Tuesday, November 28, 2006

CS Lewis

This being the anniversary of CS Lewis' birthday I thought Id make a blog entry about him. Around the time I was finishing highschool, I developed an interest in theology and apologetics. I suppose it was triggered by a variety of factors. Here in the west, we are bombarded daily by an outlook on life that is humanist, atheistic and materialistic. Furthermore almost everyone of my friends (from highschool, not the Serbian ones), lived life as if spirituality did not exist, as if the ultimate goal was sensual pleasures and material gain. This was further reinforced in the media when I got back home from school and switched on the tv. Every soap, every tv series, every reality show, churned out the same monotonous materialist God-less message. It was only logical that my faith took a heavy battering, and some temptations to fit into the western outlook of the world forced me to really agonise over the fundamental questions of life. Furthermore around that time Islam burst onto the scene, and its suicide bombers seemed to have infinitely more conviction and belief than could be found in the decadent West. From an early age Ive resisted the habit to lie to myself and have strived to be an honest seeker of the truth, so I couldnt just put these issues to the back of my mind and just ignore the fundamental questions till my death bed. As Lewis said:

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.

I have absolute faith in the famous Bible passage: 'Seek and ye shall find'. I believe if you strive for the truth with humility and honesty then you cannot fail to find it. One of the first writers I came accross in the field of Christian apologetics was CS Lewis. It was he who honestly stated:

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.

He is famous for his fantasy works such as 'The Chronicles of Narnia', but I am more interested in his non-fictional writings.
As a teenager, he abandoned the Christianity of his home and became interested in mythology and the occult. His separation from Christianity began when he started to view his religion as a chore and as a duty; around this time he also gained an interest in the occult as his studies expanded to include such topics. Lewis quoted Lucretius as having one of the strongest arguments for atheism:

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam
Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa
Had God designed the world, it would not be
A world so frail and faulty as we see.

Influenced by arguments with his Oxford colleague and friend J. R. R. Tolkien, and by G.K. Chesterton's book, The Everlasting Man, he slowly rediscovered Christianity. He pondered:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?

Later he was to say:

If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.

He fought greatly up to the moment of his conversion noting:

"I came into Christianity kicking and screaming."

He described his last struggle in Surprised by Joy:

"You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England."

It was intriguing to me how such a dedicated atheist could find a path to God with such resistance. Lewis' approach to religious belief as a skeptic, and his following conversion by the evidence, are what made him of interest to me. As he was later to say:

A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.

His rejection of the luke-warm, relativistic values secular society has tried to impose on religion is demonstrated when he states:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Lewis was basically saying that there are three options:
1. Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
2.Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
3.Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine.

Lewis' writing style and logic remind me of the type of brains that the grammar schools of this country used to churn out, when teachers used to teach their pupils how to think, not what to think. My history GCSE should have been called 'The Evils of Nazism' GCSE, I covered no other period of history whatsoever. Not even English history! How ironic that in an attempt to build a moral framework for 'diversity', they imposed an education with no diversity. The attempts to tarnish all nationalism, tribalism, racial consciousness, and homogenous societies need to have a starting point. If they can establish Nazism as the greatest evil in history in the minds of impressionable children, then they can discredit any ideology with even remotely similar values by simply screaming 'Nazi'. Anyhow I digress. Lewis has so many great books, essays and quotes that It would take me weeks to sum up all his arguments. Niether do I have the time for that, and even if I did, I doubt anyone would have the time or inclination to read it. So I'll finish off by providing one indepth example of the value of Lewis' apologetics:
From the Problem of Pain (Chapter 3: Divine Goodness):
Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatens us with the following dilemma.
On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.
On the other hand if God's moral judgement differs from ours so that our 'black' may be His 'white, we can mean nothing by calling him good; for to say 'God is good', while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours is really only to say 'God is we know not what'. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) 'good' we shall obey, if at all, only through fear- and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend...
...When the relevant difference between the Divine ethics and your own appears to you, you will not, in fact be in any doubt that the change demanded of you is in the direction you already called 'better'. The Divine 'goodness' differs from ours, but it is not sheerly different: it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle from a child's first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child has learned to draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to make from the very beginning...
...By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness- the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing,'What does it matter so long as they are contented?' We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven- a senile benevolence who, as they say, 'liked to see young people enjoying themselves' and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be said at the end of each day, 'a good time was had by all'...I do not claim to be an exception: I should very much like to live in a universe which was governed on such lines. But since it is abundantly cleart that I dont, and since I have reason to believe, nonetheless, that God is Love, I conclude that my conception of love needs correction...
...Love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness...There is a kindness in Love: but Love and kindeness are not coterminous...Kindness consents very readily to the removal of its object- we have all met people whose kindness to animals is constantly leading them to kill animals lest they should suffer. Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering... If God is Love he is, by definition, something more than mere kindness. And it appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, inexorable sense...
...The lowest type, and one which is 'love' at all only by an extension of the word, is that which an artist feels for an artefact. God's relation to man is pictured thus in Jeremiah's vision of the potter and the clay, or when St. Peter speaks of the whole Church as a building on which God is at work, and of the individual members as stones... We are, not metaphorically but in very truth, a Divine work of art, something that God is making, and therefore something with which He will not be satisfied until it has a certain character. Here again we come up against the 'intolerable compliment'. Over a sketch made idly to amuse a child, an artist may not take much trouble: he may be content to let it go even though it is not exactly as he meant it to be. But over the great pictures of his life- the work which he loves, though in a different fashion, as intensely as a man loves a woman or a mother a child- he will take enless trouble- and would, doubtless, thereby give endless trouble to the picture if it were sentient. One can imagine a sentient picture, after being rubbed and scraped and recommended for the tenth time, wishing that it were only a thumbnail sketch whose making was over in a minute. In the same way, it is natural for us to wish that God had designed for us a less glorious and less arduous destiny; but then we are wishing not for more love but less...
...When we want to be something other than the thing God wants us to be, we must be wanting what, in fact, will not make us happy...
It is not simply that God has arbitrarily made us such that He is our only good. Rather God is the only good of all creatures: and by necessity, each must find its good in the kind and degree of the fruition of God which is proper to its nature: but that there ever could be any other good, is an atheistic dream. George Macdonald, in a passage I cannot now find, represents God as saying to men,'You must be strong with my strength and blessed with my blessedness, for I have no other to give you'. That is the conclusion of the whole matter. God gives us what He has, not what He has not: He gives the happiness that there is, not the happiness that is not. To be God- to be like God and to share in His goodness in creaturely response- to be miserable- these are the only three alternatives. If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows- the only food that any possible universe ever can grow- then we must starve eternally.

