In the news?

In the off chance you missed this one: Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada . It's enough to make American Lefties change their tune on Iraq. Oh wait, they are!

Cheers,

Charlie

The Face of Socialized Health Care

British dentistry gets even worse, as if such a thing were possible. Smile America. All the wonders of socialized health care may soon be yours!

Cheers,

Charlie

A Declaration for One and All

“We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”

- Sir Winston Churchill - March 5, 1946

If you remember nothing else, remember this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Happy birthday America!

Cheers,

Charlie

Sweet Nothings

“Imagine there’s no countries/it isn’t hard to do/nothing to kill or die for/and no religion too/imagine all the people/living life in peace.”
- John Lennon, Imagine

With the American Democratic Party’s formal consummation of its dalliance with the Fresh Prince of Thin Air, we had anticipated at least some airing of the lamentations of regret typically following such ill-advised intercourse. Hearing little to none, we are compelled to re-examine the cultural circumstances which make it possible for a farce such as this to come to pass.

Though much discussed, the Obama ascendancy still baffles: the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy has turned the keys over to a very junior Senator whose scant voting record is the furthest left of any in the Senate. Really? It has been called “the audacity of hope.” We call it merely, audacity; that strain of defiant, reckless, irresponsible audacity one expects from a sixteen year old, not from a national institution that – at one time anyway – was of significant weight and consequence.

We ought not be surprised.

By inertia alone has the DNC produced candidates over the past four decades possessing at least the requisite resume for the job of American head of state. The real work over these years has been that of the New Left steadily inculcating its Fifth Column dogma into the party’s ethos. Clearly the Democratic Party has suffered for it, yet remains, somehow, undead. Zombified in this fashion, the party has afforded its representatives nothing in the way of new ideas to promote. Since the mid-Sixties they have spewed and re-spewed the very same socialistic Great Society pap about defending the poor, minorities, and the oppressed; rhetoric exposed daily as empty, insincere, misleading, and counter-productive. It only follows then that this hollowed-out party produce and endorse a candidate as insubstantial as its rhetoric – window dressing for the empty store. But why are people buying it?

Because Obama resonates profoundly with the prevailing cultural influence of our time, what we call fashionable nihilism. In a universe without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value; form reigns supreme over content; style over substance; aesthetic over actuality; the subjective is enshrined and the objective demonized; relativism is embraced and absolutism rejected; perception is reality. These are the bylaws of contemporary popular culture and the parameters of acceptable modern thought. In the political realm, there may be no more perfect embodiment of them than the young, handsome, golden-voiced, and virgin - Barrack Hussein Obama.

Fashionable nihilism has been sometime in the making. No less than Friedrich Nietzsche heralded its rise and warned of its disastrous potential as far back as the late 1800’s. In his classic The Will to Power, Nietzsche warned that European culture was moving “as toward catastrophe: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.” He predicted that in “the history of the next two centuries …what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism.”

At midpoint now between “the next two centuries,” it seems Freddy may have been onto something. We do not here refer merely to the rise of sociopath monsters such as Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, but also the popular movements which supported them, and – perhaps most importantly – the mind set that rationalized reluctance and timidity amongst those who ought stop them.

In his April 24, 1933 address at the Royal Society of St. George, Sir Winston Churchill aptly diagnosed the condition and its effect on his contemporaries.

"The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage-earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians....Nothing can save England if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told."

Nonetheless, for the next seven years England continued to drag her feet and avert her eyes until landing herself in the weakest possible position, resulting in the near extinction of Christian civilization. Ultimately, Britain did save herself, due largely to the leadership and state craft of Sir Winston Churchill whom she voted out of power the moment she was returned to safety. The body was safe. The soul is another question. Fashionable nihilism, temporarily suspended, had retained its hold.

