US admits lowest number of refugees in more than 40 years – CNNPolitics

The United States admitted 22,491 refugees in the last fiscal year – one of the lowest amounts on record.

Source: US admits lowest number of refugees in more than 40 years – CNNPolitics

“The United States admitted 22,491 refugees in the last fiscal year – one of the lowest amounts on record.

“The admissions count for the 2018 fiscal year, which ended on September 30, was less than half the number of refugees admitted in FY 2017 (53,716) and about one-quarter of the number of people admitted in FY 2016 (84,994). According to State Department records going back to 1975, the only year that the US admitted fewer refugees was 1977.

“A State Department spokesperson said the reduced number of admissions ‘was consistent with operational capacity to implement new screening and vetting procedures following Executive Order 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.'”

Progress.

Let me be clear: we have a moral responsibility to assist those who are genuine refugees – albeit, with the goal of helping them to return to their countries of origin, if or when circumstances allow.

We also have a moral responsibility to distinguish between authentic refugees and those claiming “refugee” status as cover for their real intention, be that criminal or terrorist activity, or with the hope of becoming economic migrants.

In the case of the latter, we have a social (and arguably moral) responsibility to our own citizens, and to the nation as a whole, to ensure that only those who have a reasonable expectation of making a positive contribution to our nation’s economic and social well-being are allowed in: and coming in, or attempting to come in, under false pretenses is a pretty good example of a disqualifying factor.

Notwithstanding the signs carried by the people pictured above, the sentiments expressed are, at least, debatable; a nation with no borders – or porous borders – is not a nation at all. Good to see us finally standing up for our own sovereignty, once again!

Advertisements

The Dalai Lama vs. Pope Francis on Immigration – Dr. Steve Turley on YouTube

Source: The Dalai Lama vs. Pope Francis on Immigration!!! – Dr. Steve Turley | YouTube

Dr. Steve Turley is a YouTube personality (I guess if you have 67,000 followers you can be counted as one of those!), a conservative vlogger who is both prolific – posting two videos a day, each tending to run between ten and fifteen minutes, plus or minus – and relentlessly optimistic regarding the future of the West.

The latter is actually rather refreshing, in an atmosphere where many (myself included, on my worst days) tend to be prone to gloom-and-doom pessimism on the present cultural civil war, which constantly seems on the verge of slipping over into a “hot” war between the militant Left and those on the right who are becoming increasingly “mad as h___, and aren’t going to take this any more,” in the words of the famous 1978 movie scene.

At any rate, Turley seeks – in his own words – to “analyze current events in light of awesome conservative trends, so that you can personally and professionally flourish.” A bit of a “Renaissance man” (a direction in which I tend, myself), Turley’s PhD is from Durham University; he is the author of more than 20 books, teaches theology and rhetoric at Tall Oaks Classical School in Bear, DE, and serves as Professor of Fine Arts at Eastern University, a Christian university near Philadelphia, inter alia.

All of which is by way of a lead-in to say that he has the academic and professional chops to back what he says, and what he says is often interesting, and sometimes enlightening.  This video is certainly worth watching, and listening to.

“We are indeed living in bizarre times when a major Buddhist world leader is actually sounding more Christian than the Pope!”

We are indeed…

Viktor Orbán: “Say Goodbye to the Entire Elite of ’68”

Source: Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech at the 29th Bálványos Summer Open University and Student Camp

Above is the complete video, with English subtitles, of Orbán’s speech in Transylvania, in which he highlighted his accomplishments and outlined a vision of a renewed Central Europe pursuing its own geopolitical interests, but also being a region based on national sovereignty, Christian values, and resistance to contemporary Left-wing “liberalism,” as well as the rejection of non-European immigration and the values of the “’68 generation.” The link is to the complete text of this speech, which is a bit long to follow along comfortably with the subtitles – at least it is, for me.