The Orthodox CS Lewis

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Multi-culturalism: How it began and what it will result in

The internal state of America and the state of its society arent usually of much interest to me. Its only its global hegemony, and the military adventures of the USA that I pay attention to. Having said that, quite a lot of whats going wrong in America is going wrong in Europe too, since its also sleepwalking into future racial, cultural and religious problems. Before the age of the internet there wasnt much of an outlet for 'dissident' journalists to voice their true opinions, and they seemed willing to tow the politically correct line. As problems have gotten worse, and the opportunity for dissent (through the internet more than anything else) have presented themselves, Ive noticed increasing numbers of journalists voicing their heretical opinions. And because more and more people have had access to the internet, its becoming obvious that larges swathes of people secretly agree with them. For example, trawling through the usual forums I frequent, I came accross a link to the Brussels Journal, which has some very interesting articles. This one about the background of multi-culturalism, caught my eye. The following are 4 most interesting extracts which shows that journalists are beginning to ask the questions they didnt dare consider not so long ago. All it takes is for them to be honest seekers of the truth and to have a backbone. Both seemed absent for so long, but times are changing.

'There is mounting evidence that Multiculturalism was deliberately encouraged by various groups. If anything, it is an indirect result of globalization through multinational corporations and the creation of an international political elite whose mutual loyalty increasingly supersedes national interests.'

'Perhaps Multiculturalism partly is an anti-European ideology, with the United States – and later Canada, Australia and New Zealand – distancing themselves from their European heritage, whereas Europe has distanced itself from itself. I noticed on one conservative American blog that it was perfectly permissible to trash European culture in any way possible, but when I carefully asked some questions about whether the cultural impact of massive Latin American immigration would be exclusively beneficial, I was accused of being “racist.”

''Multiculturalism originated in the United States during the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, which triggered a complete re-thinking of American cultural identity in favor of repudiating the European aspects of its heritage to transform into a “universal” nation. Multiculturalism was exported to the rest of the Western world through American cultural influence, and was picked up by a Western Europe, still with deep emotional scars following its near self-destruction during two world wars, which was then in the process of leaving its colonies and suffered from a post-colonial guilt complex and the identity crisis associated with this. '

'Multiculturalism thus originally had its roots in a cultural identity crisis in the West, but it was quickly expropriated by groups with their own agendas. This period, the 1960s and 70s, was also the birth of the Western Cultural Revolution, a hippie youth rebellion against the established Western culture and institutions that was deeply influenced by Marxist-inspired ideologies. The anti-Western component in Multiculturalism suited them just fine. Following the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 90s, when economic Marxism suffered a blow in credibility although it didn’t die, larger segments of the Western political Left switched to Multiculturalism and mass immigration as their political life insurance, and wielded the censorship of Political Correctness and “anti-racism” as an ideological club to beat their opponents and continue undermining Western institutions.'

Its surprising and refreshing to discover sites such as this one, with articles by a former journalist examining issues which he would never have been free to discuss when he was employed by a mainstream media outlet. I dont agree with everything he says, but I respect the fact that hes willing to say it how he sees it, not how he thinks will get him a promotion the quickest. When it comes to multiculturalism he notes:

'nobody wants racial togetherness. Shoving races together just makes them mad at each other. If they had any desire to be together, you wouldn’t have to shove them, would you?'

In this article he takes on immigration:

A powerful current in today’s compulsorily appropriate thought is that hostility between groups is anomalous and remediable, an exception to natural law – that it results from poor socialization, defective character, or conservative politics. If only we understood each other we would then love one another. Such is the theory. -The spirit of Marxism is much in evidence here – the view that people are amorphous, anonymous, barely sentient putty to be shaped by soulless theoreticians.

And in yet another article on multiculturalism he states:

'Today, “racist” means “one who says what everybody else knows.” It is a badge of intellectual honor.'

I couldnt agree more. Seeing as Im on the topic of America and immigration I think this would be a good place to throw in an excellent video on immigration to the US. It would seem to be from a lecture in 1990, or there abouts, judging from the graph the lecturer is presenting, and also the fact he says that the US population was heading for 300m by 2030, even though it actually hit that number a month or so ago. So it would seem that the situation is even worse than they could predict back then. One of the most effective points he makes is when he points out the impossibility of raising living standards in the third world by opening borders. The liberals are always trying to induce some guilt trip and make out that its a moral requirement to let people pour in. Well this lecture totally blows that argument away. If the third world is going to be helped to any appreciable degree it has to be on their own soil. I highly recommend this video:

