QOTD: “Acts of cultural secession…”

Screenshot_2020-01-22 (1) Tom Harbold cup and saucer - Facebook Search

“Using a saucer and speaking with proper grammar are acts of civil resistance, of cultural secession, examples of negative response to the demands that we participate in the forced labor of helping to dismantle our own civilization with our own hands.”

Pater Larry Beane

Indeed. Proper grooming, and dressing respectably (within the obvious limits of what one may reasonably afford), are two others.

 

Christopher Tolkien – The Last Goodbye (EN) | Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft e.V.

Christopher Tolkien – The Last Goodbye (EN)

Source: Christopher Tolkien – The Last Goodbye (EN) | Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft e.V.

“Christopher Tolkien passed away on 15th January. He was the third son of J.R.R. Tolkien, his literary heir and executor. He published 24 books by Tolkien after the death of his father, including Tolkien’s life’s work, The Silmarillion. Without Christopher Tolkien’s tireless work, Middle-earth would be a great deal smaller.”

The best and most complete account I have seen yet on the life of Christopher Tolkien, and his role in not only preserving, but even helping to form, his great father’s legacy. There are a number of things in this account which I did not know, but I found this of particular interest:

“In 1963 Christopher became a Fellow at New College, Oxford. Christopher now regularly attended meetings of the “Inklings”, the literary circle of friends around his father and C.S. Lewis. The other members felt that he could read from the evolving Lord of the Rings manuscript better than his father. Christopher was the last living member of the Inklings.”

The last Inkling has passed into the Uttermost West. The end of an age! 😥

“And the ship went out into the High Sea and passed into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

It is sobering, somehow, to think that when I first became aware of the existence of Christopher Tolkien, he was right around the same age I am now. Perhaps even exactly! And now he has passed on, at age 95.

I have a tendency to somehow imagine that people remain ever the age they were when I first knew them, but it is not the case. As Simon & Garfunkel put it, “Time hurries on, and the leaves that are green turn to brown…”

“Farewell! Maybe thou shalt find Valimar.
Maybe even thou shalt find it. Farewell!”

— J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

 

How to lay a hedge | Gardens Illustrated

Learn how to lay a hedge using traditional craftsmanship and hedge laying skills.

“Interested in the centuries-old skill of hedge laying? Follow our guide on how to lay a hedge and learn about the traditional ways to lay a hedge.”

Source: How to lay a hedge – Gardens Illustrated

“Hedge laying is a seasonal job carried out between October and March when trees and shrubs are dormant, and birds have finished nesting in the hedges…”

Ever wondered how to “lay a hedge” in classic English style (or even what that term meant)? Here’s an excellent starting point! No reason it couldn’t be done here in the U.S., for those with the land and resources to do so! I’ve often wished I could have a place where I could recreate an English cottage garden, including / incorporating a traditional hedge.

 

Tributes paid to ‘unusually rich legacy’ of philosopher Sir Roger Scruton | Ludlow Advertiser

Investitures at Buckingham Palace

Tributes have been paid to the “unusually rich legacy” of philosopher Sir Roger Scruton, lauded as “the greatest conservative of our age,” who died at age 75 after a six-month battle with cancer.

Source: Tributes paid to ‘unusually rich legacy’ of philosopher Sir Roger Scruton | Ludlow Advertiser

A small selection, from among many:

The journalist and author Peter Hitchens wrote on social media,

“RIP Sir Roger Scruton, a man of immense courage, intellect and fortitude, whose loss we can ill afford in these narrow, conformist times.”

Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said on Twitter,

“Professor Sir Roger Scruton, the greatest conservative of our age, has died. The country has lost a towering intellect. I have lost a wonderful friend.

“There was no subject he could not light up with his effulgent prose: architecture, theology, music, fox-hunting, painting, wine, philosophy. I honestly can’t think of a wiser or more complete contemporary writer.”

And this – from author and historian Anne Applebaum,

“In the 1980s, Roger Scruton organised money and books for dissidents in Eastern Europe.

“I was one of the student couriers who helped smuggle them ‘across the iron curtain.’ I am still grateful for what Roger did for them, and for me.”

