Monday, 16 December 2013

Going out on the lash with Choudhary?



 Going out on the lash with Anjem Choudhary?


"Get your 40 lashes here! 40 lashes! Get your 40 lashes ladies and gentlemen!"


Via some nationalist sites (as well as the Daily Mail), I have seen the news about (provocateur extraordinaire) Anjem Choudhary's latest publicity stunt relating to his advocation of upholding Sharia law on the sale and consumption of alcohol within the Brick Lane area of London.

Once of a day I might have got all in a lather about this kind of thing. However, I have to admit that in recent years I haven't had the inclination to really care all that much, despite the smug and mocking tones of Mr Choudhary being as irritating as ever.

Please let me explain my position, because I know I might be at risk of alienating some people with my opening preamble.

Of course, it grates on me that interlopers are demanding their own ways in our homeland. I think that tends to go without saying, for any nationalist. However, with things at the state they are currently in, particularly in London and 'Brick Lane', what, in all honesty, would the EDL or the authorities do about it if it was the entire London Muslim "community" backing this group, (which it currently is not)?

London is already lost as a 'white city' in a formerly homogeneous 'white nation'. Native whites in London are less than 45% - and falling/fleeing fast.

Who, in all honesty, believes that the EDL or the police 'service' (which is being slashed in numbers whilst the overall population is rising) can enforce what such a massive demographic get up to (and what they can demand and threaten) on the streets of London now and in the long term future?

Given that a vast majority of those who will be subject to their demands will be a mixture of other non-whites of various heritage (including their own kind who own curry restaurants and corner shops), many smug liberal whites and drunk student types who claim to like the "vibrancy" of London as it is today (and are thus part of the problem).... why should I really continue to care about what Anjem Choudhary (and his handlers) are up to there and enforcing upon them within Brick Lane?

Of course, the whole principle of this being able to happen in the future is wrong and I reject it. But as things stand, what exactly is going to be done about it by the state, the councils, the police, the government etc as they stand today?

Will the homosexuals, the 'recreational' drug users, the liberal hedonists, the occupants of the BBC dwellers in posher parts of the sprawl, the Guardian journalists, Chinese nationals, the  Jamaicans (and every combination of nationality possible) come rushing to our aid in robust defence of merry old England and the English people, in order to throw this particular demographic out of the country? I do not think so.

I tend to expect that the future governments of this country will capitulate to all this kind of thing as quickly as manure off a shovel when they are faced with the infeasibility of trying to enforce that millions of people adhere to "our rules" in swathes of land which are effectively now 'their own'.

I think that they will thus, in all likelihood, start saying that they need to police their own areas, that for public order they advise that certain behaviour is adhered to for maintaining good community relations.

I suspect that they will let property owners in those areas apply leases and such that would stipulate how the tenant must comply with the expectations of the contract and the wishes of the local population.

(There was a recent example of this where James Caan, the Muslim from the TV show 'Dragons Den', undertook a recent deal with a Dubai based investor to purchase a retail park, one which will be subject to "Islamic principles".  As usual - and as with this instance - such things will continue to get the blessing of local politicians who want to be seen to be 'securing jobs' etc by selling this country off to the highest bidders).

If people are employed by Asian owned companies, the companies will no doubt be allowed to issue a dress code for work - which means some form of head covering for women, trousers instead of skirts, and minimal to no make-up, etc. If you don't agree, you don't work there. That will be the position and the attitude. 

The government of the future will no doubt suggest that the existing Sharia courts can be expanded into other areas of law which may affect the wishes of the locality (which is how they got the ones they already have in the first place).

None of the above is 'sinister' - it will just be rolled out nonchalantly after a puff and a wheeze by people in the Daily Mail comment sections. 

But what if things do get a little more sinister in the future? Not necessarily from your everyday Muslim, but from a more fanatical section that is applying and enforcing the rules through fear?

Seeing as an area might ultimately start to get a reputation for beatings or assaults for people not wearing the right clothing or whatever, our own people will no doubt start to wear a headscarf in them voluntarily, 'just in case'; so as not to make themselves a target and perhaps even to be "polite" (if they are liberal minded enough).