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

St. Edmund the Martyr

Yesterday marked the anniversary of the martyrdom of St Edmund (circa 840–Nov 20, 870), King of East Anglia. He is infact the original patron Saint of England and has held that distinction since the 9th century, when he gave his life in defence of his faith and his homeland against the Vikings. Like St George the Great-Martyr, he was martyred in a particularly horrible manner, and his supreme self-sacrifice impressed the Righteous King Alfred the Great, strengthening the latter's resolve to hold Christian Wessex against all the odds. St Edmund continued to be revered as the patron-saint of England long after the Norman Invasion.
Aelfric's life of Saint Edmund
Ælfric (fl. 990-1020), an Anglo-Saxon monk and a prolific writer of religious literature. Ælfric translated it from a Latin life of St. Edmund by Abbo of Fleury. For those of you who dont have the time to read the whole account Ive highlighted the details of the martyrdom.
In the days of king Æthelred a very learned monk came over the sea from the monastery of Saint Benedict in the south to Archbishop Dunstan, three years before he died; and the monk was called Abbo. They talked together until Dunstan told him about saint Edmund, even as Edmund's sword-bearer had told the story to king Æthelstan when Dunstan was a young man and the sword-bearer a very old man. The monk put this whole story into a book, and a few years afterwards, when the book had come to us, we turned it into English just as it stands hereafter. Two years later this monk Abbo went home to his monastery and was almost immediately appointed abbot in that same monastery.
Edmund the blessed, king of the East Angles, was wise and honorable and by his excellent conduct ever glorified Almighty God. He was humble and devout, and continued so steadfast that he would not yield to shameful sins, nor in any direction did he bend aside his practices, but was always mindful of true doctrine. If you are made a chief man, do not exalt yourself, but be among men as one of them. He was bountiful to the poor and like a father to widows, and with benignity guided his people ever to righteousness, and controlled the violent, and lived happily in the true faith.
Then at length it happened that the Danish people came with a fleet, harrying and slaying widely over the land, as their custom is. In that fleet were their chief men, Hingwar and Hubba, associated by the devil, and they landed in Northumbria with their ships and wasted the land and slew the people. Then Hingwar turned eastward with his ships, and Hubba was left in Northumbria, having won the victory by cruel means. Then Hingwar came rowing to East Anglia in the year when Alfred the ætheling was one and twenty years old, he who afterward became the renowned king of the West-Saxons. And the aforesaid Hingwar suddenly, like a wolf, stalked over the land and slew the people--men, women and innocent children--and shamefully tormented innocent Christians. Then soon afterward he sent to the king a threatening message that he must bow down to do him homage, if he cared for his life.
So the messenger came to King Edmund and speedily announced to him Hingwar's message: "Hingwar our king, keen and victorious by sea and by land, has rule over many peoples, and has now landed here suddenly with an army, intending to take up his winter-quarters here with his host. Now he commands you to divide your secret treasures and your ancestors' wealth quickly with him, and you shall be his under-king, if you desire to live, because you do not have the power to withstand him."
King Edmund called a bishop, the one who was nearest to him at the time, and consulted with him how he should answer the savage Hingwar. The bishop feared for this terrible misfortune and for the king's life, and said that it seemed best to him that he should submit to that which Hingwar had demanded of him.
Then the king kept silence and looked at the ground, and at length said to him in kingly fashion: "Behold, oh bishop, the poor people of this land are brought to shame, and I would rather fall in battle so that my people can continued to possess their land."
And the bishop said, "Alas, dear king, your people lie slain, and you do not have sufficient forces with which you can fight, and these seamen will come and bind you alive unless you save your life by means of flight, or thus save yourself by yielding to him."
Then said Edmund the king, brave as he was: "This I desire and wish in my mind, that I should not be left alone after my dear thanes, who have been suddenly slain in their beds by these seamen, with their children and their wives. It has never been my custom to take to flight, but I would rather die, if I must, for my own land; and almighty God knows that I will never turn aside from His worship, nor from His true love, whether I die or live."
After these words he turned to the messenger whom Hingwar had sent to him, and said to him undismayed: "Verily you would now be worthy of death, but I will not defile my clean hands with your foul blood, because I follow Christ, who has given us an example, and I will happily be slain by you, if God has so ordained. Depart now very quickly, and say to your cruel lord that Edmund the king will never bow in life to Hingwar the heathen leader, unless he will first bow, in this land, to Jesus Christ with faith."
Then the messenger went quickly away and met on the way the bloodthirsty Hingwar hurrying to Edmund with his whole army, and told that wicked man how he had been answered. Hingwar then arrogantly commanded his troops that they should, all of them, take the king alone, who had despised his command, and instantly bind him.
When Hingwar came, Edmund the king stood within his hall, mindful of the Savior, and threw away his weapons, desiring to imitate the example of Christ, who forbade Peter to fight with weapons against the bloodthirsty Jews. Then those wicked men bound Edmund and shamefully insulted him and beat him with clubs, and afterward they led the faithful king to an earth-fast tree and tied him to it with hard bonds, and afterwards scourged him a long while with whips, and among the blows he was always calling with true faith on Jesus Christ.
Then the heathen were madly angry because of his faith, because he called upon Christ to help him. They shot at him with javelins as if for their amusement, until he was all beset with their shots, as with a porcupine's bristles, even as Sebastian was. When Hingwar, the wicked seaman, saw that the noble king would not deny Christ, but with steadfast faith ever called upon Him, he commanded men to behead him, and the heathen did so. For while he was yet calling upon Christ, the heathen drew away the saint to slay him, and struck off his head with a single blow, and his soul departed joyfully to Christ. There was a certain man at hand, whom God was hiding from the heathen, who heard all this and told it afterward just as we tell it here.
