Terror in Europe: Rivers of Blood

Terror in Europe: Rivers of Blood

Another day, another terror attack. An elderly priest was beheaded in Normandy, while he was celebrating mass in church. In addition to that, in the past few days Muslims in Europe have attacked using a machete (killing a pregnant woman), a gun (Munich) and a suicide bomber (a first for Germany).  It is hard to tally the blows that our enemy strikes against us. Ben Shapiro, the Conservative with quasi-libertarian leanings who is staunchly anti-Trump, a stance that has drawn the ire (and villainy) of the Alt-Right, once said about Obama (not an exact quote): “The universe exists to prove him wrong”. A corollary can be added, “The universe exists to prove Donald Trump right.”

In his acceptance speech, Trump went on describing, for considerable lengths, the state of affairs in the world. He said: “... the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life.” He said further: “Lastly, we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.” He said other things, but you get the picture. The  Washington Post, CBS, NBC, etc etc all used the word “dark” in reference to the speech. But Trump is not wrong. Engulfed as we are in this Medieval barbarism, Trump’s darkness is justified. In fact, he was probably not dark enough.

Which brings me to Bret Stephens and his opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal (July 26, 2016). Stephens is a cosmopolitan, Jewish guy and is a typical Wall Street Journal type. At the risk of oversimplifying, the Wall Street Journal type is: loyal to the West, American Exceptionalism and a muscular foreign policy, strong believer in capitalism, moderate and nuanced on social issues, and weak-kneed on immigration. Stephens is viewed as a Neo-Con, and hated by Mark Levin from one side and the Nationalists/Alt-Right/Trumpkins on the other side. I am not sure what the Evangelicals say about him, though I am sure they love his pro-Israel stance even if he was in favor of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and is currently in favor of the two-state solution, at least theoretically.

In today’s paper, Stephen entitles his article “Is Europe Helpless?”. His answer is if they get their act together,and stop adhering to nonsensical doctrine then it is not. In other words, given where we currently stand, and are heading, Europe is doomed. The article as a whole is interesting, and hard-hitting (not nearly hard-hitting enough) but one line stood out. He writes that “the storm of terror that is descending on Europe… will end in rivers of blood.” End quote. Rivers of blood? Rivers of Blood! Is our urbane and sophisticated columnist referring to Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” remark, where that patriotic Englishman warned of the doom that would befall Britain should it continue to import foreigners from the Third World. Surely not. Surely Mr. Stephens is too correct to do such a thing. Why, it was not very long ago when our Mr. Stephens reprimanded Trump on his proposed Muslim ban.

***

Incidental to the main point, it might be worthwhile quoting Stephens on Israel. Writes Stephens in the same paper: “For now, it’s the one country in the West that refuses to risk the safety of its citizens on someone else’s notion of human rights or altar of peace.” This is untrue. What is true is that Israel might at times  act more militaristic than what is expected of her, and that every time she takes any minor aggressive measure, she is criticized. But Israel does not, in fact, categorically refuse to risk the safety of its citizens. This could be seen from a thousand different things, but most illustrative is, perhaps, the 2014 Israel-Gaza War. The terrorist organization Hamas fired rockets from Gaza into Israel, and the Israelis responded on an almost tit-for-tat basis. The war dragged on and off for seven weeks. At the time some were calling for Israel to unleash the full might of its artillery and air-force, which would ended the matter quickly and decisively. Israel did not act in such a manner. As a result 72 Israelis perished and hundreds were injured. Israel did indeed “risk the safety of its citizens on someone else’s notion of human rights” be it: the UN, the EU, the US, the Geneva Convention, or the media. In fact, it seems to me, that Israel’s whole Modus Operandi involves inflicting as much damage to the enemy as possible, while maintaining some level of adherence to some outside liberal standard.

But perhaps Stephens, for all his tough-talk, would also feel uncomfortable should a civilized country open fire with artillery and aircraft, devastating the enemy with a “rubble doesn’t cause trouble” attitude. Should Israel risk the safety of its citizens on on his notion of human rights?  

   

Terror Attack in Nice, France and What it Means

Terror attack in Nice, France and what it means

There was a Muslim terror attack in Nice, France. Eighty four people are dead, and close to twice that number wounded. The attacker used a truck to mow people down, something that was seized upon by all the headlines: the emphasis was on the deadly truck, as opposed to the Muslim killer driving the truck. The media, as always, is silly and worthless, but it is a very dangerous silliness and worthlessness that they are exhibiting. Would today’s media write World War Two began when some planes attacked Pearl Harbour? Would the liberals claim in the headlines that the American Civil War began when some cannons fired at Fort Sumter? This is just frustrating junk.

Of the various important comments made about the terror attack and the reaction to it, perhaps the most important is to be made regarding a statement made by the Prime Minister of France. Robert Spencer, over at the JihadWatch website, brought my attention to it.

Says Prime Minister Valls: “France is going to have to live with terrorism.” Remarkable. Astonishing, even. What he is saying is that this is the new normal. Every society has to “live” with bad things. Death, disease, poverty, unemployment, etc. It is commonly accepted that a certain amount of people a year will die from: shark attacks, snake bites, spider venom, heart disease, cancer, burglaries gone bad, gang violence, suffocating on small toys, furniture accidents, natural disasters, etc etc. While there are various ways to decrease the pain and death caused by these various problems, people in society accept that they are just “going to have to live” with it. Generally, they go on with their lives.