I do not expect acid attacks for 'non compliance' to be prevalent for quite some time, but they have already happened here in Britain for different things, amongst their own people - as have beatings for non compliance to Islamic sensibilities, such as a teacher who was nearly beaten to death for teaching un-Islamic ways to students.

I suppose it is quite alarmist for people to suggest acid attacks and beatings will happen more often, but the point I wish to make is that the so-called "moderate" Muslims, just like everywhere else in the world, will generally be under the thumb and the fear of 'extremists' like that - whilst at the same time not being able to really argue with the basic Islamic sentiment behind it (such as the wider advocation of Sharia).

They may not agree with the methodology or the actions, but that does not mean to say they disagree with the ultimate ambition.

How can they disagree? They believe in Islam as a political and socio-religious tool. That is what it is all about. That is why they are Muslims! To expect them to support the opposite of that aim is fantasy land, like the current political leaders seem to live in with their notions of "shared values" and "muscular liberalism".

The claims made in the Daily Mail article (by the Quilliam Foundation) that the application of Sharia (and thus an overthrow of what we perceive to be democracy) is not the aim of Islam and Muslims is laughable. As is the assertion that Muslims cannot apply Sharia to non-Muslims.

Obviously, it is quite the contrary and self evident in many parts of the world that Islam is one of the only religious systems whose rules do tend to apply to everybody else when they are in a position to demand it!

Islam is different to the rest in many ways, such as how it claims the Koran to be the direct word of God via an interpretation by Mohammed. Many of us will know what the score is by now, so I need not get into all that.

However, where I differ with the general consensus and articles which I have seen on this event or stunt pulled by Choudhary, is that I noticed that the placards they were holding on the demonstration said things like "10,000 alcohol related deaths per year" and "save lives, don't drink alcohol".

He pushes it to the extreme, but I cannot really argue with some of that sentiment. On our own extreme, what am I supposed to do, praise the idiotic and moronic binge drinking culture that we see on our city streets of a weekend? Am I supposed to support that kind of society and hedonism just because the Muslims are not fond of it?

I like a drink of lager as much as anybody, but I am fortunate in that I can enjoy a moderate drink and not be part of the swill that I think is helping to drag down western society. Many other English people all over the country can socialise without getting silly. There is something sadly wrong in our culture though which encourages some of the worst behaviour. Why is there this need?

I should make it clear that I am not talking about alcoholics who are afflicted with a terrible curse, which is an illness. I am talking much more precisely about those who purposefully and wilfully indulge in the kinds of behaviour and attitudes we see on many a "fly on the wall" programme. The kinds of people who "don't care" what is going on in this country away from their social life and the 'here and now'. They are often no real friends of ours and our movement, aside from their default ethnic heritage.

In addition, look at the (albeit snide) picture that the Daily Mail have used for their fifth picture:


"I'z no idieea whash relly goi'n on, but 'Up the English!' Cheers!"

The newspaper is of course causing the usual mischief in my view, but is it all that good for our people to be seen like this? Is this a good advertisement of what we want to save and what we want to be like in the future? Are these people to be the heroes of our civilisational revival?

The man in the picture may be a great bloke, he may be on our side and much more clued up than he looks, and if so, I will stand aside him if the day ever comes. In the meantime though, generally speaking, is it good for their own well being, their health, their ability to focus on what is important (and what is being done to them)? I don't think so.

Is it giving us any moral high ground or real defence of what we are really fighting for? No, I don't really think it is.

Surely we need to do better, be seen to be doing better and making something better of ourselves?

As I have said before, that is one of the problems I have had with the EDL position, for they seem to automatically, or by default, defend aspects of our country and our culture that are in all likelihood doing us damage and a disservice, just because the Muslims are against it.

Although I can appreciate the point about deaths from alcoholism, the liver failures, the unsafe feeling at the disorderly night life of a weekend, etc, I do not share the position of the Muslims though.