Then the seamen went again to ship, and hid the head of the holy Edmund in the thick brambles so that it could not be buried. Then after a while, after they were gone away, the country-folk, who were still left there, came to where their lord's body lay without his head, and were very sore at heart because of his murder, and chiefly because they had not the head with the body.
Then the spectator who had previously beheld it said that the seamen had taken the head with them, and it seemed to him (as was actually the case) that they had hidden the head in the wood somewhere about.
Then they all went searching together in the wood, looking everywhere among the thorns and brambles for the head. There was also a great wonder, that a wolf was sent, by God's direction, to guard the head against the other animals by day and night. They went on searching and calling out continually, as those who go through woods often do: "Where are you now, friend?" And the head answered them, "Here, here, here!" And so it called out repeatedly, answering them as often as any of them called to it, until they all came to it by means of those cries. There lay the gray wolf who had been guarding the head, and with his two feet had embraced it, greedy and hungry, and yet for fear of God had not dared to eat it, but had kept it safe against other animals.
They were astonished at the wolf's guardianship and carried the holy head home with them, thanking the Almighty for all His wonders; but the wolf followed forth with the head until they came to the town, as if he were tame, and then turned back again into the wood. Then the country-people laid the head by the holy body, and buried him as well as they could in such haste, and soon built a church over him.
Then, after many years, when the harrying had ceased and peace was restored to the oppressed people, they came together and built a church worthily in honor of the saint, because miracles had frequently been done at his burial-place, even at the bede-house where he was buried. They desired to carry the holy body with popular honor and to lay it within the church. Then there was a great wonder, that he was all as whole as if he were alive, with clean body, and his neck was healed which before had been cut through, and there was as it were a silken thread about his neck, all red, as if to show men how he had been slain. Also the wounds, which the bloodthirsty heathen had made in his body with their repeated shots, were healed by the heavenly God; and so he lies uncorrupt until this present day, awaiting the resurrection and the eternal glory. His body shows us, which lies undecayed, that he lived without fornication here in this world, and by a pure life passed to Christ.
A certain widow who was called Oswyn dwelt near the saint's burial-place in prayer and fasting for many years after. Every year she would cut the saint's hair and cut his nails soberly and lovingly, and keep them in a shrine as relics on the altar. In this way the people of the land faithfully venerated the saint; and bishop Theodred gave great gifts of gold and silver in his honor.
Then once upon a time came some unblessed thieves, eight in one night, to the venerable saint, desiring to steal the treasures which people had brought to his shrine, and tried how they might get in by craft. One struck at the hasp violently with a hammer; one of them filed about it with a file; one dug under the door with a spade; one of them by a ladder wished to unlock the window: but they toiled in vain and fared miserably because the holy man wondrously bound them, each as he stood toiling with his implement, so that none of them could do that evil deed or stir from that place; but they stood there till morning. Then men wondered to see how the wretches hung there, one on a ladder, one bent down to his digging, and each was bound fast in his work. Then they were all brought to the bishop, and he commanded men to hang them all on a high gallows; but he was not mindful how the merciful God spoke through His prophet the words which here stand: Eos qui ducuntur ad mortem eruere ne cesses: "always deliver those who are led to death". And also the holy canons forbid clerics, both bishops and priests, to be concerned about thieves, because it is not fitting for those who are chosen to serve God to consent to any man's death, if they are the Lord's servants. Then Theodred the bishop, after he had searched his books, rued with lamentation that he had awarded such a cruel doom to these unhappy thieves, and ever deplored it to his life's end; and earnestly prayed the people to fast with him fully three days, praying the Almighty that He would have pity upon him.
In that land was a certain man called Leofstan, rich in worldly things and ignorant concerning God, who rode with great insolence to the saint's shrine and very arrogantly commanded them to show him the holy saint so that he could find out whether he was really incorrupt; but as soon as he saw the saint's body, he straightway raved and roared horribly, and miserably ended by an evil death. This is like that which the orthodox pope, Gregory by name, said in his writing concerning the holy Lawrence who lies in the city of Rome, that men were always wishing to see how he lay, both good and evil, but God checked them, so that there died in the looking all at once seven men together; so the others desisted from looking at the martyr with human error.
We have heard of many wonders in the popular talk about the holy Edmund, which we will not set down here in writing; but every one knows them. By this saint is it manifest and by others like him, that Almighty God can raise man again, in the day of judgment, incorruptible from the earth, He who preserves Edmund whole in his body until the great day, though he was made of earth. Worthy is the place for the sake of the venerable saint that men should venerate it and well provide it with God's pure servants, to Christ's service, because the saint is greater than men may imagine.
The English nation is not without the Lord's saints, since in England lie such saints as this holy king, and the blessed Cuthbert, and saint Æthelthryth in Ely, and also her sister, incorrupt in body, for the confirmation of the faith. There are also many other saints among the English who work many miracles, as is widely known, to the praise of the Almighty in whom they believed. Christ shows to men, through His illustrious saints, that He is Almighty God who causes such wonders, though the miserable Jews altogether denied Him, because they are accursed, as they desired for themselves. No wonders are wrought at their sepulchres because they believe not in the living Christ; but Christ manifests to men where the true faith is, since He works such miracles by His saints widely throughout the earth; wherefore to Him be Glory ever with His Heavenly Father, and with the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever. Amen.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Serbia and the BNP