There is much in this speech that is worth “reading, marking, learning, and inwardly digesting,” but one item that leapt out at me were the five tenets he proposed for not Hungary alone, but Central Europe, in the years and decades ahead. They are these:

“I have formulated five tenets for the project of building up Central Europe. The first is that every European country has the right to defend its Christian culture, and the right to reject the ideology of multiculturalism.

“Our second tenet is that every country has the right to defend the traditional family model, and is entitled to assert that every child has the right to a mother and a father.

“The third Central European tenet is that every Central European country has the right to defend the nationally strategic economic sectors and markets which are of crucial importance to it.

“The fourth tenet is that every country has the right to defend its borders, and it has the right to reject immigration.

“And the fifth tenet is that every European country has the right to insist on the principle of one nation, one vote on the most important issues, and that this right must not be denied in the European Union.

“In other words, we Central Europeans claim that there is life beyond globalism, which is not the only path.”

With obvious adjustments based on region and political alignment (particularly for those of us who are – thankfully! – not part of the EU), it seems to me that these five tenets make a good deal of sense for all who value national sovereignty, identify, self-expression, history, heritage, and tradition over globalist suppression of these elements.

And then there is this, in which he has placed his finger squarely upon the crisis facing Europe itself:

I can tell you that if we take a look at Europe, we can see that it was once a great civilization. Europe was once a power center that shaped the world. This was so because it dared to think, it dared to act, it was brave, and it embarked upon great endeavors.

“If we look at one civilization or another from a spiritual perspective – and there is a branch of literature devoted to this – we can conclude that civilizations are comprised of four things. Civilizations are entities of a spiritual nature. They are formed from the spirit of religion, the spirit of creative arts, the spirit of research, and the spirit of business enterprise. These are the spirits that can form a civilization.

“If we look at our Europe now in terms of the spirit of religion, we see that it has rejected its Christian foundations. In terms of the spirit of creative arts, we see that there is censorship, and political correctness is forced upon us. In terms of the spirit of research, we can say that the US has overtaken our Europe, and soon China will also have done so. And as regards the spirit of business in Europe, we can say that instead of the spirit of business, today Brussels and economic regulations are ruled by the spirit of bureaucracy.”

He continues,

The gravity of the situation – the gravity of the situation of European civilization – has been revealed by the migrant crisis. Let me take a complex thought and simplify it: We must face up to the fact that Europe’s leaders are inadequate, and that they’ve been unable to defend Europe against immigration. The European elite has failed, and the European Commission is the symbol of that failure…

“Now we should ask ourselves why the European elite – which is today exclusively a liberal elite – has failed.

The answer to this question – or at least this is where I look for the answer – is that first of all it has rejected its roots, and instead of a Europe resting on Christian foundations, it is building a Europe of the ‘open society.’ In Christian Europe, there was honor in work, man had dignity, men and women were equal, the family was the basis of the nation, the nation was the basis of Europe, and states guaranteed security.

“In today’s open-society Europe, there are no borders; European people can be readily replaced with immigrants; the family has been transformed into an optional, fluid form of cohabitation; the nation, national identity, and national pride are seen as negative and obsolete notions; and the state no longer guarantees security in Europe. In fact, in liberal Europe, being European means nothing at all: It has no direction, and it is simply form devoid of content.”

This could, of course, be said about the West in general, at this point in our history! But the situation is even more poignant and critical in Europe itself, which is the homeland of its own indigenous people – Europeans – as well as acutely vulnerable (due to its location) to masses of migrants pouring in from elsewhere… and particularly from regions with alien cultures and ethnicities.

The potential result, if left unchecked, is the complete annihilation of Europe itself: a threat which should be of concern not only to anyone of European heritage, anywhere in the world, but of anyone, anywhere, who has any concern for legitimate multiculturalism, true global diversity, and cultural survival – not the ersatz version of “multiculturalism” spewed by the globalist Left.