The Prime Minister of France had just admitted, quite bluntly, and with very little fuss in the international scene, that terrorism is something that “France is going to have to live with.” That Muslims killing people in terror attacks is the new snake bite, or tornado, or disease. End of sentence.

Or so I thought. I thought that this obvious, yet mind-boggling truism that the leader of one of the great nations in the world (5th strongest power in the world by some estimates) uttered, was the extent of it. But in reality, what Valls says right before that is even more important. Here is the quote with the added few words: “Times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism.” What! What? Times have changed. Is there is something in the water? Did someone genetically alter the French people to become terror-inclined? Did some French philosopher rediscover some ideology from the French Revolution? Is chronic unemployment or homelessness or insanity or some other social ill compelling Frenchmen to go about butchering people at concerts, cafes, magazines publishing centers, grocery stores, city streets, ect?

No! No. Precisely one thing has “changed”.  France had foolishly...lamentably...tragically imported millions of foreigners, specifically Muslims, from the Third World. The result has been decidedly unpleasant. An unpleasantness that Valls says that France will have to live with.

I want to sign off with a word of discouragement. It seems that, should things continue on their seemingly predestined course, France will to learn “to live” with a host of unpleasant things. Things worse than the attacks so far may come to pass. Long ago Powell quoted Virgil. Virgil wrote: “I see wars, horrible wars, and the Tiber foaming with much blood.”

Geert Wilders=Jeremiah

New International Version (NIV)

Psalm 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
  they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.
7 Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you
  according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

Geert Wilders, politician in the Netherlands, is begging the world to recognize the Islamic menace for what it is. He sees the invasion of Europe for what it is: an invasion. If history books are written in a thousand years time, and if they are written by a man with a love of the Western tradition, Wilders will be remembered as a hero. Probably a tragic hero. I imagine he will be compared to the Prophet Jeremiah, a Jewish seer who lived in the era of the First Temple, and who experienced its destruction. Jeremiah is one of those historical personalities that is larger than life, larger even than the period in which he lived, dominating history like a colossus.

Jeremiah promised doom. Jeremiah went around telling people about their sins, and the impending destruction that would come to pass as a result. His message was not a popular one. He was scorned, mocked, and, significantly, ignored. He was opposed by a false prophet: Hananiah son of Azur. Where Jeremiah, the actual prophet, foretold misery and destruction, Hananiah assured a receptive audience that all was well. Hananiah falsely claimed, on the Temple grounds, that he received a message from God saying that within two years King-in-exile Jeconiah, his fellow (noble) captives, and the Temple vessels would be brought back to Jerusalem (they were all in exile in Babylonian territory). The people gravitated towards Hananiah’s false but joyous future rather than Jeremiah’s true but miserable future.

God had instructed Jeremiah to wear a wooden yoke, which symbolized slavery and oppression. Hananiah took it upon himself to remove the yoke from the neck of Jeremiah, breaking it. As a result, God told Jeremiah to explain to Hananiah that the wooden yoke he had broken would be replaced with one of iron. The foretold destruction and enslavement would be even worse.

Jeremiah did not relent in speaking the truth. But he was fundamentally ignored. He suffered for his obstinace. Everyone, from his family to the government, opposed him. His enemies imprisoned him and tried killing him, but failed. Jeremiah was actually sitting in prison when Nebuchadnezzar II, in 586, breached the walls of Jerusalem and vanquished the place. Jeremiah was freed by his Babylonian conquerors, and he went into exile. In exile, he wrote the book of Lamentations, speaking poetically about the destruction. He bore witness to that which he both predicted and experienced. It could be confidently said that Jeremiah felt no satisfaction at being vindicated with the fulfillment of his prophecy. The irony, that he was correct in speaking of destruction, and that his opponents--whose very actions helped bring about that destruction--were proven wrong in ignoring his message, must have been a profoundly bitter one. That being said, Jeremiah did speak of hope, and how a better day would dawn for them. In this too he was correct. The Babylonians were replaced by the Persians; they were benevolent overlords, who allowed the Jews to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple. The era of the Second Commonwealth was ushered in.

This is the time we live in. People who speak honestly about the invasion of the West, let alone people who attempt to fight the invasion, suffer, in many cases. These courageous souls are mocked, derided, and insulted. Their words are censored, their social lives imperiled, and their livelihood put in jeopardy. They are charged with criminal activity. They are assassinated. Worst of all, they are ignored. Their words are ignored. Their dire predictions are ignored. Their prophecy is ignored.   

The doomsayers will be proven right, but they will experience no joy as a result. Should they live to see the culmination of the invasion, they will be profoundly bitter. They will watch as what they foretold comes to pass and how their Leftist enemies, by silencing the truth-tellers, contributed to the eventual destruction. And they will weep. We will all weep, then. We will write books of lamentations, but we shall write them from exile.

Our exile shall be like the Babylonian exile in some respects. We will feel just as those ancient men, recorded by the psalmist in chapter 137, who sat and wept by the rivers of Babylon. Our tormentors will ask us for a song: to relive the glory of Western Civilization and sing of it. But how can we sing in a foreign land?! We will recall how enemies cried out about our civilization and culture, “Tear it down! Tear it down to its foundation!”. Then we shall lose the last vestiges of human decency, and speak of smashing our enemies’ babies against the rocks. And even if we recall that our civilization was our highest joy, we know that we will never reclaim it. There will be no one to return us to our homeland in the way the benevolent Persians did once to Jeremiah’s people. All that will be left to do is weep, and remember.