Webbe has this to say: “And thou [God] dost sustain many wrongs of the sons of men, being crushed with their sins as a cart is laden with sheaves: but if still they continue to load thee, thou wilt ease thyself of that burden, and cast it on the ground of confusion.” This is the spiritual side of what happened in Paris. Many souls were cast on the ground of confusion by God so that the rest will pay attention. People want to continue sinning and continue to have fun doing it, but how long will God put up with that? How long will he put up with sinners who will not appropriate the Saviour sent down from heaven to save them from their sins? Did Jesus carry sin on the cross for nothing? Is repentance not commanded after that? It is commanded, not much by pastors these days, and not by the Unholy Church of Rome; but by the word of God it is commanded. It is one thing to throw off the oppressive Catholic religion. It is another thing to reject the truths that that church has perverted and to become a freethinker who will not think for himself any more than a person could under the yoke of Medieval Rome.     

That is what happens when you discard the Bible as your Revelation. You inevitably come under other forms of authority. You become the willing victims of Satan, sin, false teachers, and terrorism. Follow the Bible, however, and God grants you authority, through faith in Jesus, over Satan by prayer, over sin by sanctification, over false teachers by the word, and over terrorists by the mandate of self-defense contained in that word.  

It may be that some freethinking folks will turn to God’s biblical revelation on account of Islam’s many assaults. Listen to this from Enoch Mellor: “When society has become drugged with the Circean [dangerously bewitching] cup of worldliness, and the voices that come from eternity are unheeded, if not unheard, even terror has its merciful mission.”