Orbán continues,

If you think back over the past one hundred years or so of European democracy, you can detect a pattern in which matters in Europe have effectively been decided by competition between two camps: on one side, communities based on the continuing foundations of Christian tradition – let us call them Christian democratic parties; and, on the other side, the organizations of communities which question and reject tradition – let us call them Left-wing liberal parties…

Christian democratic politics means that the ways of life springing from Christian culture must be protected. Our duty [from a political perspective] is not to defend the articles of faith, but the forms of being that have grown from them.

“These include human dignity, the family, and the nation – because Christianity does not seek to attain universality through the abolition of nations, but through the preservation of nations. Other forms which must be protected and strengthened include our faith communities. This – and not the protection of religious articles of faith – is the duty of Christian democracy…

Let us confidently declare that Christian democracy is not liberal. Liberal democracy is liberal, while Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal: it is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in connection with a few important issues – say, three great issues.

“Liberal democracy is in favor of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept.”

“Illiberal” is a word-concept that rings with some dissonance on the contemporary ear, especially here in the U.S., where there is still a memory of classical or traditional liberalism, with its connotations of broad-mindedness, generosity, and tolerance. The sad truth, however, is that what passes for political “liberalism” in today’s world has strayed very far from those concepts. Par exemple:

For our Founders, liberty involved freedom from excessive government interference; for today’s liberals, government enforcement of their preferred social norms is not only permissible, but expected, even demanded. For liberals of the past, freedom of speech and expression was a fundamental, core value; for the so-called “liberal” Left of today, freedom of speech may be, and they would argue in some cases should be, suppressed to prevent what they view as “offensive” speech. Such are the vagaries of linguistic development, in the sociopolitical sphere!

In such a context, to classify what Orbán calls “Christian democracy” as “illiberal” is not only comprehensible, but logical: liberalism having betrayed its own foundations, it must now be reigned in for the good of society, and for the future of humankind. As a first step in that direction, he cites the upcoming European Parliament elections, scheduled for next May:

Let us brace ourselves, let us launch ourselves into this intellectual debate, and so let us steel ourselves for the European Parliament elections. We are on the threshold of a great moment, and we’ll see whether or not it comes to fulfillment. The opportunity is here. Next May we can wave goodbye not only to liberal democracy and the liberal non-democratic system that has been built on its foundations, but also to the entire elite of ’68.

If the elite of ’68 leaves the field, there is only one question to be answered: who will arrive to replace them? And the modest answer we must give to this is that we are on our way. Calmly, and with restraint and composure, we must say that the generation of the ’90s is arriving to replace the generation of ’68. In European politics, it is the turn of the anti-Communist generation, which has Christian convictions and commitment to the nation.

Thirty years ago, we thought that Europe was our future. Today we believe that we are Europe’s future.

For someone such as myself, who is deeply concerned about the direction of the West, it is impossible not to read these words and be encouraged. Not that Orbán is perfect; there is One and only One perfect man, One and only One Saviour: Jesus Christ our Lord. As one commentator points out, many of us are

“always looking for a hero – Putin, Trump, Orbán, or whoever – and as we know this sometimes leads people to ignore their flaws and hero-worship them, all of whom in the end are, after all, nothing more than politicians, even if they do things that are in some ways beneficial for us.

“And there are certainly valid criticisms one can make of Orbán, especially for a Hungarian. But I still think that the positives far outweigh the negatives. There can be no question that Orbán has done great work on behalf of all in the West by standing up to Brussels over immigration.”

Indeed. I wish him, Hungary, and the Visegrád Four (as well as their allies in Austria and Italy) all the best, as they struggle to protect the sovereignty, self-identify, culture, history, and heritage of Europe – Christian Europe – against a rising tide of alien immigration from without, and atheistic nihilism from within.

Read the speech (or listen to it and read the subtitles). There is much more than I have recounted here, and though a lot of it is specific to Hungary and/or Central Europe, there is much that’s worth reading by the rest of us!