I never really intended to get this involved in writing about the BNP for this blog but when fellow Serbs come up with the type of stuff seen in the comments section of one of my latest blogs I have to respond. And im responding indepth.
We start off with the following comment by estavisti who will be the focus of my attention (all his comments will be in red):
Who gives a fuck what direction this "society" is moving in?
There are four different types of people who might ‘give a fuck’ about the direction this society is moving in:
(1)The indigenous people, because it is their country after all.
(2)People who this country has affected for whatever reason.
(3)People who live in this country but are not natives.
(4)People who are non of the above but have a positive disposition towards mankind generally, and wish the best for each nation.
Clearly you are not a native (1), and all the evidence would suggest that I cannot call upon your positive disposition towards other people since you don’t care about anything that doesn’t benefit you or Serbia personally (4). I don’t think anyone can seriously claim that they live in a social grouping (lets not call it a society for now) yet have not the slightest regard for its state, and direction. You do not live in a vacuum, presumably you care if only for selfish reasons. Ie job opportunities, taxes, local issues etc On a more emotive level how can someone live in a society where crime is increasing but ‘not give a fuck’ that it is getting worse. Im sure your indifference would disappear the moment someone knocked you over the head with a baseball bat or tried to sexually assault you. However this is not the issue I want to concern myself with. I think it is more significant that you would ignore the significance of (2).
For someone who misses no opportunity to list all the very real crimes the establishment of this country have inflicted on Serbia, it is illogical to be ‘indifferent’ to the state of this country and the direction it is moving in. This very government and the one previous to it bombed our country and are still trying to inflict their globalist/capitalist/democratic agenda. If their appalling social experiment is failing this should be of great interest to us.
If for no other reason but for the fact that this country bombed us, it would make sense to wish for a government which was not disposed to treat us in such a way. Since all 3 of the main parties were unanimous in their demonisation of us, none of them deserve ANY consideration. Now certainly the BNP are not the only party who were against the wars in Serbia (although they certainly are the biggest among them) but the reason I as a Serb nationalist feel an affinity for the BNP is because they fundamentally reject this liberal multicultural society, the EU, meddling in other countries affairs (Serbia included), they wish to preserve the Christian values of this country. I can identify with these desires, why would I wish to deny for this people what I want for my people, especially when it is not to my detriment?
I have stated why this country does affect Serbia directly, but there are also indirect affects. Serbia in its lost, disillusioned and depressed state wants only one ideal: prosperity. Certainly its all the politicians and youth ever talk about. It believes that by entering western institutions such as NATO and the EU, opening its borders, liberalising society, moral values, and national companies, that it can attain western living standards. Serbia’s eyes are fixed upon the west like a mouse caught in the mesmerising stare of a cobra. If it can only emulate the ‘shining’ example of the west, prosperity and international acceptance will be achieved. So clearly, a solid example of one of the worlds biggest economies (at least for now) showing that it rejects the globalist agenda, rejects multiculturalism, and international interventions, can only have a positive impact on Serbia. The Serbian people will have a shining example to snap them out of their trance and show them that nation-states that care for their own values first and foremost are the way forward, not some European super state obsessed with nothing but corporate profit. The move of exiting the EU could have further positive affects, weakening it and maybe even leading to its demise. This is only a possibility, but you have to remember that this is on top of the fact that the UK would not bomb Serbia, and furthermore what other option is there? More of the same? No sane person could suggest that.
Id also like to question why you have put the word society in inverted commas. If you look up the word in the Oxford dictionary you find that it means ‘any social community’. It does not necessarily imply anything positive. Nor did I intend to make it imply something positive. I would have thought my entire blog would have made it clear to you by now what I think of this society, and that I was referring to it in a negative light. You then use this one word as the pretext to launch the following bitter and irrelevant rant:
On the one hand you have the simple-minded oiks of the BNP and company, and on the other hand you have the brain-dead, ignorant "cosmopolitan" (degenerate) mainstream, while at the top you have a bunch of corrupt mendacious pricks who should be in a telenovela and not shaping the future of the world, while ripping the country off and doing shady deals on the side. Did I mention that they invaded Serbia for the "genocide" of just over a thousand armed terrorists, then initiated a war which has resulted in almost 700,000 deaths? And people vote for them... Not to mention the urban underclass and all the other fucked up sections of the British population. There, that's your "society" for you ;)
Why launch an attack on the cosmopolitan mainstream and the corrupt leaders, which you know I despise as much as you, and then end it with ‘there that’s your society for you’. I have demonstrated nothing but opposition to it, why is it suddenly my society? I would be the first person to highlight the suffering of our people but there is a logical time and place for it. Going ‘off on one’, like you did, makes you seem very bitter. No one would begrudge you that right, but why insert this in response to a positive report on the BNP? Why remind us of the guilt of the mainstream when I wanted to highlight and celebrate the possible emergence of a party outside the mainstream. It seems to me that you could not find much negative to accuse the BNP of, apart from a snide remark about ‘ignorant oiks’ and so you thought you would set up a straw man, and attack him. Its akin to carpet-bombing: you couldn’t launch a precision attack on the BNP so you tried to carpet bomb all of Britain in one fell swoop.
Next we come to your bizarre definition of a society:
"Society" is just a collection of individuals in the West.
Then you go on to say: ‘I don't feel affected by British society, because it doesn't exist’. So first you define it (wrongly), and then you claim it doesn’t exist. Why define it if it doesn’t exist? How can I say the cookie monster is from Ghana, and then say he doesn’t exist?
I also don't buy into this pan-European identity - although we are European, we are also Orthodox, Slav, Balkan, citizens of the World etc etc
You are quite right when you say that we are defined by all of these things. I wouldn’t ever deny that. The fact that a multitude of traits define us, does not make any one of them meaningless. The fact that we are Orthodox does not exclude the fact that we are Slavic, which in turn does not diminish our European character. They are all part of the rich tapestry of our Serbian national character. Serbia does not have a ‘pan-European’ character, it has a European identity. If you cant understand that we are a European nation, which has guarded the gates and faith of Europe for centuries, then I am incredulous. If all Europeans were as closed-minded as you, the bells of the Notre Damme would not have been ringing out during the battle of Kosovo in 1389. We are linguistically European, culturally European, racially European, our spirit is of the Old Europe which embraced Christianity. If that means nothing to you then so be it. But to me it means I have closer bonds to a fellow European then an aborigine in Australia. I don’t want a pan-European super state, I want sovereign nation-states at peace with each other.
Also, Serbia gains nothing from the BNP coming to power.
Ive demonstrated that it does. Not getting bombed is pretty significant.
If their kind of ideology swept the world, I can see Serbia formally becoming a Anglo-American/German colony
This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of BNP ideology. Read their mission statement and good fences make good neighbours.
The spread of their ideology would lead to independent and sovereign nation states, not any colonies.
As for the BNP themselves, their (presumeably) most capable and intelligent member has a third class degree and they can't even find someone to make them a decent website to get out their message. If they can't even organise a political party, why should anyone trust them to run the country?
Firstly dont pretend you're concerned with how they would run the country. We've already established that you couldnt care less.
Secondly you have raised no policy based reasons to attack the BNP so we now see an attempt to smear them with incompetence. I have no idea why Nick Griffin did not do well in university (though this wikipedia article claims he got a lower second), but you know you cant be stupid to get into Cambridge. As for their website, it is the most popular political website in the UK. Quite impressive for a bunch of ‘simple minded’ and ‘ignorant’ ‘oiks’. It is updated very regularly, the content is diverse, indepth, and it is fairly easy to locate what you are looking for. So what if its not 100% aesthetically appealing. Do you value style over substance? Id rather log onto the BNP site and read something I agree with and can vote for, then log onto the Labour site and read all their lies beautifully displayed. In any case they are launching a new look site soon. They don’t have limitless funding from dubious sources unlike the big 3 parties which you attacked precisely because of their corruption.
I'm indifferent to their policies (as presented by you), but looking at who would be putting them into action just makes me laugh.
If you were indifferent to their policies you would at least mention them and show why you are indifferent. Instead you show no intention of doing anything but smear them with side issues. This clearly shows you are opposed to the BNP and only feign indifference, while all the while time attacking them.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Dostoevsky: Russian Prophet