This trend was not mainstreamed, however, until the 1960’s. What with the perfect storm of an unprecedented surge of young people, unprecedented wealth, and unprecedented mass communication technology – not to mention an elder generation too weary and few to counter it – an ersatz cultural revolution took place. Principles which had guided Western civilization through the storm of history to her present sanctuary –moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue - were cast off in favor of the values and world view of adolescence: the rash, the titillating, the intoxicating, the immediate, the audacious. The faith that our story was part of a larger more permanent Truth requiring of its actors courage, integrity, perseverance, and self-control in order to be told, was discredited as mere chauvinism and bigotry. This time, relativism was the Serpent’s apple, and the brave new world sunk its teeth into it with relish. Henceforth, Western minds have been narrowing while believing themselves to be opening.

The New Left seeing this for what it was - the hollowing out of free market democracy from its core - shrewdly seized upon this development. Marketers, entertainers, and opportunistic politicians, pursuing trends with all the discretion of bucks in rut, followed suit. Today, the sweet nothings of fashionable nihilism – ever-sexy, ever-youthful, ever-enticing, never delivering – are omni-present, penetrating Western minds and hearts from every possible angle and coloring every aspect of modern society.

In his new book, Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy, author Natan Sharansky, former Soviet dissident and political prisoner as well as a member of the Israeli cabinet, argues against the modern consensus that traditional concepts such as nationalism and religion are antithetical to freedom. Discussing his book at a recent Heritage Foundation lecture, Sharansky began by citing John Lennon’s Imagine (the lyric which prefaces this post) as iconic of this consensus.

“Imagine the world without God and without hell, without borders and without nations, the world where there is nothing to die for, the brotherhood of man,” Sharansky paraphrases. “He (Lennon) believes that real freedom is when people stop being divided into nations, into religion, and when there is nothing to die for. It’s such a good life you don’t have to die for anything.”

Sharansky then explained that, in his own experience and that of other dissidents he met in Soviet gulags as well as through his work since, it was the exact opposite belief that empowered them to defy and prevail against oppression. The faith that there is something permanent, something bigger than one’s own life and well-being, that there are things truly worth dying for; things like God and country, quaint old-fashioned notions that make extraordinary heroes out of ordinary men, this was the faith that sustained them. Those without it capitulated. What else could they do? What is the use of resisting tyranny when none of this nation and religion business matters anyway?

Yet even with the collapse of the Soviet Union Sharansky notes, the Lennon sentiment thrives throughout the West today. Should it continue to do so, Sharansky warns, it will mean our doom. For – seeking to disavow ourselves of our very selves as we are - what resistance could we possibly put up against a force so focused, so furious, so intense as say … Islam?

“We have two societies,” Sharansky explains. “One has a strong identity and no obligations toward freedom. And the other has a strong belief in freedom but no identity, no roots, no desire to die for anything. This society has no chance.”

Sobering words from one who knows.

The rise of Islam in the modern world is an indictment of the West’s self-induced enfeeblement. Frankly, it is laughable that a cult of 7th century cave-dwelling suicidal miscreants could possibly present any actual concern to the 21st century world. Yet it does, because we have allowed it. Like a drunken gardener who too long neglected the simple tasks of tending his plot and is now in danger of losing it to weeds and pests, so the free world today is poised to be overrun by goons of yore as a result of its own fecklessness.

And now we see that instead of rooting out that fecklessness, far too large a portion of the American people are evidently eager to let it lead them in voting a preposterously under-qualified man to the most powerful office in the free world.

“Oh whatever,” they rebut. “It’s time for a change. Besides it’ll be neat to have a black president.” Behold the rigorous logic of fashionable nihilism.

And Britain and Europe, oblivious to their own lost cause, cheer them on from the sidelines.