Dalai Lama says ‘Europe belongs to Europeans’ | Government & Economy – THE BUSINESS TIMES

https://anglophilicanglican.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/doc71v6f8oii00zq63dm87_doc71v1s8mi8541j0bdz1ft.jpg?w=840

[STOCKHOLM] The Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, said Wednesday that “Europe belongs to the Europeans” and that refugees should return to their native countries to rebuild them.

Source: Dalai Lama says ‘Europe belongs to Europeans’ | Government & Economy – THE BUSINESS TIMES

The Dalai Lama knows, from bitter personal experience, what can happen when a country’s borders, sovereignty, and national and cultural integrity are not respected. I have always thought he had a good head on his shoulders!

And in this arena, I fear he surpasses the current Bishop of Rome, not to mention many another contemporary Western political and religious leader. Here are his further comments on the subject:

Speaking at a conference in Sweden’s third-largest city of Malmo, home to a large immigrant population, the Dalai Lama – who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 – said Europe was “morally responsible” for helping “a refugee really facing danger against their life.”

“Receive them, help them, educate them… but ultimately they should develop their own country,” said the 83-year-old Tibetan who fled the capital Lhasa in fear of his life after China poured troops into the region to crush an uprising.

[Bear in mind that this was an “uprising” of native Tibetans, against Chinese troops who had already invaded that country.]

“I think Europe belongs to the Europeans,” he said, adding they should make clear to refugees that “they ultimately should rebuild their own country.”

Indeed.

Battle Lines Are Clearly Drawn: Multicultural Utopia VS Populist Traditionalists | Oath Keepers

HuffPost Germany Writer Calls For Replacing Germans With Migrants to Stop Populism

In a very revealing article posted by Paul Joseph Watson, on InfoWars.com, Paul points out a HuffPost Germany writer, Veit Lindner, who asserts, that to stop the momentum of the “new right,” “it would actually be best to just replace” the German people with foreigners.

Source: Battle Lines Are Clearly Drawn – Multicultural Utopia VS Populist Traditionalists – Oath Keepers

Yes, I know that many people will simply ignore / dis-count this, due to its source. That would be a mistake. The article is real, and it is scary.

Referring to the “New Right” (those who are of a traditionalist / populist mindset, who wish to preserve and protect their people and their ethnic and cultural heritage) as a “stinking flatulence,” the author of the HuffPost piece (frighteningly entitled “Repeople us! Why the German people should be abolished”) asserts that

“it would actually be best to just replace them [ethnic Germans]. Attention, Germans! Fall in for comprehensive repeopling! [Umvolkung]

“Black, brown, yellow, white, Asians and Arabs, Africans, you people from America, India, people of all faiths – come and help us! Stream in and repeople us, but thoroughly! […]

A little more genetic and cultural seed-scattering here and a little more self-abolition through reproduction fatigue there – that, as Deniz Yücel once called it, would be the ‘most beautiful side of the perishing of a people.'”

As if there could ever be anything beautiful about the perishing of a people! Imagine the outcry – wholly justified – if someone on the right were to write such a thing, and publish it in a (relatively) mainstream publication, about any demographic group except white Europeans? But no, it is not only acceptable but praiseworthy to sacrifice Europeans for this utopian multicultural future.

This is a nihilistic, vicious, hateful, and intrinsically violent vision: calling for the disruption and destruction of a people, a culture, and a society that have developed organically over centuries and millennia, to forcibly impose a socially-engineered vision believed by a small number of zealots – violent extremists, rather – to be preferable to that highly developed culture: a culture which has brought aberrations like Marx and Hitler, true, but has also brought us Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, and Strauss; glorious art and architecture; remarkable scientific and technological advances; along with, yes, pretzels with German mustard, a wide range of tasty sausages, and other features of a remarkably rich and flavorful cuisine; excellent beer; folk dances, dirndls, and lederhosen, and the joys of Oktoberfest.