I encourage you to read this compilation of heartfelt and heart-warming tributes, memories, and reflections on the life and legacy of a truly great man!

 

How Prince Harry Turned Into Lena Dunham | The Federalist

How Prince Harry Turned Into Lena Dunham

“As Prince Harry’s recent behavior proves, composure and class, stoic fortitude, and a sense of duty are not due to bloodline or money.”

Source: How Prince Harry Turned Into Lena Dunham | The Federalist

The above statement is all too sadly true, although traditionally those belong to the Royal bloodline were expected to display all of the above (composure, class, stoic fortitude, and a sense of duty).

The greatest living exemplar of this is Her Majesty herself, Queen Elizabeth II, forged in the crucible of World War Two, who – while still Princess Elizabeth, on the occasion of her 21st birthday, in 1947 – promised,

I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service, and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong,”

and who has spent the rest of her life living up to that promise.

Alas, as the linked article by Sumantra Maitra points out,

“Unfortunately, Harry has too much of Princess Diana in him, from compulsively breaking orthodoxy and tradition, to extreme and fatalistic narcissism. As Emma Freire recently wrote, with him it is all noblesse, with zero oblige. Meghan can be forgiven, as she’s American, and not used to royal protocols. But Harry was born and brought up in that discipline. There’s no excuse.”

Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for Prince Harry’s physical courage, as demonstrated by his military service, which by all accounts was exemplary. Fighting in Afghanistan, he earned the respect of the U.S. Marines, which is no small accomplishment for anyone.

But that does not make this article’s assessment any less accurate. Courage under fire does not always or necessarily translate to wisdom in civilian life. To quote Maitra again,

“The reason for Harry and Meghan’s departure is pure liberal-individualist narcissism. And both are equally responsible for that. Due to its symbolic and apolitical nature, British aristocracy are not supposed to publicly espouse political opinions, much less actively lecture people about mental health, toxic masculinity, or climate change. They are supposed to go to war, open hospitals, and silently take part in charitable causes. Duty, stoicism, propriety, and patriotism are supposed to be the four cornerstones of nobility.”

However, this has not occurred where the Sussexes are concerned. As noted above, Meghan is an American actress, and can be afforded a certain amount of slack. Prince Harry should know better. Prince Harry does know better; he just chooses not to act accordingly:

“You can either be a Hollywood hypocrite, or an aloof, true-blue aristocrat above daily politics. You cannot simultaneously enjoy the perks of both… Aristocratic life brings its own burden, of class, polish, fortitude, and propriety. Not every Tom, Dick, or Harry can chin up, keep calm, and carry on. If you behave like a petulant celebrity, you’ll be treated with as much respect as a petulant celebrity deserves.”

To quote in full the line with which this opened,

“this incident reinforces that composure and class, stoic fortitude, and a sense of duty and propriety are not due to either bloodline or money. Some people possess them, and most do not.”

Sadly, it seems that HRH Harry, Duke of Sussex, does not. And The Anglophilic Anglican is more than a little disappointed – not shocked, not even really surprised, as the signs were there, but disappointed – to see this made so publicly and dramatically clear.

 

Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay | The Brookings Institution

Image result for custodial worker

Source: Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay

I am still struggling, myself, to be honest; but back when I was really struggling, I used to (try to) make this point on a number of occasions, when well-meaning friends and relatives tried to tell me that “any job is better than no job.”

Well, no, it isn’t. If it doesn’t make ends meet, it may be worse than no job at all, b/c it may make you ineligible for public assistance… and you still can’t live on it.

People who have never been abjectly poor have no idea how horrible a position that is to be in, and it is often in many ways the “working poor” who have the worst of it, because they are overlooked by most assistance programs: “oh, they don’t need help, they have a job.” Not necessarily true!

This is also why I am not in complete agreement with Mike Rowe, although I respect what he’s trying to do. It is also why I am distrustful of many conservatives’ faith in “the market” to do the right thing: “the market” is made up of fallible, mortal – and often greedy and selfish – human beings, and these do not always do the right thing.