For nigh on half a century, the Free World has lounged in the spa of fashionable nihilism, bathing in its pretty songs, its feel-good policies, its pie-in-the-sky promises; sweet nothings seducing us to our undoing. In this context, the Obama campaign is indeed a referendum. Not a referendum on “race in America,” for what then of the rancorous debate around Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell etc.? This is a referendum on how America understands herself. Does she still take seriously her role as the last best hope of mankind and all which that requires? Or does she concur with her critics that she is too proud, too strong, too rich and must therefore humble herself before the court of world opinion, electing that court's preference for president being the first big step of many in that direction?

We shall see. This referendum on America is for American’s to decide. It they decide unwisely, the next one may not be. For once sovereignty is given over – be it in the name of peace, or reparation, or empty-headed stupidity – it may never be regained; just ask the Britons and Europeans.

At this point in history, these are the stakes, the bleak dividends of fashionable nihilism: sweet nothings more nothing than sweet.

And as Sir Winston forewarned at another such point in history,

"If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told."

Cheers,

Charlie

Our Unanticipated Hiatus

Dear readers,

We have been on special assignment. Our triumphant return shall transpire in short order. We apologize for any inconvenience or diminishment of enlightenment this may have caused. Your loyalty and patience is greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Charlie

"Paths of Glory" - A different kind of Memorial Day tribute.

In our ongoing audit of the West's depeletion of what we have dubbed the "Arsenal of the Will," we , on rare occassions, encounter a piece of writing where we are forced to admit even we could not have said it better ourselves. The following, from our dear friend Roger Gardner at Radarsite , is just such a piece. Enjoy!
------
"Paths of Glory"

Tonight, once again, I watched the late Stanley Kubricks' 1957 internationally acclaimed antiwar tour de force, the ironically titled "Paths of Glory". In the words of famed movie critic Leonard Maltin, a "shattering study of the insanity of war." A movie so profound, so powerful, so intelligent and deeply disturbing, so exquisitely wrought by a director of such singular genius and vision that it remains removed and aloof forever from any rational consideration of its true intrinsic value. Tonight, however, I watched it a little more closely and a little more critically through my wary post 9/11 eyes.

Somewhat sadly, I watched an altogether different picture tonight. Still moving, still poignant, still powerful, still filled with the bitter aftertaste of remorse and shame. So masterfully crafted is this unquestioned indictment of war that we willingly abandon ourselves to its most obvious message. We dare not think to question the basic premise of the argument, to do so would merely prove how far we have degenerated in our common morality. War is wrong. Period. End of argument.

The only socially acceptable reaction to this realistic depiction of this global madness is one of bitter regret and shame. Deep cultural historical shame. This is where we have come to today. In place of a national sense of pride, a pervasive and relentless awareness of shame.

And our dead warriors, those endless rows of crosses, merely serve to symbolize our shame, and our collective guilt. There is nothing here to celebrate anymore, nothing here to honor. How can we celebrate and honor these victims of our most egregious mistakes? The answer of course is that we cannot. We push them out of our consciousness with our gaudy parades and our honorific barbecues.

All we can offer up now are second-rate speeches and second-rate emotions. We feel self-conscious saluting our imperialistic American flag when it passes. We think we'd look silly if we stood up to attention. What would our neighbors think? Would they think that we actually approved of all this?

War, we have now learned, is nothing but a massive criminal enterprise. And our fallen warriors, for all of their individual valor, are really nothing but criminals -- innocent criminals perhaps, coerced into their catastrophic crimes by patriotic propaganda, but criminals nonetheless. We offer them only our grudging token condolences then quickly sweep them out of our consciousness and prepare our grills for the cook outs, hoping it's going to be a nice day and that it won't rain and spoil everything.

Occasionally, we feel a twinge of something approaching guilt about the true meaning of this special day -- but it's so insignificant and fleeting it's hardly to be noticed -- like forgetting about Jesus Christ at Christmas or Columbus on Columbus Day. This is our real Memorial Day tradition now. To avoid the embarrassment of the dead and celebrate the overwhelming reality of the living.

This, then, is how we have learned to think about war, and about our warriors. When there is no discernable enemy landing on our shores, when we feel safe and comfortable in our daily worries, lost in our selfish familial concerns, this is how we feel about war and about our war memorials.