And now all of this must be swept away, to make room for a new, supposedly “multicultural” future. Why? No one has ever provided any sort of remotely logical reason! Because of Hitler? That was 80 years ago! Because of the “New Right”? Well, guess what: the New Right arose precisely because of and in reaction to this extreme multicultural program the Left is attempting to impose, not just on Germany, not just on Europe, but on the West as a whole. The New Right are the antibodies, fighting the disease of Leftist insanity.

But of course, anyone opposed to the Leftists’ utopian vision will be pilloried as a racist, a xenophobe, a white supremacist. However, it is not racist, xenophobic, or any sort of “supremacist” to oppose and resist the destruction of your people, your ethnic and cultural heritage. Rather, it is a moral duty, just as defending one’s own family would be: for one’s nation and people are one’s family, writ large.

If you are a “person of colour” and are calling for this “repeopling,” you are advocating ethno-cultural genocide; if you are of European heritage, then you are advocating ethno-cultural suicide. In either case, you are bat-shit crazy (pardon my language), you are diseased, you are a vile and evil person. I want nothing to do with you, and I will do my best to unmask and denounce you as the horror you are.

Let us remember that “utopia” means, literally, “no place.” It does not and cannot exist. What utopians call for is something that is unnatural, unreal, that cannot happen. It is an illusion, a false promise of peace and cooperation that in fact could only end in death and destruction. Doubt me? Well, we just “celebrated” (some of us mourned) Bastille Day, the 14th of July, the date marking the storming of the Bastille and thus the dawn of the French Revolution.

As I have commented elsewhere, those who are actually aware of the existence of Bastille Day, here in the U.S., tend to celebrate it (if they give it a second thought) as if the French Revolution was the American Revolution, Pt. 2. It was not. Despite the cries of “Liberté, egalité, fraternité!” (“Liberty, equality, fraternity!”), it started in blood, it was advanced by blood, and it ended in blood: a dark and sinister time in the world’s history. Today’s Leftists are treading the same bloody path – one which has been tread by the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, among others.

The mindset revealed in this HuffPost Germany essay is a classic example of the old adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The only good thing that I see in all of this is that the extreme Leftists are finally showing their true colours. They are not tolerant, they are not peaceful, they are not compassionate, and they only want “diversity” on their own terms. I can only hope that the fence-sitters and moderates wake up to what is actually being proposed, and realize how bad it actually is, and how bad the people proposing it actually are!

Mark my words: if enough of us do not say, “No! You are wrong, you are crazy, this cannot and will not be allowed to happen,” we will find ourselves in a violent and bloody conflict that will make the French Revolution look like a walk in the park.

 


 

Nota Bene: What constitutes “genocide”? Well, here’s the UN’s definition, from its “Convention on Genocide,” which it considers (rightly) a crime against humanity:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical [sic], racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If you don’t think at least (b), (c), and possibly (d) describe what’s going on in Europe at present already, and particularly what is being proposed in the HuffPost Germany essay referenced above, you are not paying close enough attention!

 


Do you appreciate and/or enjoy these posts, and want to support The Anglophilic Anglican in my defense of Western Christendom, and enjoyment of Western culture and civilization?

Then please consider supporting me on Patreon!

Many thanks in advance.

 

Meanwhile, in Denmark…

Migrant boys abuse and rape 5 young girls in Denmark – Migrant mother thinks racism is behind their arrest | Voice of Europe

Source: Migrant boys abuse and rape 5 young girls in Denmark – Migrant mother thinks racism is behind their arrest

“The boys plead not guilty and no action has yet been brought in the cases. The girls had to perform oral sex and others were raped. The youngest of the girls were only 13-years-old.

“‘There was no rape. If you’re with a girl at her home, it’s not rape like if you grab a girl outdoors and force her down. She lied and the charges are exaggerated,’ a father of one of the boys says.”

Thank you, sir! May I have more “cultural enrichment,” please…?

And these are the people with whom the secular Left – supposedly the champions of “women’s rights” – are making common cause. And we wonder why the West is going you-know-where in a handbasket…

 


Do you appreciate these posts – even when the subject is depressing or infuriating – and want to support The Anglophilic Anglican in my defense of Western Christendom?

