Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens have either arrived in Europe in recent months, or will do soon.
There are daily reports of migrants dying in great numbers. Just today, 71 deaths were reported after an abandoned truck was forced open in Austria. This number included four children. It is thought they all suffocated. It is also thought they came from Syria. Also today, 200 are feared dead after their boats capsized off the coast of Libya.
There has always been a trade in human beings. The end-time economic system called Babylon, prophesied in Revelation 18, lists the trade in the “bodies and souls of men” as one of the thriving businesses (v.13) that make up the final economic system. One aspect of this trade is the millions that are being made from “helping” people escape war-zones and get into Western Europe illegally. There are plenty of people willing to cash in, trading in human misery.
Under international agreements on refugees, people fleeing dangerous situations should go to the nearest country where they can seek help. Instead, they are routinely going through a number of countries to reach the wealthy, welfare-generous nations of Western Europe.
Not all these arrivals are fleeing from war and upheaval. Many interviewed on TV news programs are coming from democratic nations that have a free enterprise system. There is no reason for them to migrate, except the desire to better themselves, by taking advantage of all the freebies available in their new country.
However, some are fleeing from war. Their lives are at risk.
Although the US is not directly affected by this migrant surge, the wars can be blamed on America. The refugees are escaping from the continuing carnage in Iraq and Syria, with lesser numbers from Afghanistan and Somalia. All four of these countries are Islamic – there are plenty of Islamic countries they could migrate to, but instead they want to go to Europe or Australia.
The naïve assumption that American style democracy could be introduced into Islamic countries divided by religious hatreds that go back centuries and with no tradition of tolerance or freedom has bequeathed today’s migrant disaster upon the European continent.
But, naïveté is not restricted to America. Many Europeans seem to think they can take in all these refugees and assimilate them into their irreligious social democracies. This is not going to happen.
What is more likely is that the post-World War II social order in Europe will start to unravel. Xenophobic right-wing parties are gaining strength with the new arrivals. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel was booed when she went to speak at an arrival center for migrants, a center that was earlier burnt down by extremists opposed to their arrival.
European governments seem incapable of handling this crisis, due to the sclerotic administrative structures that comprise the European Union. Added to which are human rights laws that make it almost impossible to turn anyone away.
But people are starting to demand change. Anti-immigrant parties are seeing increased support. The Sweden Democrats are now the largest party in Sweden, the country that has been the most generous in taking in Syrian migrants. UKIP, the United Kingdom Independence Party, won over 13% of the vote in the recent British election. France’s National Front is expected to do well in the next French election.
It should be noted that Donald Trump is capitalizing on similar anti-immigrant feeling in the US. People in many western countries feel their way of life and culture are threatened with so many migrants.
When Jesus Christ said of the end-time that “nation will rise against nation” (Matthew 24:7), He was predicting increased ethnic conflict. The Greek word for “nation” is ethnos, a reference to ethnic groups rather than political entities.
The primary causes of migration are ethnic and religious conflict; in turn, the migrants are bringing ethnic and religious tensions into their new countries.
The killing of nine people in a Charleston church last week and the election result in Denmark seemingly have little in common. But at the root of both is fear.
The 21-year-old white male who shot dead nine African-Americans wore two badges on his jacket. They were the Rhodesian flag and the South African flag of the old apartheid regime. TV reporters were quick to say these flags represented racism and that Dylaan Roof identified with these countries because he, too, is racist.
As usual, there was very little depth shown by reporters. It’s just not as simple as they made it out to be.
Rhodesia and South Africa were the last two nations on the African continent to be ruled by whites, people of European descent who had colonized Africa in previous generations. During the late 1950’s and early 1960’s the European powers were rapidly dismantling their colonial empires. The ruling whites of Southern Rhodesia, rather than have black majority rule forced upon them, declared themselves independent of Great Britain, something that had not happened since 1776.
Why did they do this? Out of fear, fear of what would happen if the whites handed over to the majority African population.
This fear was not unfounded. They had seen what happened when countries to the north of them got independence.
Tribalism, violent upheavals and economic collapse were quite normal in the years following independence. In 1961, the whites of Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), at the time in a federation with Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, had been instrumental in saving thousands of people from the Congo who had fled the country after Belgium pulled out. Chaos and confusion were commonplace in Africa at the time. The whites at the southern end of the continent did not want the same fate to befall them.