'So great is the worth of Dostoevsky that to have produced him is by itself sufficient justification for the existence of the Russian people in the world: and he will bear witness for his country-men at the last judgement of the nations.' - Nikolay Berdyaev (1923)

On the anniversary of Dostoevskys birthday I thought Id whip up some of the great quotes that he came up with. Delving deeper into his literary works over the past few weeks, Ive realised a few quotes would not do him justice. This man had a profound understanding of the 'human condition'. And he developed his thoughts not in the abstract confines of some comfortable existance, but in some of the harshest realities man can experience. Here is an essay Ive managed to whip up based mainly on issues of God, morality, and the age old problem of good and evil:

In contemplating the creation of the novel The Idiot, Dostoevsky wrote in a letter to A.N. Maikov that he hoped to focus the work around a question 'with which I have been tormented, consciously or unconsciously all my life--that is, the existence of God.'Dostoevsky's personal struggle with the question of faith, and also his own experience with trying doubts as a believer, are manifested in the characters he writes. A large number of Dostoevsky's books are written within the framework of a Christian doctrine, juxtaposing characterizations of believers and non-believers, enforcing the ultimate good and reason that follow from possessing a faith. Dostoevsky also describes however, the mental suffering and questioning inherent in the step of realizing the 'truth' of Jesus Christ.
Early in his adulthood he became involved in a group known as the 'Russian Utopian Socialists', influenced by Belinsky, a well known literary critic. The partnership formed by the two presumably shook Dostoevsky's faith, as his revered mentor found that 'as a socialist, he had to destroy Christianity in the first place. He knew that the revolution must necessarily begin with atheism.'
He was arrested for 'the circulation of a private letter full of insolent expressions against the Orthodox Church.' Evidently, he had forgotten his mother's teachings. While in prison (where the only book allowed was The Bible) it appears Dostoyevsky began to reemerge as a believer, writing in a letter to Mrs. N.D. Fonvizin: 'I believe that there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic, more rational, more manly and more perfect than the Savior;...If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not the truth.'
The regeneration of his faith is evident and steadfast in novels such as The Brothers Karamazov, Devils, The Idiot, and Crime and Punishment. This spiritual rebirth took place within the confines of a Siberian prison, where Dostoevsky was amassing a large storage of information on the capacity for evil in men. That Dostoevsky was able to cultivate a belief within such a hostile environment demonstrates the strength of his conviction.
The primary source of doubt that plagued Dostoevsky was his struggle to reconcile the suffering evident in the world and the notion of a loving God. Berdyaev, in an explanation of Dostoevsky's intense focus on freedom as the answer points out that, 'for him the justification both of God and of man must be looked for in freedom...' This freedom is further defined: ‘The lesser freedom was the beginning, freedom to choose the good, which supports the possibility of sin; the greater freedom was the ending, freedom in God, in the bosom of God...The dignity of man and the dignity of faith require the recognition of two freedoms, freedom to choose the truth and freedom in the truth’. But free goodness, which alone is true, entails the liberty of evil. That is the tragedy of that Dostoevsky saw and studied, and it contains the mystery of Christianity. And consequently it revokes Ivan's argument in The Brothers Karamazov, for if evil necessitates freedom, than it is through humans that evil and suffering occurs, and therefore God cannot be blamed. Freedom is also required however, so that we are allowed to fully appreciate God's love by choosing it. You cannot have a world, both free and good, human imperfection will not allow for it. As Berdyaev finishes, "The world is full of wickedness and miserly precisely because it is based on freedom, yet that freedom constitutes the whole dignity of man and his world."
In a letter to N.L. Ozmidov, in 1878, Dostoevsky writes: "Now assume there is no God or immortality of the soul. Now tell me, why should I live righteously and do good deeds if I am to die entirely on earth? .And if that is so, why shouldn't I (as long as I can rely on my cleverness and agility to avoid being caught by the law) cut another man's throat , rob, and steal..."
Truly this sums up why there can be no morality without God.

Dostoevsky attacks secular humanists who are so remote from reality that even when they love humanity they despise humans because of their own inability to achieve or to create paradise on earth. His novels The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment are best examples of the poisonous effect of such ideals on the common human. The rebellion of these humanists against the system and the reality of human life becomes more important, thus love becomes the filter and the servant of pride and ideals. The cause of 19th century liberals becomes more important to them than the actual human being that might not fit the picture of their perfect and humane society. According to Dostoevsky the liberals ‘love humanity more than an individual man.’ Yet he does not represent their behaviour as genuinely evil. Their hate towards humanity arises exactly from the opposite: love. Secular humanists see so much evil, crime and inhumanity, they cannot stop it so they rebel. Ivan Karamazov and his rebellion are purely of that kind. He is not vile, he just cannot understand that there might be a solution for such suffering, especially in the case of children who are innocent in Christianity. That is why Ivan asks: ‘Love life more than the meaning of it?’ To know the meaning of life is more important to him than to actually do something about the human suffering. For him humanity is merely an abstraction which happens to be surrounding him. He thinks that by knowing logically and rationally, the mystery of life problems would be solved.
Through the act of rebellion against the social norms and the Christian dogma secular liberals, or humanists, forget about fellow human beings as being fallible as much in thought as in action. In those moments, great defenders of liberal thought and love for humanity forget that they might not have the definite answer, thus they fall into the same trap as their predecessors who thought that they knew what is the best for people and enforced their ideas. They all become ‘living gods.’ They all want to spare humans from the burden of their own selves, ‘for only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be unhappy.’ They preach lies instead of the truth, thus they develop a different kind of love: tyrannical love. The Christian love has to be free.
One either accepts the Word or one does not, one either believes that even the sparrow has its place in God's mercy or one goes around raving against God, simultaneously talking of his necessity. Dostoevsky shows such attitude, such part time rationalizing as worthless and very often dangerous. 'They, following science, want to base justice on reason alone, but not with Christ, as before, and they have already proclaimed that there is no crime, that there is no sin. And that's consistent, for if you have no God what is the meaning of crime?'
Can one go on living with the thought of how much suffering there is? Does one rebel against the society, then try to establish a new one, forgetting that society does not come to be of itself, but is built by human beings: beings imperfect and ready to hurt and rebel against their fathers, against the idea of 'old', or the society of the past and present.

