Winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan

The Los Angeles Times must be on the side of the Taliban! Why else would they publish pictures like this?


White House spokesthingy Jay Carney says the conduct does not represent the standards of the US military. Mr. Carney couldn't say if President O'bama had seen the pix, since he doesn't read newspapers all that much, but if he did, he would surely believe the situation needs to be investigated and those responsible should be held accountable. Just like that guy that killed all those villagers. Where is he now?

NATO's top commander in Armpitistan said he couldn't agree more, adding "Just as soon as we can figure out who those guys are, we'll bring `em back to the USA. Not the ones with the funny caps though. They're Afghans."

Since allegedly ending their combat role in the sandpit last summer, the Canadian Armed Forces have assumed responsibility for the "training" of the so-called Afghan National Army and police. Obviously they have not yet covered the module on how to stay out of embarrassing photos.

Click here for more of the Times' pix of heroioc Americans in action.

Muslims on the march in Britain -- scary stuff!

In "Islamization of Ontario schools still part of government agenda" I mentioned a video, recently forwarded by Agent 6, showing Muslim fanatics marching through the streets of Luton, England. Their message: British police should go to hell! So should all "non-believers", meaning not Christians, Jews and... well... everyone except devout Muslims.

Ed. has located the file, so here it is. Turn the sound down if the voice of a shrill female with a horrible accent bothers you, but do have a good look and listen closely to the faces and voices of "the Muslim community" in a typical British city today.



So, gentle reader, how is it in your city? Still think we should all be tolerant and make nice with our newly-arrived Muslim neighbours?

Islamization of Ontario schools still part of government agenda

What moved Agent 17 to send me the article on the perils of remaining silent in the face of Islamic fundamentalism? As a former resident of the Greater Toronto Area [Just one of many who have fled the capital of multiculturalism! Ed.], Agent 17 was concerned by reports that Islamic prayers have been introduced in Ottawa, Toronto and other public schools in Ontario, while the Lord's Prayer has been removed.

Well might he be concerned. No...alarmed! In Canada and the USA, the Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being, but the fanatics are starting to march. In Britain they are already marching...literally. We received [but Ed. has misfiled!] a video showing British Muslims marching through the streets of Luton calling for the police and other non-believers to die and go to hell!

Now the poison of Islamic fundamentalism is spreading through the ghetto of the GTA and other North American cities. Yet we remain silent.

However, this is not exactly new news. Agent 17 asks Walt if the reports he's reading are true. They are, and Walt wrote about the issue last summer. See
"Update on Islamization of Toronto schools"
"Muslim prayers in Toronto schools: a Muslim viewpoint"
"Islam, imams and the Canadian Charter of Rights"
"'Go back to the hellhole you came from', sez Canadian Muslim prof"

Now the 2011-12 school year is closer to the end than the beginning. In spite of a few tepid protests -- denounced by the usual suspects as "racist" and "Islamophobic" -- the imams are still coming into the so-called public schools to preach Allah-knows-what. The Ontario government is still pushing "Gay-straight alliances" and perverted sex education. And respect for diversity and "minority rights", of course. Yet we remain silent.

How can we be silent in the face of Islamization of our country?

Martin Niemöller was a Protestant pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. He was an anti-Communist and, frightened by the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, at first supported Hitler's rise to power. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned, and led a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler.

In 1937, Niemöller was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. His crime was "not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement". You have probably seen a version of his famous statement, "First they came...", frequently quoted as a warning about the dangers of political apathy. Here's one version...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Catholic
Then they came for me
And there was no one left to speak for me.

Walt was reminded of this by an article sent to me by Agent 17. It begins with a quote from an (apparently fictional) German psychiatrist, a survivor of World War II, who was asked how many German people were true Nazis. His answer should guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, like the majority, I just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world as we knew it had come

Compare this with the Islamization of Europe and North America which is being perpetrated by Muslim extremists right now, while we, the silent majority of Western "Christians" -- like the three wise monkeys -- see nothing, hear nothing, and say nothing.

We are told again and again by "experts" and the talking heads of the lamestream media that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. This may be true, but so what? It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.

It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The fact is that the peaceful majority of Muslims is a silent majority -- cowed and extraneous to the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic fundamentalists. The Soviet Union was populated by millions of Russians (and other nationalities) who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Soviet Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

The majority of China's 1.3 billion (and counting) people are peaceful too, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians -- most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget the more recent example of Rwanda, which collapsed into tribal butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace-loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because -- like Pastor Niemöller -- they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the world as they knew it is at an end.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us Westerners, we must pay attention to the only group that counts -- the fanatics who threaten our way of life. We may be witnessing the beginning of the end, not just of their world, but of our own!

Footnote: The Afghan Taliban today launched a major spring offensive, with multiple attacks against Western embassies in the central diplomatic area and parliament in Kabul. Explosions, rockets and gunfire are rattling the city even as I write, and scores of casulaties are reported.