In the comforting bosom of peacetime, we philosophize about war and make high-sounding moral indictments of it. We denigrate our warriors, because they represent a failed paradigm, the antithesis of our own great paradigm. We have learned that all wars for whatever reasons are absolutely evil and unnecessary, that to succumb to war is weakness. All wars, we have been taught, are essentially futile, gross senseless wastes of innocent lives. Young men sent to the proverbial slaughterhouses by cynical self-serving old men who have nothing to lose but their ideological arguments.

We lounge in our comfortable ignorance and refuse to stir from our virtual realities. We refuse to confront the glaring incontestable facts that we are only breathing now because men were willing to go to war and die to protect us. To protect our forgetfulness, our complacency, our self-centered myopic unconcern for their ultimate and final sacrifices. We are not in pain now so we refuse to believe in it. The threats, after all, are only virtual threats, manufactured ploys from our right-winger war-mongers. They have no real legitimacy and in no way conflict with our deeply held convictions that intelligent tolerance and understanding will see us through. We are, after all, civilized men and women, aren't we?

In short, Memorial Day is a farce. War is wrong and we protest it and we despise it. Warriors are, at their best misguided, and at their worst merely soulless unthinking brutes. We have convinced ourselves that we have risen above the necessity of all violence. We have moved beyond all that.

Well, my friends, I'm afraid we're in for a rude awakening.

Our 'brutal and senseless' wars have saved our precious tender skins. Our murderous brutish warriors have given us our lives and our freedoms and we use them to denigrate their victories. Soon, however, I fear that we will be reminded once again. Soon, I believe we will learn once again the truth that war is not an aberration, it is our American heritage. We have had to fight for every damn thing we have and we will have to fight again. The enemy is at our shore and they truly are real and they truly will take everything we have or they will utterly destroy us -- if we do not fight back.

Memorial Day is a day to remember. Not just to remember our warriors, but to remember our wars, and why we fought these wars. Once again, we must remember the hard won lessons that we have learned. That all peoples have learned: Defensive wars are simply refusals to submit.

And we will not, we must not submit.

- Roger W. Gardner , Radarsite , Memorial Day 2008

To Those Who Have Given All...

From those who have all:

we thank you , we honor you , we remember you!

Memorial Day 2008.

Cheers,

Charlie

P.S. Photo courtesy of Private Paul Brown

http://www.45thdivision.org/Veterans/Brown.htm

“What did Chamberlain Do Wrong?”

A recent spat on the Chris Matthew’s television program (“Dancing with the Stars” we believe?) has provided a splendid micro-study of the various bankruptcies which characterize the low-state of political debate currently at play in the last best hope of mankind. May God help us all.

First there is intellectual bankruptcy demonstrated in this instance by right-wing radio host Kevin Jacobs of KRLA in Los Angeles. Mr. Jacobs’ attack against Senator Barack Obama – full of boyish zeal and mischief – was, unfortunately, ill-timed and largely without substance. Far worse, the fact that he had no clue as to the particulars of Britain’s policy of Appeasement and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s role in it is virtually unforgivable. For a would-be Conservative to engage on the field of political battle without a firm grasp of historical fact is to deny himself perhaps his greatest weapon, and to provide the adversary an easy target by which to embolden himself and his cause.

Next we have literal bankruptcy represented by Mr. Mark Green, President of Air America. Spouting threadbare anti-Bushisms on cue, this blow-dried, spray-tanned leftbot contributed nothing to the debate save to provide real-time verification of why “progressive talk radio” is bereft of both listeners and funds.

Lastly, there is moral bankruptcy, demonstrated here by Mr. Matthews himself. Though he knows better, Mr. Matthews opted to forsake the truth in favor of savaging his guest right-wing dupe for committing the sin of not knowing his history; understandable and entertaining, yes, but highly unfortunate in this particular debate.