Through the presentation of crime and the issue of money which is often connected to it, Dostoevsky retells a Bible story. His answer to the problem of evil is active love. the only answer is love for life, regardless of the meaning and the logic behind it. Faith in God and people is the only way to live with love. To believe in God and to have trust in human nature and destiny means to forgive and to repent. It means not hurting others. That is not the love that is directed towards the humanity as a whole, but towards the individual: ‘Strive to love your neighbor actively and indefatigably’
In order to defeat evil one has to start with the assumption that there is goodness. To rebel violently because of a child's death only brings greater evil. Ivan does not love others nor does he love himself. Father Zosima makes this idea very clear in The Brothers Karamazov: 'All things are atoned for, all things are saved by love. If I, a sinner, even as you are, am tender with you and have pity on you, how much more will God. Love is such a priceless treasure that you can redeem the whole world by it, and expiate not only your own sins but the sins of others’. Dostoevsky's solution lies in exactly the opposite from the class struggle and the solution that it brings. All of those strives bring only shifts and turns but are still based on hate and not on love. Insofar as you advance in love you will grow surer of the reality of God and of the immortality of your soul. If you attain to perfect self-forgetfulness in the love of your neighbour, then you will believe without doubt, and no doubt can possibly enter your soul. Ivan recognizes that same necessity and usefulness of God. However, he does not really believe in God, thus he does not believe in the immortality of the soul and in justice. He does not love. Without a belief in the existence of justice crime has no meaning. His idea of God is worthless because he is an atheist, he does not believe. The only way out is through true and honest belief that things have a purpose and that it does matter to be good and not to hurt others. One cannot solve any problems unless one truly believes that what is done has a purpose. When one starts looking at humanity as a whole one will not find many good things and one will never have any happiness. Only by looking at the individual can one acquire a moment of happiness and exaltation of the soul, such as Alyosha's experiences in the field (The Brothers Karamazov). Faith is not a rational path, but it equips one with love. Only by having certain values and love for others can the family as the basic unit of the society survive. To improve the society and social conditions and to free people from evil on Earth is impossible. The belief that there is immortality of the soul and that there is God who takes care of humans is necessary. Dostoevsky believes that you have to have true faith in order to attain happiness and to create the ground for better life. Intellectual discussion and the acknowledgment of the necessity for the God as an idea or a Prime Mover become worthless the moment it is meant as a lie. It has to be the Truth, there has to be faith. If one lives a lie his bitterness that the dream and the ideal are impossible will only lead to madness, hate, and ultimately suicide or murder. One has to give active love. So the ultimate answer to the suffering and the injustice in the world is love. What higher feeling is there in human existence? Again there is no rational way to explain and to really lead one on that path of faith. The possibility of such belief is real because humans are able to love. That means that they must be able to suffer for others, they also must be able to forgive. 'Love all men, love everything.' Dostoevsky cannot go further than that.

Friday, November 10, 2006


The BNP two have unanimously been found not guilty on all charges by the jury! Just watched the channel 4 news, in which 2 professional anti-racists were whining about the result. One moron thought that they should have been found guilty for criticising islam even though they were tried on race hate charges. When John Snow (the news guy) pointed out that islam was not a race, he said that the violent and racist history of the BNP should have been taken into account to come to a guilty verdict! In other words he thinks people can be found guilty of crimes they havent commited, because of allegations about completely different crimes for which they have not been prosecuted. The other guy facing Snow admitted they should have been found not guilty but thinks the law should be changed to make it illegal to make 'islamophobic' remarks. He seems to think that a religion needs protection from people saying hateful things about it. The practical result would be that I would not be allowed to voice in private to a friend that I believe Islam has a violent history and is therefore a wicked faith. This is big brother logic, this guy wants to create thought crimes, and ban anyone that disagrees with multi-cult ideology. His twisted logic was exposed moments later, when he claimed that the BNP's views should be exposed and would be defeated by debating openly. John Snow pointed out you cant have it both ways; It cant be both illegal and possible to debate these issues. Clearly though when 12 ordinary men and women from the public were exposed in an open courtroom to both sides of the story, they unanimously sided with the BNP and agreed that it was legitimate to voice criticism of Islam. So the idea that they can be defeated in the public arena just doesnt wash. Furthermore the BNP suffers from a news black out most of the year round so it really is very pompous, self-righteous and hypocritical to claim that you want to, and are able, to defeat your opponents in the open, the moment you cant avoid them appearing on tv, and have been doing nothing but pretend they dont exist the rest of the year long.
As Im about to finish writing this, the slimy, servile non-entity that is Gordon Brown has announced that the goalposts will be moved as soon as it can be arranged. If the law doesnt suit you then change it to get the result you want. He claims 'mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made'. So it should be illegal to state anything that goes against the mainstream! And these politicians bang on about freedom, they cant even spell the word.
The treacherous puppet can change the law, but he cant change the direction this society is moving in. And its not peace, progress, and prosperity in a multi-cultural atheistic utopia.


Tuesday, November 07, 2006

'Russian' revolution

On the anniversary of the day that Lenin launched a rebellion against the provisional government and kickstarted the 'Russian' revolution. The revolution was overwhelmingly lead by Jews. The names and nationalities speak for themselves, historians do not debate these facts, they just prefer not to mention them. If someone does happen to question the enormous percentage of jews in the communist leadership, it is almost always inevitably answered by the fact that they were the most persecuted. Either way they were not passive little lambs. Funny that when these facts are mentioned people rush to suppress them with no evidence but cries of 'hate'. Well if people would resist their impulses for one minute, and consider which is more hateful: the slaughter of the tsar and his family, and the subjugation of Russia to communism (with millions dying in the process), or the fact that someone dares to mention in this day and age that jews played a significant role in these events. I challenge anyone to dispute these straight forward facts. How on earth can it be wrong to point them out, but more importantly how can they not be of any significance?
Heres some interesting quotes from Jews themselves:
"Whatever the racial antecedents of their top man, the first Soviet commissariats were largely staffed with Jews. The Jewish position in the Communist movement was well understood in Russia. The White Armies which opposed the Bolshevik government linked Jews and Bolsheviks as common enemies" (Univ. Jew Encyc., Vol. I, p. 336)

"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolsheviks, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." (London Jewish Chronicle, 4 April 1919)

"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American Hebrew, September 10, 1920)

"What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to produce in Russia, the same historic qualities of the Jewish mind are tending to promote in other countries." (New York American Hebrew, 20 September 1920)

"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population." (Stuart Kahan (grandson of Lazar Kagaonvich), The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)

"We [Jews] have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred.... We who have posed as the saviours of the world, we who have boasted of having given it the Saviour, we are today nothing else but the world's seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners..." (Dr. Oscar Levy, preface to the book The World Significance of the Russian Revolution by Professor George Pitts-Rivers of Oxford University)

'During the heyday of the Cold War, American Jewish publicists spent a lot of time denying that-as 1930s anti-Semites claimed-Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s. Jews did play such a role, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. In time, Jews will learn to take pride in the record of the Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was a species of striking back." (The Jewish Experience, "Stalin's Jews", pp. 364, Norman F. Cantor, Castle Books, 1996. (Dr. Cantor is the author of several books on Jewish history and a professor of history at New York University.))