Where I certainly differ from their placards is that they claim that banning alcohol is the answer - and that some hard line "Sharia" is the answer.  

They are wrong. Nationalism and a return to our own systems, cultures and expectations from society is the answer.

As ever, if we can use Choudhary to send people our way, then so be it. He is useful for that purpose. But let us not take the eye off the ball with all this "do as the Romans do" or "abide by our laws" kind of nonsense that tends to dominate the newspaper and comment section discourse, because it basically does not work that way.

This is because demographics is destiny, particularly in a democracy. There are now already enough "BME's" in this country to swing a general election away from our indigenous interests - if they wanted to do so as a bloc.

People need to start bearing this in mind, because the mainstream parties certainly are. They are working out how to appeal to this new future voter and how to be "representative" of the demographic change, in order to keep their parties afloat.  They could not care less about the indigenous British people and their survival. They are not going to back us or look out for our interests.

Nor should we take our eye off the people who let them all in at the first place and why.

It does not matter to me all that much whether we deal with the ultimate drivers or those who do their bidding, providing we shut it down one way or another. For example, there are many organisations and people getting rich off our demise and we ought to be working out how to start closing down their money chutes - whether it is immigration lawyers, charity groups, or whatever else along the route back towards the root of the problem.

(We can also choose to opt out of various systems and trappings as best we can, preferably backing our own new way ahead as an alternative instead).

The Islamists claim they have solutions for what they see as evil blights on society - and they are pushing them, as shown in the Daily Mail report. Yet what are our solutions to the collapse of our own societies and people - apart from simply being against what the likes of Choudhary are doing and having some kind of dream of shipping them all out on aircraft carriers one day?

What are we offering to the country - and what are we holding up to the nation as something worth preserving and worthy of securing a future of? 

Around us is the stench of failure, collapse, corruption, immorality, consumerism, selfishness - the noose woven by the 'liberal-left', globalists and particular vested (Jewish dominated) interest groups on both of those teams that have conspired to break down our civilisation and loot it. That is not what I want to secure and save for the future.

We often bring up past achievements, past inventiveness and past greatness when we are defending our rights to survive. But that is just that, the past. We are living on a memory and on the sweat and blood of those who have gone before us. What about now and the future?

I am as guilty as the next man for being no shining example. My zeal has fallen, without question. I have in recent years reached a point where I feel the need to just get on with my life and just bear in mind what I have learnt, in order to be prepared for events in the future.

It has become too exhausting to continue to care so much. I do still care, and I think I always will -  but in some ways I have had to moderate my care in order to start living a life of my own instead of perpetually feeling as though I am trapped into watching a nation commit suicide. It is not healthy or all that productive to live such a life. It helps nobody.

Although I consider Choudhary to be bit of a noisy publicist for a factional grouping (who could even be a subversive plant in society), in general, the Muslims are planning ahead and pushing ahead. They are looking 10, 20, 30 years down the line in many areas they live. They are setting their stall out and asserting themselves.

We, on the other hand, as a nation and a movement, seem to be eternally on the retreat and dealing with an aftermath of situations like this one shown in the Daily Mail report (that are borne from matters which have already got out of control) instead of dealing with ourselves as a society and making our own fate however best we can.

We need to be in the driving seat of where we are heading as a people, not looking onwards from the back seat of somebody else's vehicle (like Anjem Choudhary or indeed "the Zionists").

But then we get back to the same old question....what exactly do we do about it, how do we do it, and have we the will as a nation to succeed? 

That is what I think would be a better thing for us to focus on, not some mouthpiece behind a megaphone and his statements of issuing 40 lashes. Sure, it is important, but it is also important that we figure out what to do about it and how we are to present ourselves as a counter force.


8 comments:

  1. Merry Christmas, BA

    This is what I am going to do ....

    1. Vote UKIP - get a referendum and leave EU/ECHR

    2. March with EDL - numbers on the streets impress

    3. Go to church - Christianity is, historically, a winner over Islam.

    Not that I particularly agree with any of the above.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment, Anonymous - and a Happy Christmas to you too.