Yes, there are a good number of jobs out there, looking for workers. That is true. But many (most?) of them do not pay a living wage. In which case, what I wrote above kicks in…

[Note: Although many people do it, taking a second job – and sometimes a third – is not really a viable solution long-term, either. I am leaving aside short-term stints, to get extra money for holiday shopping, a vacation, or maybe to fund an unusual purchase; I am also leaving aside “hustling” to turn one’s sideline into one’s career.

I’m talking about working two or more jobs, consistently, to make ends meet. The more hours you’re working, the fewer you have to a) look for a better job, b) perform ordinary but necessary maintenance / domestic tasks, and c) get the rest and sleep you need in order to perform any job(s) at a high level of efficiency.]

As the linked article points out, two-thirds (64%) of low-wage workers are in their prime working years of 25 to 54; more than half (57%) work full-time year-round, the customary schedule for employment intended to provide financial security; and about half (51%) are primary earners or contribute substantially to family living expenses (FWIW, I am currently in all three of these categories).

We have a problem, here, as a society; and we need to work together, as a society, to find reasonable, workable, and effective solutions. The problem is, we’re largely talking past each other.

The Left wants to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, which has the effect of increasing automation, and forcing smaller businesses to lay off workers or even close. The neoliberal/libertarian Right says “just get a job” – which as both the article and my comments point out, isn’t necessarily, by itself, a viable solution to poverty.

I’m not sure what the solution is; if I knew, I’d be making tons of money, myself, from appearing on early-morning talk-shows and giving presentations to well-known think-tanks! But I do know we need to find one. If we don’t, the future looks dire, for a lot of people: and therefore, for society as a whole. This is important!

 


N.B. Perhaps this Chesterton quote, and the concept it embodies, may have relevance for us as we struggle toward a solution…

 

Plough Monday, 2020

Image may contain: sky, cloud, outdoor and nature

Today is Plough Monday, the first Monday after Twelfth Night and Epiphany, and what used to be an important date in the agricultural calendar. Traditionally it was the day on which farm workers returned to their duties after the Christmas and New Year break. On this day,

“A plough would be taken to the local church to be blessed in order to ‘speed the plough’ and ensure a bountiful harvest later in the year. It was a difficult time of year for ploughman, as the ground was hard and difficult to work on, so the ploughmen would decorate their ploughs and take them around the local villages where they would ask for money from the wealthy landowners.”

This money was formerly used to pay for “plough lights”: candles lit in the church, to pray God’s blessing upon the agricultural work. And if a donation was not forthcoming, the miserly one might find that his yard would be plowed!

Today would be the perfect day for a classic English “ploughman’s lunch,” which at its most basic consists of rustic country bread, one or more varieties of (originally local, now any British) cheese, pickled onions, chutney and/or some other sort of “pickle,” and ale or (generally “hard,” but sweet would be a perfectly fine substitute) cider.

Some would add an apple, others some type of greenstuff (watercress would seem a traditional choice, as it might have been picked fresh from the stream running at the bottom of the field), or perhaps a boiled egg; but though one occasionally sees them with smoked meats, pork pies, or even Scotch eggs, there seems little need to go too far beyond the basics, to me.

Plough Monday, Cottage Loaf and a Ploughman's Lunch (Recipes)

This one includes spring onions and a (somewhat anachronistic, in my view) tomato, but otherwise sticks pretty close to the basic plan!

In conclusion:

Let the wealthy and great
Roll in splendor and state:
I envy them not, I declare it.
I eat my own lamb,
My own chickens and ham;
I shear my own fleece, and I wear it.
I have lawns, I have bowers,
I have fruits, I have flowers;
The lark is my morning alarmer.
So, jolly boys, now,
Here’s God speed the plough!
Long life and success to the farmer!

(I am almost positive that this verse is on the other side of the mug seen in the picture, above!)

Roger Scruton: Conservative thinker dies at 75 | BBC News

Sir Roger Scruton

The philosopher, who died from cancer, is hailed as “the greatest conservative of our age.”

Source: Roger Scruton: Conservative thinker dies at 75 | BBC News

This is a tragic loss! One of the towering intellects of our time, and a passionate defender of Western civilization. Yesterday, Sunday the 13th of January, Sir Roger Scruton lost a six month fight with an aggressive form of cancer.