Then please consider supporting me on Patreon!

Many thanks in advance.

Britain slips (further…?) into “1984” mode

“Hey, Tommy Tommy! Hey, Tommy Robinson!”

— chant from a recent Free Tommy Robinson rally in the UK

There is an old saying that goes, “I love my country, it’s the government I can’t stand.”

I love Great Britain, its history, its culture, its Queen (God save Her Majesty!), its monarchical, aristocratic, folk, and just plain quirky traditions, and yes, I believe, its potential – if it can shake off these “dark times” (in Katie Hopkins’ words) it is going through. But its government? That, I have less and less respect for all the time.

In this latest confirmation that George Orwell (author of the classic work of dystopian fiction, Nineteen Eight-Four) was not wrong, just several decades premature, social activist and citizen journalist Tommy Robinson was recently livestreaming outside the latest grooming-gang trial in the UK. As reported in, inter alia, the National Review,

“The police turned up in a van and swiftly arrested Robinson for ‘breach of the peace.’ Within hours Robinson had been put before one Judge Geoffrey Marson, who in under five minutes tried, convicted, and sentenced Robinson to 13 months. He was immediately taken to prison.”

Tommy Robinson is a controversial figure, to say the least. The founder of the English Defense League, he is definitely to the nationalist and populist right of center. For those whose social and political perspective is globalist and statist, or “progressive” and multiculturalist, that’s enough to make him persona non grata.

But he has not only been opposed to the enforced mass immigration that the now apparently dead-in-the-water Brexit was, in part, about, but he has been focusing on exposing the mostly-Pakistani Muslim “grooming gangs” – as the British press delicately phrases it – or as Hopkins more accurately puts it, “rape squads.”

This is no exaggeration. Would that it were! But as Douglas Murray points out in a National Review article that pulls no punches on either side, “every month brings news of another town in which gangs of men (almost always of Pakistani origin) have been found to have raped young, often underage, white girls.”

Since this is an issue the authorities would rather not confront, they are needless to say not inclined to look favorably on someone whose activities – as a social activist and citizen journalist – are forcing the issue into public attention. Have some of his actions been unwise, even foolish? Yes. Has the British government’s response to him been disproportionate and extreme? A thousand times, yes! Murray continues,

“The primary issue is that for years the British state allowed gangs of men to rape thousands of young girls across Britain. For years the police, politicians, Crown Prosecution Service, and every other arm of the state ostensibly dedicated to protecting these girls failed them. As a number of government inquires have concluded, they turned their face away from these girls because they were terrified of the accusations of racism that would come their way if they did address them. They decided it wasn’t worth the aggravation…

“What can be said with absolute certainty is that Tommy Robinson has been treated with greater suspicion and a greater presumption of guilt by the United Kingdom than any Islamic extremist or mass rapist ever has been. That should be — yet is not — a national scandal. If even one mullah or sheikh had been treated with the presumption of guilt that Robinson has received, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the rest of them would be all over the U.K. authorities. But different standards apply to Robinson.”

And now he has been sent to prison for 13 months, where – if he is in an open ward, in which are a very large proportion of Muslims – he may end up coming out in a body bag. As Tucker Carlson and Katie Hopkins point out in the video above, you don’t have to like Tommy Robinson, agree with him, or even know who he is to understand that what has happened to him is wrong. To quote Murray again,

“Tommy Robinson will be in prison for another year. And all those people happy with the status quo will breathe a sigh of relief. ‘Thank goodness that troublemaker has gone away.’ Yet their real problem has not gone away. There is no chance of their real problem going away. Because they have no plan for making it go away.

“They have a vague hope, of course, which is that at some point soon in the coming generations this will all simmer down and the incoming communities will develop similar views about the status of women as the rest of society. And perhaps we will get there someday. But it is telling that the apparently tolerable roadkill en route includes one young man from Luton — and thousands of raped girls.”