The truth is no defence

Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP and Mark Collett are currently being retried for inciting racial hatred. In light of the behaviour of muslims around the globe, albeit in some circumstances in a legitimate response to western imperialist aggression, it is ludicrous to be trying Nick Griffin for calling Islam 'a wicked and vicious faith'. Even the fact that this statement could be a simple acknowledgement of the truth is no defence! Apparently, by law, if the the truth is likely to incite hatred, then it is illegal to state it! What makes the trial all the more laughable is that Griffin was saying this in a private speech to his supporters, and telling them to respond throught the ballot box.

BNP Website
Nick Griffins Blog (EDIT: discontinued till the end of the trial for legal reasons)
Interview with Nick
A very positive article by the Times online regarding the first day of the trial

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Do not waver in your faith in victory

EDIT: Ive removed my commentary. It rambled on too much about an issue only partially connected to this beatiful poem. Seeing as its a Sunday I thought Id post a nice extract from 'Prayers by the Lake'. Its obviously full of allegory and analogies, most in reference to spiritual battles. But I think there is also a physical dimension to it.

Warriors of Life, wage war mightily and do not waver in your faith in victory.
Victory is bestowed on the one whose eye keeps its untiring gaze fixed upon it. Whoever even thinks of defeat, loses sight of victory and does not find it again. Victory is a tiny star in the distance, which continuous gazing magnifies and draws nearer!
Keep watch with vigilance, so that not even one of the enemy jumps over the wall into your city. If even one adversary jumps in, the city is lost. Only a single serpent slithered into Paradise, and Paradise was transformed into Hell.1
Indeed, just one drop of poison enters a full body of blood, and physicians predict death!
It is not as important to slay your enemy outside the city as it is not to let him into the city.
Warriors of Life, wage war mightily and do not waver in your faith in victory.
What does it profit you, if you conquer and gain possession of the world, and the world takes the place of your soul.2 Truly, the world will remain, but the soul will no longer be yours. The soul is a timid bird; if you throw even a tiny bit of ashes at her, she takes flight and flees to escape.
The soul is more valuable than the world -- you would do better, therefore, to subjugate the soul rather than the world. The soul is a more faithful ally than the world -- you would do better, to forge an alliance with the soul. The soul is richer than the world -- you would do better, to make her your fortress. The soul is more healthy than the world -- you would do better, to seek your health in her. The soul is more beautiful than the world -- you would do better, to take her for your bride. The soul is a more fruitful field than the world -- you would do better, to exert yourself over her.
Warriors of Life, wage war mightily, and do not waver in your faith in victory.
Do not cast out a demon with a demon. For you will always have a demon in the house. But cast out the devil with God. And the devil will flee, but God will remain.3
Do not fight fire with fire. For you will make the fire into a conflagration, and your house will burn down along with your enemy's. But fight fire with water, and you will extinguish it.
Do not raise death as a weapon against death, for you will only increase the range of death. But raise life as a weapon against death, and death will retreat as a shadow does before the face of the sun.
Warriors of Life, wage war mightily, and do not waver in your faith in victory.
Your objective is your weaponry. If you wage war for Life, expect also a crown of glory from Life.
Have neither two objectives, nor twofold weaponry. When the objective is life, life is also the weaponry. When the objective is death, death is also the weaponry. Wherever life and death are intermingled, death is the victor.
Do not expect a reward from both sides. For the other side is death.
Do not serve two masters.4 For the name of the other master is death.
Sacrifice everything for Life, and expect everything from Life. And Life will give you everything.
Whoever captures Life, has truly taken the wealthiest city in all realms. And he will find more treasure in that city than an eye can behold, a heart can desire, and a dream can dream of.
Warriors of Life, wage war mightily, and do not waver in your faith in victory.

1. Cf. Gen. 3.
2. Cf. Matt. 16:26.
3. Cf. Matt. 12:22-28.
4. Cf. Matt. 6:24.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

The sad state of modern day Britain

Apologies for posting the sick photo above, but you know what they say: 'a pictures worth a thousand words'. Hopefully it'll make the message hit home all the more. More mindblowing updates from a country that has lost its way:
We have the politically correct commisars trying to instruct people how to think. A council has decided that the words 'Chairman' and 'fireman' need to banned because they do not include the word 'woman'. And they declare that the phrase 'politically correct' cannot be used because it originated from the Ku Klux Clan and that the use of the phrase is at best factual avoidance and at worst a direct physical Attack. Factual avoidance? Those politically correct bastards make a living out of manipulating facts and imposing their vision of society on others.
BBC executives have openly admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. They acknowledge that ethnic minorities hold a disproportionate number of positions and said the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians. Nothing that anybody (but the willingling blind) didnt already know, but nice to have an open confession: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102401.html
The only thing more obvious than the bbcs liberal multicultural propaganda is the Church of Englands desperation to carve out a position for itself in this social experiment gone wrong by shamelessly sucking up to the powers that be. They dont even have to be coerced, they willingly think up new ways to humiliate themselves and ingratiate themselves with the establishment. Check out this lunatic vicar who decided to do away with traditional remembrance services becaus they were not multicultural enough. I kid you not, this guy wants excerpts from the koran read during some ceremony.
Meanwhile 9 firemen have been suspended for refusing to attend a gay march to hand out leaflets. Obviously when they signed up they expected theyd be fighting fires not sent on public relations exercises, so that the cretin in charge of the fire service could brag about how tolerant the institution is. And of course they have been ordered to attend..........Diversity training!!!!. You cant make this stuff up.