The BBC, of course, cannot resist sniping, but he was a great man, a terrific thinker, and his loss will be keenly felt by many: myself not least.

“The author of more than 50 books on aesthetics, morality and politics, he was also a government advisor. Supporters hailed him as ‘the greatest conservative of our age.’

“A statement on his website said he had been fighting cancer for six months and ‘died peacefully’ on Sunday.

“Historian Timothy Garton Ash said he was ‘a man of extraordinary intellect, learning and humour, a great supporter of central European dissidents, and the kind of provocative – sometimes outrageous – conservative thinker that a truly liberal society should be glad to have challenging it’.”

A Cambridge graduate and the author – as noted above – of some fifty books on morals, politics, architecture and aesthetics, Sir Roger was knighted in 2016 for his services to philosophy, teaching and public education. It was an honour richly deserved!

I have published here on The Anglophilic Anglican several examples of his thought, but here are two I particularly recommend, if you’ve not already seen them:

“Why Beauty Matters” (BBC documentary).

“The End of the University” (First Things article).

Requiescat in pacem, Sir Roger. You will be deeply missed.

 

Scientists challenge “scientism”: two perspectives (Pt. 1)

#1: Famed Yale computer science professor quits believing Darwin’s theories | The College Fix

https://anglophilicanglican.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/gelernter-370x242-1.jpgThe origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.

Source: Famed Yale computer science professor quits believing Darwin’s theories | The College Fix

Science is one of the great gifts God has given us: intellect, rationality, powers of observation, perception, and deduction, and the creation and use of technology to gain understanding about the world – and cosmos – in which we live. I am grateful for it; and so, I believe, should we all be!

Science, properly understood and utilized, should be a vehicle toward the greater glorification of God, as we come to understand more and more the glory and grandeur of Creation, and give praise to its Creator.

Scientism, in contrast – defined by Merriam-Webster as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)” – is inward-looking, hubris-laden, and ultimately, closed-minded… however much its proponents think otherwise.

(For more on the problems and limitations of scientism, see this excellent post – “The Problem with Scientism” – by Massimo Pigliucci, on APA Online, the blog of the American Philosophical Association.)

I believe it is important to note that I am not a “young-Earth creationist,” nor do I find it necessary to my Christian faith to believe that all we see here and now, in this incredibly vast cosmos, or the incredibly complex web of life here on Earth, was brought into being over a period of an earthly week.

It could have been, of course; it would be hubristic of me to rule out the possibility. But given what we are able to discern, using our God-given powers of intellect, observation, reason, and discernment – as noted above – it seems to me more likely that this is a metaphor, or a poetic representation, for how the cosmos came into its current flourescence.

But nor do I find it convincing that it all sprang into being spontaneously – initiation without an Initiator – and then somehow independently ordered itself into the grandeur and glory that we see around us, without any sort of design or guidance… without, that is to say, a Designer, whom we Christians know as the God of the Bible.

The old argument is just as valid today as it was centuries ago: if you see a watch, in all its complexity, it is both logical and rational to suppose the existence of a Watchmaker.

To assume that all of the components came into existence and joined together randomly, without design or intentionality, to form a workable watch, is counter to reason and logic – much like the idea that a hundred monkeys, pecking away at typewriters, could eventually come up with Shakespeare.

Yet that is exactly what many – but not all – scientists today try to claim, about the origins of the Cosmos, and the rise of life on Earth. And for such extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required: evidence which seems, quite frankly, to be lacking.

As David Gelernter, noted Yale professor of computer science, notes (quoted in the linked article),

“My argument is with people who dismiss intelligent design without considering, it seems to me — it’s widely dismissed in my world of academia as some sort of theological put up job — it’s an absolutely serious scientific argument,” Gelernter said during his interview. “In fact it’s the first and most obvious and intuitive one that comes to mind. It’s got to be dealt with intellectually.”