“What did Chamberlain do wrong,” Mr. Matthews repeatedly demanded of Mr. Jacobs. In terms of the particulars, Mr. Jacobs hadn’t a clue.

Finally an exasperated and indignant Matthews condescended to explain. “There is a difference between talking with the enemy and appeasing,” he instructed. “What Neville Chamberlain did wrong – most people would say – is not talking to Hitler but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong!”

In our view this is rather like saying, “What Mrs. Fleebswottle did wrong was not having an affair with the milkman, but getting pregnant by him.” Alas the moral code of six-year-olds: it’s only wrong if you get caught. Chamberlain got caught.

In Munich in 1938, Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler were talking quite a bit. In those talks the two of them complimented one another’s mustache, exchanged tips on winterizing their gardens, and gave away half of Czechoslovakia to the Nazi regime. In the now infamous Munich Agreement, Hitler promised - honest-injun, crossed his heart and hoped to die - that he would take only what was agreed to and nothing more. Hitler lied. Chamberlain and the entire civilized world were shocked.

Well not the entire civilized world. Sir Winston Churchill for one was not. He had been passionately warning about Hitler since 1933. He was not alone in this. Many were able to read Hitler like a book. In fact, many had. It was not exactly an act of supernatural prophecy to see that Adolf Hitler was a deranged, anti-Semitic, power-mad, war-monger who must be stopped - not talked to, not negotiated with, not appeased - but stopped by whatever means available.

And yet, Neville Chamberlain insisted on talking . It was via this talking that he got stung and landed Britain, and the world, in the weakest possible position.

But what if Hitler hadn’t lied in Munich? What if he kept his word, consumed only Czech Sudetenland, and left the rest of the world alone. Would Mr. Matthew’s have said Neville Chamberlain did anything wrong then? No. Thus giving away half of Czechoslovakia is not really what Chamberlain did wrong; taking Hitler at his word is what Neville Chamberlain did wrong.

“There is a difference between talking with the enemy and appeasing,” insists Mr. Matthews. “Appeasement is giving away things to the enemy.” What Mr. Matthews claims not to be able to see here is that talking with the enemy IS giving away things to the enemy. What did Chamberlain give to Hitler? He gave him the Prime Minister of Britain’s time, attention, prestige, and trust. Quite a lot some would say, and at quite a cost. THAT is what Mr. Chamberlain did wrong – knowingly or unknowingly – and it is a sin one can only commit by talking, even if said talk is ostensibly in the name of peace. (Side note - we are told Mrs. Fleebswottle claims she only did what she did to afford milk for her children. Also she really did love the milk man and besides, he promised her he was sterile. The bastard!)

There are some interactions one ought know better than to engage in; this is the lesson of 1938 Mr. Bush spoke of before the Knesset last week: the dire importance of resisting the “false comfort of appeasement.”

As regards talking with this latest breed of fascists – Iran/Hizzballah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Syria et al - presuming these talks extend beyond mustaches and gardening, how exactly does one talk with bodies whose publically declared mission statement is the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate?

Furthermore, there is the not insignificant issue of Taqiyya, the Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Ought President Obama, or McCain, or Clinton, or … yes even Kucinich give the prestige, time, attention, and trust of the President of the United States to self-proclaimed enemies of Western values who are compelled by their “faith” to deceive unbelievers? And what is there really to talk about? A joint venture to airlift all Israeli Jews to Fort Lauderdale? The incorporation of Sharia law into the United States Constitution? Economic incentives for “green oil drilling” in Saudi Arabia?

Some things are non-negotiable and thus talking is to no avail. The existence of Israel, human rights for all, the sovereignty of peaceful and responsible nations – these things are non-negotiable, particularly with enemies who seek to take them away. That is, after all, why we regard them as “enemies.”

Cheers,

Charlie

P.S.