SSPX v. the "mainstream" Church: a theologian's questions

The Society of Saint Pius X, established by the late Abp. Lefebvre+, is expected to respond soon to what the noted Vatican analyst Sandro Magister calls "the last call from Rome to [return to] the sheepfold".

Seven months ago, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- the body we used to call "the Holy Office" -- delivered to the SSPX a "doctrinal preamble" as the "fundamental basis for the attainment of full reconciliation". The SSPX found that in good conscience and faith, it could accept only part of this preamble. The CDF said that was "not sufficient" to heal the "fracture". The Vatican's way or the highway to schism!

However, Rome didn't close the door tightly. On March 16th, the CDF offered the SSPX the possibility of another response, which is the one that is expected any day now.

But what exactly is the doctrinal cause of the division between the traditionalists -- the SSPX -- and the so-called "mainstream Church"? And why is there a fracture between Rome and the Lefebvrists over their rejection of some of the teachings of Vatican Council II, while at the same time other Catholic currents of the opposite nature continue to inhabit the Church undisturbed, in spite of the fact that they too reject essential teachings of the same Council?

These are the two questions at the heart of an analysis written expressly for Sandro Magister's website, Chiesa, by John R. T. Lamont.

Dr. Lamont received a degree in philosophy from Oxford and in theology in Ottawa with the great Dominican theologian Jean-Marie Tillard. He now lives in Australia and teaches at the Catholic Institute and at the University of Notre Dame, with the canonical mandate of the Archdiocese of Sydney for the teaching of theology.

His article looks at the controversy from a new point of view -- not unsympathetic to the Society, but on the contrary, too understanding of its arguments. Here are some excerpts.

He refers first to a list, written by the SSPX's Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize. of the elements of Vatican II that the Society finds unacceptable.

"On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the earlier documents of the Church’s Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.

"These four points are as follows.

"The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'

"The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'

"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'

"The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."

Fr. Gleize participated in the doctrinal discussions between the FSSPX and the Roman authorities.... We may reasonably take his statement as a description of the doctrinal points upon which the [Society] will not compromise, and that are taken by the Holy See to inevitably give rise to a rift.

The points mentioned by Fr. Gleize are only four of the voluminous teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings. This means that the SSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

The first question that the communiqué of the Holy See raises for a theologian is thus: why does the rejection by the FSSPX of a small part of the teachings of Vatican II give rise to a rift between that Society and the Holy See, while the rejection of more numerous and important teachings of Vatican II by other groups in the Church leave these groups in good standing and possessed of full canonical status? Rejection of the authority of Vatican II by the FSSPX cannot be the answer to this question; the FSSPX in fact shows more respect for the authority of Vatican II than most of the religious orders in the Church.

If the rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX does not arise from rejection of the authority of the Second Vatican Council by the Society, it could be the case that the rift arises from the doctrinal position of the FSSPX in itself.... This side of the FSSPX's [argument] consists in positions on the doctrines that Catholics should believe, positions that do not in themselves make claims about the content or authority of Vatican II.

The FSSPX ... does not claim that the teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Instead, it claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II. It asserts that the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is to be found in the earlier and more authoritative statements.

This raises the second question concerning the position of the Holy See on the FSSPX that suggests itself to a theologian: how can there be any objection to the FSSPX upholding the truth of magisterial pronouncements of great authority?This question really answers itself. There can be no such objection.

Dr. Lamont gives examples from the texts of Vatican II to support his argument. And he asks three more very good questions. And he gives three very good answers, the last of which is an excellent point on which to close.

The nature of the teaching of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, ecumenism, the Church, and collegiality, is of great importance to all Catholics. The questions raised by the discussions between the Holy See and the FSSPX thus concern the whole Church, not merely the parties to the discussion.

Click here to read Dr. Lamont's article in its entirety on Chiesa. Italian, French and Spanish versions of the article are also available. If you can't find the links, e-mail me and I'll give you the link you're looking for.

Overheard at Leafs' last game

One of Walt's agents -- also a Habs fan -- was lucky (?) enough to score tickets to the last game of the season at le Centre Bell, when les Glorieux defeated the Toronto Maple Leafs 4-1.

He says he was sitting just behind the Laffs bench, close enough to hear the player on the right say "Those guys in the red, white and blue sweaters sure are swell, eh..."

John Cleese explains European security threat alerts

A rare sighting of Agent 34 who forwarded something of interest to all fans of Monty Python and John Cheese...

ALERTS TO SECURITY THREATS IN EUROPE
by John Cleese (British writer, actor and tall person)

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Libya and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross".

The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the Blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance". The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards". They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army> for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are"Collaborate" and "Surrender". The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing". Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs". They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose".

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, mate". Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is canceled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

Agent 34 adds this final thought. Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.