Gelenter notes that for many (most?) scientists today, Darwinian evolution has ceased to function as an ordinary scientific theory – an explanation that makes sense, given our current knowledge, and appears to account for the available evidence, but is subject to challenge as our knowledge base changes or expands – and become an object of ideological, almost religious faith, which cannot be challenged: quite the opposite of the scientific method! He then sounds a cautionary note:

“Gelernter said an ideological bent has taken over the field of science. There are good scientists doing good work, ‘but we have a cautionary tale [that] what happened to our English departments and our history departments could happen to us, God forbid,’ he said.”

He further notes that while he likes many of his colleagues at Yale, that they are his friends, when he looks at

“their intellectual behavior, what they have published – and much more importantly what they tell their students – Darwinism has indeed passed beyond a scientific argument as far as they are concerned. You take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it,”

and adds,

“what I have seen in their behavior intellectually and at colleges across the West is nothing approaching free speech on this topic. It’s a bitter, fundamental, angry, outraged rejection [of intelligent design], which comes nowhere near scientific or intellectual discussion.”

Why is this a problem? Leaving aside the issues of free speech and the free exchange of ideas which is one of the major underpinnings of both Western culture and Western academia, it renders its proponents unable to look at new data, or differing interpretations of existing data. With respect to life on earth, for example, adaption is well-attested. Speciation – much less origin – not so much. Here’s Gelenter again:

“There’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape,” the professor wrote. “Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture — not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.”

Emphasis added. Darwin’s seminal work was entitled “The Origin of Species,” but “the origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.” This is a problem for Darwinists, naturally, and it explains their at-times almost hysterical reaction to anything that would challenge their core doctrine.

I will not here recount Gelenter’s specific arguments, but please click through the link and read them yourself: they are telling. But they come down to the conclusion that “the idea that random chance and mutations are the driving force behind the vast complexity of life – even with billions of years of time – is not just scientifically improbable, it’s an impossibility.”

The only place in which I disagree with Gelenter is when the article notes that “he sees intelligence in Earth’s design, and has no quarrel with ID proponents, but notes the world is a mess, its suffering far outweighs its goodness.” I would say that, on balance, the goodness far outweighs the suffering, although of course, locally, suffering can be intense. But a full discussion of the theodicy is far beyond the focus of this post!

In any case, Gelenter notes,

“Darwin would easily have understood that minor mutations are common but can’t create significant evolutionary change; major mutations are rare and fatal,” Gelernter wrote. “It can hardly be surprising that the revolution in biological knowledge over the last half-century should call for a new understanding of the origin of species.”

Indeed.

To be continued, in Part Two!

Iranian protesters in Tehran turn against regime after military admits shooting down plane | Daily Mail Online

Iranians protest against the government after a vigil held for the victims of Flight 752 turned into an anti-government demonstrations outside Amirkabir University in Tehran, Iran
Iranians protest against the government after a vigil held for the victims of Flight 752 turned into an anti-government demonstrations outside Amirkabir University in Tehran, Iran.

Iranians have gathered in the streets of Tehran to demand the resignation of Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei after the regime admitted it had mistakenly shot down a civilian passenger plane.

Source: Iranian protesters in Tehran turn against regime after military admits shooting down plane | Daily Mail Online

To be honest, many Iranians have been “turned against” the regime for some years, now; but this is one more straw on the back of a well-laden camel. If it will prove the last straw, of course, remains to be seen… In any case:

The Islamic Revolutionary government of Iran has finally admitted to “accidentally” shooting down a Ukrainian airliner filled with mostly Iranian passengers on Wednesday (8 January), but 57 of the victims were Canadians of Iranian descent, and other nations were represented as well. In all, 176 people died. Tehran originally attributed the crash to “technical difficulties,” but that story quickly became impossible to defend.

Iranians shout slogans against the government after a vigil held for the victims of the airplane of Ukrainian International Airlines that crashed near Imam Khomeini Airport turned into an anti-government protest outside Amirkabir University

Now many Iranians are livid at the government, and despite the typical attempts at repression by regime forces, are making their anger known. The Iranian people have been on edge anyway, after months of demonstrations, and more recently the escalation in tension with the U.S.  stemming from the killing of IRGC Gen. Qassem Soleimani (which seems actually to have been received with favor by many Iranians, despite the highly orchestrated funeral “mourning” imposed by the regime).