In humorous punctuation to this entire scene - in his final dismissal of Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Matthews asks, “Wasn’t the U.S.S. Cole under Bush? I mean I don’t know what you’re talking about here” He then concludes in radiant self-righteousness, “Kevin, when you’re going to make a direct historical reference, get it straight.” Here, here Mr. Matthews!

Spy Nuns Infiltrating Earth Religions

TO:

Mr. Larry Cornett
Director - Earth Religion Rights Network
http://members.aol.com/lcorncalen/erro.htm#INTRO

Miss Wren Walker and Mr. Fritz Jung
Founders– The Witches’ Voice, Inc. - NeoPagan news network
http://www.witchvox.com/

Dear Sirs and Madam … or … whatever,

We have recently uncovered a development to which we are compelled to alert you with utmost urgency. It is our belief that armies of Catholic nuns have been dispatched by the Vatican to infiltrate, mimic, subvert, and corrupt the sacred beliefs, rituals, and practices of your family of Earth Religions. Their goal: to arrest Neo-paganism in its present ascent in contemporary society and banish it – yet again – to the ill-regarded fringes of mainstream culture. There can be no other explanation, except perhaps that these Sisters are in the process of committing the heresy of Gnosticism ; but … no one thinks that. We submit the following as evidence.

In researching Mikhail “Nature is my god” Gorbachev’s “Earth Charter” (Kudos on that by the by. Masterpiece of NeoPagan dogma this, eh?) we noted a considerable number of Catholic religious orders – particularly female orders - on the Earth Charter database of official endorsers. Do a search of the word “Sisters” in this database and you’ll be scanning listings ‘til next Samhain!

Initially this may seem to you a positive development, i.e. the more the merrier. However, even a cursory glance at Catholic teaching make it obvious that serious endorsement of this charter by vowed orders of The Church of Rome is non-sequitur, presuming these orders wish to actually remain vowed to said Church. For no Catholic Church we know, nor official ministry thereof, could genuinely endorse a declaration which aspires to become an “international legally binding instrument” while demanding population control, proclaiming earth – not God – “has provided the conditions essential to life’s evolution”, is paraded about in a 500 pound “Ark of Hope” along side “magical” Temenos books, and calls for the replacement of Christian Charity and the Works of Mercy with State enforced redistribution of wealth.

Something more must be afoot.

Indeed further investigation has revealed that, beyond this endorsement, a considerable number of these orders are engaging in rituals and practices that have nothing to do with Catholic teaching or tradition, and everything to do with your brand of communion with “the divine.” For instance:
* the adoration of “Mother Earth”
* walking the Labyrinth
* Reiki
* “Creating new (feminist) experiences of the sacred” including the “Creator of all” (presumably God) and being “energized” by the Greek Goddess “Sophia”

* Healing touch, the Chakras, Naturopathic Consultations, Native American Ceremonies, Vispanna (Buddhist meditation), ear candling, Lastone therapy, Cranio Sacral Therapy, Maya abdominal therapy, Australian Bush Flower Essences, and Healing the Light Shamanic Practices

* Spiritual guidance (no mention of the Carpenter from Nazareth here. Just “Divine Energy.”
* Using the Ennegram
* Lessons in “Earth Literacy” and “New Cosmology”
* Feminist spirituality (“God you are many, you are woman”)
* Support for gay marriage and abortion
* And oh so much more…
* And more…

Again, on its face, all this might seem rather encouraging to Earth Religionists; an awakening on the part of draconian papists, evidence of the inevitable and necessary transition from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius. It is, however, not this. For in their flirtations and dalliances with the occult not one of these orders seeks to renounce their association with the Holy See and its sole devotion to Jesus Christ. And as the Vatican reminded Catholics in its 2003 study Jesus Christ - The Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian reflection on the “New Age”, it is impossible to serve two masters.