    I am not sure what the answer is to our troubles, well, I don't think there actually is one to be truthful.

    I am personally going to keep on with Western Spring for a little bit longer, but there is only so much I can throw into what is still pretty much a blind hole and a website.

    (That being said, I am hardly flinging myself at it, so I should not really be expecting others to provide something for me, but that is just the way it is for me at the moment - financial support, as I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it for the time being).

    In general though, I need to try and crack on with life a bit more before it passes me by (eg. currently I have no wife, no kids, no 'home' to truly call my own).

    Like yourself, I may have to go with some things that I do not agree with (and am wary about) - such as UKIP - and just generally do my best to live and adhere to general nationalist ethos and practices.

    I cannot pretend that I can be supportive of (or in agreement to) the EDL or the modern nature of the Church, but I understand that we all need to do what we feel we can do, so, genuinely, good luck with your list. We all have our own niches and positions on this and that.

    Maybe one day the general push will amalgamate different efforts.

    For example, the British Freedom Party and the "Cultural Nationalism" ideology (which once encompassed the EDL and became "LibertyGB" under the helm of Paul Weston breaking away), has recently been stated as a failed and unworkable ideology by Paul Weston himself in a recent video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsjc5CVujrM&yt)

    (I also left a comment on the video, in reply to 'Civille7').

    I do not think that Paul Weston and LibertyGB style 'counter-jihad' will ever really change their spots - and thus continue to focus solely on the religion of Islam - but it was a good video by Paul Weston that delivers what appears to be a heartfelt and sincere message as he currently understands things to be.

    As I said in the YT comment, I suspect that Mr Weston is on a journey through the different stages of nationalism, as he is now starting to handle complex matters of race and identity instead of just anti-Islamism and 'culture'.

    (That might be why he looks older and a bit more haggard than he used to! It can take it out of you wrestling with these matters).

    The Traditional Britain Group, which was once more a Tory type organisation a bit like the Monday Club or the Bruges Group, has recently gone a bit more "New Right" and dares push some of the boundaries our way.

    The point being, I suppose, that we may all be heading more in the same direction in the long run, where some folks will have to toughen up and other folks will have to take what's on offer.

    Anyway, I hope we see some progress in 2014 no matter what. Cheers.

    B.A.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Come on BA, tell us you are going to vote UKIP.

    Agree with them or not, the country needs a change and their success in the EU elections, just like that of the BNP, should bring change for the better.

    And furthermore, UKIP winning seats in the 2014 EU elections does not mean they form a UK government. That is the safety-net giving time to evolve a strategy for the 2015 UK elections.

    Advancing political ideas has always involved street demonstrations (although these are not always successful). Northern Ireland proves it. The Arab Spring proves it. But I do not notice Western Spring nor any of the other nationalist parties advocating street action. It appears to me that "we don't do things that way" and don't want the dirty hands. However, I will support any of these nationalist bodies who are prepared to go beyond a dozen enthusiasts spending two hours' town centre leafleting . EDL is a poor second choice for me.

    Do not dismiss the Church so easily. Whilst the congregations may be falling few native British people are denying Christianity and they support the faith from a distance. It is neccessary to strengthen that faith. It need not require devotion to the Trinity but to the Christian ideals by which British people were raised in their families and educated by their schools..

    Muslim strength comes their families, their religeous education and their mosques. Their strength arises through their faith. Nationalists need their supprters to be as spiritually strong. Nationalism, via the BNP, has a few problems in this respect.

    Forgot to sign-off last night.

    Mike O.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When it comes to EU elections and local elections, I will have to see what is on the table at the time.....but let me put it this way.....there are hardly any serious 'winning' contenders from other camps - are there?! lol.

    A UKIP win could bring change for the better, but as I have argued before, no matter how strange this may sound, it could in fact make it even harder for genuine nationalists to make headway in Britain in the long term future.

    (I will let you have a think on that one).

    However, although I do slightly fear a risk of that happening, it is indeed time that there were a few cats set amongst the pigeons to smash the grip of the main three - and UKIP seem to have the momentum there to do it at the moment.