That action had been followed by an Iranian missile strike against (well, sort of “against”…) U.S. targets in Iraq that seemed rather carefully calculated to avoid U.S. casualties. And in fact, there were none, despite some 15-20 ballistic missiles being fired. While needing to “save face,” it looks very much as if the Iranian regime had no interest in provoking a further U.S. response.

And now this… The Daily Mail (UK) reports that

“Angry crowds gathered on Saturday night in at least four locations in Tehran, chanting ‘death to liars’ and calling for the country’s supreme leader to step down over the tragic military blunder, video from the scene shows.

“What began as mournful vigils for Iranian lives lost on the flight soon turned to outrage and protest against the regime, and riot police quickly cracked down, firing tear gas into the crowd. 

“‘Death to the Islamic Republic’ protesters chanted, as the regime’s security forces allegedly used ambulances to sneak heavily armed paramilitary police into the middle of crowds to disperse the demonstration.”

If the Daily Mail does not feel all that egg on their face, they should look in the mirror, considering that they swallowed hook, line, and sinker the Iranian regime’s reports of widespread grief and mourning over the death of Soleimani, as I noted in an earlier post.

Now we have Iranians – unrehearsed, unchoreographed, uncoerced – chanting “Death to the Islamic Republic,” calling for the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei) to step down, and (in English) “Mad, mad, dictator!” (referring to Khamenei). Hardly the actions of a people bowed with grief over the death of that dictator’s chief minion and enforcer! Indeed, this is more fuel on the fire of the Iranian people’s decades-long grievance against the regime.

A woman gestures during a protest against the government outside Amirkabir University in Tehran, Iran on Saturday

“‘Our enemy is right here; they lie when they say it’s the US’ protesters were heard chanting in one video,” the article quotes one protester, noting that another wrote in Persian on Twitter, “‘I now believe the word of the Great Satan,'” an apparently ironic reference to a favorite term used by the Islamic Revolutionary government to refer to the U.S., since the days of the Ayatollah Khomenei.

“Protesters demanded that those responsible for shooting down the civilian plane be publicly tried and held accountable. The crowd also condemned the Islamic Republic’s paramilitary internal security force, chanting ‘Death to Basij’…

“Anti-regime factions said that the protests reflected the frustrations of Iranian citizens with the government corruption and oppression. 

“‘The protest by thousands of Iranians in Tehran burst the propaganda balloon of the regime regarding Qassem Soleimani’s elimination,’ [emphasis added] said Shahin Gobadi, spokesman of the anti-regime group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, in a statement to DailyMail.com.

“Gobadi said that the protests ‘showed the true sentiments of the Iranians and once again clearly proved that Iran is a powder keg and the Iranian people will not stop until the regime change.'”

Iranians protest against the government outside Amirkabir University in Tehran, Iran on Saturday

It is not only the Iranian people who are outraged. Even Leftist Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “cast doubt on Iran’s claim that it accidentally shot down the Ukrainian jet,” the article notes:

“Trudeau said the shoot-down of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 ‘is one of the issues that we certainly need better answers to,’ during a news conference on Saturday. ‘I am, of course, outraged and furious,’ Trudeau said of the crash, adding that whether the tragedy was an accident or not still needs to be determined.”

While it would not surprise me if Trudeau eventually accepts the Iranian regime’s assertion that one of their anti-aircraft missile batteries mistook the 737 for an American cruise missile – a dubious proposition, to put it mildly – the Iranian people are unlikely to be put off by such evasions.

The Anglophilic Anglican emphatically supports the Iranian people in their quest for freedom, justice, and self-determination.


Update (10:24 p.m. EST, 11 January 2020): Later reports indicate that the regime increased its efforts to break up the protests, after nightfall.

Riot police with shields and batons massed to disrupt the anti-government protests on Saturday night

“Screams were heard as regime forces fired tear gas at the protesters in a brutal crackdown after night fell… As night fell, riot police attempted to break up the protests with tear gas. Cops armed with shields and batons tried to disperse the crowds, and police fired water canons at protesters.”

As of this point, no indication as to how successful the attempts to break up the protests have been. Please join me in praying for the Iranian people.