“Christ or Aquarius? People who wonder if it is possible to believe in both Christ and Aquarius can only benefit from knowing that this is very much an ‘either-or’ situation. ‘No servant can be the slave of two masters: he will either hate the first and love the second, or treat the first with respect and the second with scorn.’ (Lk 16.13). Christians have only to think of the difference between the wise men from the East and King Herod to recognise the powerful effects of choice for or against Christ. It must never be forgotten that many of the movements which have fed the New Age are explicitly anti-Christian. Their stance towards Christianity is not neutral, but neutralising: despite what is often said about openness to all religious standpoints, traditional Christianity is not sincerely regarded as an acceptable alternative. In fact, it is occasionally made abundantly clear that ‘there is no tolerable place for true Christianity’, and there are even arguments justifying anti-Christian behaviour. This opposition initially was confined to the rarefied realms of those who go beyond a superficial attachment to New Age, but has begun more recently to permeate all levels of the ‘alternative’ culture which has an extraordinarily powerful appeal, above all in sophisticated Western societies.”

In other words, it is no secret the official Catholic Church is no friend to the Earth Religions. In fact, “Pantheism, Naturalism, and Absolute Rationalism” were formally condemned as Errors by the Vatican in 1862. Likewise, it is no secret the feeling is mutual. Thus we can only conclude that what appears to be pell mell church-wide corruption born of a fundamental lack of understanding and respect for the foundational theology and doctrines of the Catholic faith in favor of utter and complete spiritualist quackery, is instead yet another Vatican-orchestrated conspiracy aimed at erasing Paganism once and for all from the field of human belief.

We therefore implore you and all leaders of the Earth Religions, in the name of all that is Sacred (which for you is pretty much everything) to identify and expose these spy nuns and their accomplices before their cynical mission proves successful.

Trust us; you’ll be doing us all a favor!

Cheers,

Charlie

Frontiers of the Human Spirit

"To me the greatest issue in this part of the world is not deserting Israel."
- Sir Winston Churchill

There is at present but one flag upon Earth’s moon; for only a society which values the liberty and enterprise this flag represents could achieve such a miracle. That flag yet stands alone, a colorful and defiant testament to human imagination against the cold, dead, vacuum of space.

Here on earth, another such flag flies ore' a once desolate plain now fertile, thriving, and prosperous; for only a society which values the principles this flag represents could achieve such a miracle. That flag stands alone as well, a proud and defiant testament to human love, loyalty, and commitment against the murderous chaos of hatred.

Sixty years ago that flag was raised for the first time among the others of the international community. Ever since, many in that community have sought to bring it back down. They say it is their hunger for justice which compels them, their rejection of an illegal puppet state foisted upon indigenous peoples, their indignation at the machinations of international power brokers who helped bring this state into being. These are lies, for the same case could be made against the majority of nation-states in that international community. What compels them is plainly and simply envy; puny, petty, pathetic, and murderous envy.

As the Qassam rockets continue to rain down upon her, as Syria and Hezbollah ever vow to once again attack her, as her allies and friends do little more than wag their fingers at her, we pray: stand tall proud Israel, for you are truly an icon of the very best humankind has to offer. What would it say of our civilization were we to abandon you and leave you to be overrun by the dark tide of chaos? And having done so, how long would it be before that tide consumed the rest of us? Truly, your fight - order over chaos, life over death - is the fight of all human civilization. Would that we all soon realize that!

In our ongoing attempts to help bring about this realization, we offer the following :

Our own masterful overview of the nascency Israel’s nationhood

The Israel Project's "Things You Should Know About Israel at 60"

Excellent tribute to Israel from our dear friend Roger of Radarsite

Excellent tribute to Israel from our dear friend E.D. Kain of NeoConstant

Excellent tribute to Israel from our dear friends Shane and Frank (and Al?) at Political Vindication

Excellent tribute to Israel from our dear friend Snooper of A Newt One

Happy Sixtieth Israel! You are a beacon upon the frontiers of the human spirit. May you remain so forevermore!

Cheers,

Charlie