    I also agree that it buys a bit of time and could, hopefully, nudge things in the right direction in the mood of the country....if we play our cards right.

    Of course, that UKIP MEPs hardly turn up to the EU, that they hardly bother to study the laws being passed there or actually voting down damaging ones and that they have holes through their immigration ideology, and so on, is another matter. They are not exactly what they seem to be at times.

    I do think it is a bit unfair of you to criticise Western Spring for not advocating street demonstrations though, because Western Spring is not a political party or a political movement and it therefore does not require street demonstrations as part of the strategy.

    On that basis, it not really correct to say that they just "don't want to do things that way" or just "don't want to get their hands dirty" - it is because it genuinely serves no real purpose in their strategy. I certainly agree with them on that. You need the right tools for the right jobs, and it plays no real part in what Western Spring plan to be up to.

    (I am not sure at this point that you are all that in tune to what Western Spring really is and what their strategies and plans are. They do have a run of articles laying some of it out, which I could link to if you want, but I do appreciate that a majority of their articles do not really divulge or explain this matter).

    In general terms though, Western Spring aside, I know what you are saying and I agree that you may need some kind of street presence to make enough noise as a more general ideological entity.

    Something, or some cause, that we think people should look into more closely and to awake them from a slumber.

    For the pursuit of politics though?....Not really.

    One trouble with that is like with the EDL, where the "politics" behind them are not sound or coherent. There is no point (to me) having rallies and demonstrations that are based upon no real policies and upon flawed ideologies and positions.

    This is because it would not be advancing our political interests on the whole - aside from the matter of "Islamic extremism" - nor could such a future (based on the EDL world view) be sustainable or all that agreeable for the future of this country, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (cont'd)

    When it does come to parties, I believe that the BDP would be my choice of political party.....if I still believed in the merit of party politics at this time and in this climate - which I do not.

    Western Spring is far superior as a strategy than that of party politics, certainly so if we are to admit that party politics at this point in time is pretty futile for genuine nationalists - and that if we are to secure any sort of white future at all, how we will therefore need to think along different lines of how we achieve that security - and how, from there, we then build political support.

    ("WinWhite" is another grouping that I believe plans to operate on the same kind of basis).

    At this moment (and for the foreseeable future), Western Spring does not have its eye on party politics. That is not to say that party politics should not be and cannot be done 'as well as' Western Spring - but it is to say that party politics on its own, with or without demonstrations, is now seen as a waste of time and something that cannot be our saviour any more (if it ever actually was).

    When it comes to general nationalist parties - proper nationalist parties - I do not think they have faired well on the streets with demonstrations and rallies.

    The 80's and 90's, from what I see of the history of it, was a dire time for nationalists on the streets. After the heyday of the National Front and the subsequent collapse and splits, it became a bit of an embarrassment to many people and a negative impact upon the cause.

    People in the electorate were not supportive of it, they did not like the image of it, they saw it all as troublemaking, proneness to violence and confrontation with the left, which is exactly what the opposition wanted.

    (They have the friends in high places, they easily used us to portray a negative image of what we were about and who we were).

    In recent times, there was perhaps nothing much sadder (and as demoralising) than seeing perhaps <20 people, in the end, marching up and down with a flag and being heckled by the public and the lefties.

    Good for them for turning up and showing their pride in what they stand for, but in terms of "winning" anything, I do not believe it was all that good.

    It perhaps makes them feel better and important, it builds comradery and a sense of action, but in practical terms of the effort, not much is really gained from it beyond that grouping, I think.

    To put forward a street presence, I think you need to guarantee an extremely large turn out. The EDL managed to do this, and kudos to them, like I have always said, despite my reservations and disagreements with their organisation standpoint on wider matters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. (Cont'd)

    When it comes to "elections" and thus political parties and aspirations, people want to vote for parties they can trust their future in, people who have sound ideas, people who have sound policies, and people who are seen as professional, competent and respectable enough to undertake them.

    They, the electorate, are putting their future in their hands as a party of representatives - and they want to see a job done well and in a way that leans more to their own political (and indeed selfish) liking.

    They are not going to get that from the equivalent of EDL rallies, whether it was the National front or the BNP, LibertyGB or the BDP doing it.

    Nationalists within these parties and entities may want to prove their mettle by getting out there on the streets and doing the usual kind of singing and brawling (with the police and lefties on the other side of the barricades), but I think it is counter-productive for the actual realisation of "party politics".

    Imagine if UKIP started to do rallies like the EDL. How many of the Daily Mail and Telegraph reading masses would still vote for them? I think their support would drop through the floor.

    For advancing a 'cause' - such as "counter-jihad" and nonsense like "Banning the Burkha" - or protesting a new mosque or whatever - they are fine and good and can serve that purpose well.

    (No matter that protesting a new mosque at the same time as open doors immigration and 4 times the birthrate of those Muslims already here is generally a waste of time and a bit like King Canute being expected to hold back the tide with his hand. I know it can be important to show resistance, but to expect lasting results is in my view ludicrous).

    For recruitment, for understanding, for wider "political" support, for image, for trust....No, such events are not helpful in my view.

    The BDP is therefore right, in my opinion, to stay away from this kind of street presence as part of their strategy.

    This is especially the case if they cannot command the numbers and will thus get ridden roughshod over, humiliated and in turn demoralised. Primarily though I think they are right to stay out of it because I think it is counter productive at this time.

    Like UKIP, the BDP aim to keep themselves as clean as possible and to explain their thinking and their policies in the usual ways political parties do.

    The "left" - such as Labour - often use their trade unions (teachers, nurses, transport, student groups etc) and third party "charities" and "NGOs" to do their dirty work on the street.

    A few Labour councillors and such may be seen in the rallies supporting "safe" things like "workers rights" and so on, but despite their mundane nature and soft messages, they are still not seen as (and not collectively known as being) "Labour rallies".

    When it comes to ideology and such, they have the likes of the Antifa and Stop The BNP, UAF, and so on, not to mention quiet support for Communist parties and organisations.

    The likes of UAF and Unions etc are of course not political entities, as they have no policies or candidates. However, they do turn out a street presence......and this is where I would agree with you that, like other nations, we need our own versions to counteract them with our cause and our issues.

    So, to summarise, Western Spring has no need for such things. Political parties are best away from these things (** at this time). The 'nationalist cause' however, does need some kind of street presence and recognition - and as you say yourself, the EDL is a poor choice but at the same time the main one we seem to have.

    (** the exception of rallies and political entities is when things get as bad as Greece, where a dominant presence and activities are more suitable and more aligned with gaining political support. The time is not yet right for this in Britain, but it may well come).

    ReplyDelete
  7. (Cont'd)

    When it comes to Christianity, that is a tricky one for me. You see, I am supportive of traditional cultures and practices that we recognise as an important part of British history and such.

    Obviously, I would prefer Christianity to Islam without a doubt! We had our own ways before Islam came along and I do not see why we could not have some of that again.

    I agree therefore that there is a spiritual "vacuum" that Islam is unfortunately filling - not just with their own ethnicities but in some cases with our own.

    These are our own people who are attracted to having that "rule book" to life, some guidance, some structure.

    They are often people who reject "modernity" (the values of rampant consumerism and liberalism) and thus see merit in the Islamic way of life and in the Islamic way of seeing the world as some 'brotherhood'.

    However, I think in contrast to this, Christianity, in its current form, is pretty weak and pathetic - as though it is up for grabs for any interpretation.

    In its present guise I cannot see it as anything else but a spiritual arm of the liberal left agenda, propped up by either liberals in the middle classes (who are generally against the ethos of nationalism), the elderly (who sadly will not be around for much longer), or bulging with immigrant groups from what have been 'more spiritual' countries.

    Christianity, at the very essence of it, has often been argued to be profoundly flawed in terms of upholding nationalist wishes. I can see some of the points in this criticism of Christianity.

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”.....

    ......'Turn the other cheek'......'do as to others as you would do yourself'......'we are all children of God'....and so on...... are often used examples of the Christian morality and egalitarianism that shapes the opinions of many people in this country and around the world.

    Though Christianity does not explicitly demand egalitarianism, racial suicide or rampant liberalism - and that the above quotes may well not be the real meaning of the scriptures - the central doctrines of the faith do seem to make this evolution natural (or very easy to hijack in this way).

    This is because Christianity is at the core a universalist creed. It has no interest in race and nation, other than what the upholders of the faith (in that nation) believe away from Christianity.

    The Church, as I said earlier, has also welcomed large Black immigration and Eastern European on this universalist basis - because in some areas it is the only way churches are staying open and expanding.

    They are out encouraging illegal immigration by looking after those who have come, they are supporting amnesties, they are sending money to the third world.....

    The list of their transgressions against our interests spans on and on, and not only here, but around the world with other Whites - and thus working in many ways against the long term future of Whites as a whole. I cannot support that.

    If Christianity is distilled down to its purest essence, Europe will not survive. If “Christendom” was somehow reborn, the West would in all likelihood simply repeat its past mistakes, eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  8. (Cont'd)

    However, like I say, I can still support some aspect of Christianity and I know what you're saying with the void that needs to be filled.

    I suppose my support would be towards a return to more traditional values based on Christian ideals, providing they were tempered with a nationalistic flavour of the kind we once used to have.

    This is like where it was deemed as wrong to mix up populations and destroy the diverse work God by building the 'tower of babel' (that we see around us now). Where we had a bit more 'onward Christian Soldiers' and 'I vow to thee my country'.

    You see, what the “positive Christianity” of the past contributed to the West was in my view as much a product of European folk tradition and spirituality as the faith of Christianity itself.

    It is that which has to be built up again, and I am not sure whether the Church can ever become this again.

    Muslim strength is indeed through their families and so on, but their faith is not the same as a Christian faith.

    Their faith is an ideology and political movement combined. It is, shall we say, a 'way of life', not just spirituality and 'faith' in a God.

    That is why they are strong in my opinion, because they are advancing what is "a cause" and a way of seeing the world (and how it should be structured). It is not advancing a "spirituality" or belief in God, it is more advancing a "system" to life.

    They do this via "religious" buildings like Mosques, which drum in rituals, prayers five times a day, education on those issues and principles, all of which doggedly binds them into a collective rather than being individualistic.

    They are strong in their "faith" and tend to stand no messing about when it comes to liberalism seeking to break it down.

    Will the Church come out against homosexuality, single motherhood, being against divorce and children out of wedlock, 'living in sin', sleeping around? Will they take strong anti-drug positions and anti-alcohol positions, etc in the same way that Islam does with Muslims?

    I cannot see it happening. The church now relies on being seen to be 'good' and 'tolerant' - and that, in the current world, equates to liberalism and Marxism, shaving off the Bible and such to bend it to suit the mores of the day.

    Younger Christians are more likely to focus on issues of “injustice”, poverty, and anti-racism etc rather than holding the line on traditional issues. Excommunication, condemnation, and the violent rhetoric of damnation seem reserved only for sins newly discovered after 1950.

    It was, and perhaps still remains my hope that a "Nationalist" themed way of life will emerge. Something that is recognised to be in the interests of the indigenous population, something that overthrows the current moralities and norms, something that rejects "modernity" as promoted by the oppositional elements and yes, if Christianity can be some element of fending off our problems then I would welcome that.

    Whilst Christ’s message was universal and it was for all the nations of the world, up until fairly recently, I appreciate that it was intuitively believed by the congregations that his message would (and should) be embraced within the cultural contexts of those nations.

    I think that kind of change cannot be brought about within the current Church, but that Christianity formed apart from the church, or at the edge of the church (riding on the general nature of the British people to characterise themselves as 'Christians'), may be the way to revive a more nationalistic Christian ethos.

    The threat of Islam may well be helpful to creating this ethos away from the official "Church" entities. That is what I think you may be driving at and hoping for, and I can support you in that ambition.

    Regards,

    BA

    ReplyDelete