In neighboring South Africa, apartheid also had fear at its root. The white minority imposed segregation to protect themselves from violent crime, murder, and rapes, all of which have increased dramatically since the end of apartheid and the introduction of majority rule. There was a great deal wrong with apartheid, but post-apartheid South Africa also has serious problems with little hope for improvement.
Which brings us to last week’s Danish election.
Scandinavia has been the last bastion of social democracy, with widely admired societies that have inspired leftist parties around the world.
But these days, social democracy in Nordic countries is in crisis. The defeat of Denmark’s ruling social democrat party, led by Helle Thorning-Schmidt, means that for the first time in seventy years, Sweden is the only Scandinavian country with a social democrat government in power. Even there, it’s doubtful it will survive long.
Their decline has been accompanied by a surge in support for anti-immigration, eurosceptic parties. “Should the Danish People’s party — which came second, nearly doubling its support from the previous vote in 2011 — join a centre-right government, three of the four large Nordic countries would have such a group in power (Finland and Norway being the others),” the Financial Times reports on its website. After decades of rule by parties of the left, this is a dramatic change.
“There is a familiar progression in the way that the DPP, True Finns, Sweden Democrats and Norway’s Progress party have hollowed out the establishment parties. As with the DPP, they have started by stealing voters from the centre-left — the working class, the elderly — before taking them from the centre-right.
“It’s a worry and it’s a wake-up call,” says Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister.” (ft.com)
What’s behind the swing to the anti-immigrant, eurosceptic parties? Fear. The same fear that motivated the whites of Rhodesia and South Africa. And the same fear that was behind the church shooting in Charleston. This is not to suggest that the Danes, the Rhodesians or the South Africans would have been in agreement with Dylaan Roof’s actions. It is simply that there is a commonality here – and that common denominator is fear.
The Danes are afraid of being overwhelmed by people of different cultures, especially Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East. A significant percentage of people in every European country share the same fear. They do not want to see their way of life threatened. These fears are not taken seriously by mainstream political parties, so voters are looking elsewhere.
The same fear led to Rhodesians breaking away from Britain. Their “rebellion” lasted fourteen years, seven of which were spent at war with homegrown terrorists who wanted to take over the country. When the terrorists took over, white fears were realized when their land, jobs and money were all taken by the post-independence government of Robert Mugabe, who has been in power for over 35 years.
In South Africa, twenty years after apartheid, the country’s biggest problems are corruption, violence and life-threatening crime. The affluent society the whites created is under increasing threat, driven by African demands for more and more at the expense of the white taxpayer.
In America, too, many whites fear for the future as they head rapidly toward minority status. A recent announcement by the Obama Administration that instructs government agencies to enforce greater “diversity” in affluent neighborhoods will only make matters worse.
I’m writing this while we are headed back to our home on a train. We had to change trains in Chicago. While lining up for the second train, a young white lady next to me complained to her friends that “the Mexicans are pushing in ahead of us.” A minor incident like this can trigger off a racial confrontation. This time it was avoided.
The mad, multicultural mayhem created by the ruling intellectual elites is increasingly being found wanting throughout the western world.
We should expect more incidents like the one in Charleston and more election results similar to Denmark. It could be the start of a white backlash against enforced multiculturalism. Politicians should take note on both sides of the Atlantic.
A century ago, the world was dominated by Europeans and people of European descent. Since World War II this has changed dramatically. Today, only a handful of countries are still run by Caucasians; and, based on demographic trends, all of those will have a majority non-white population within the lifetimes of those now living.
When the dominant culture of a country changes, great upheaval can take place. Rhodesia is the best most recent example of this.
Dylaan Roof, at 21, was not even born when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. He may have worn the Rhodesian flag but was ignorant of Rhodesia’s realities. Race relations were generally quite good in Rhodesia. The “white” army was 82% black. If Dylaan Roof had shot nine black Africans in Rhodesia, he would have been tried, sentenced and hanged within a few months. I remember clearly a young white male who killed a black cab driver and was hanged, if I remember correctly, within 90 days of his sentencing.
The world’s media may have judged Rhodesia a racist society. In the same way, it now judges South Carolina as seriously wanting in this regard. But there has been an outpouring of love and support from different ethnic groups since the mass shooting in church. The Governor of the state, Nikki Haley, has called for the old confederate flag to be taken down from the Capitol building in Columbia, the state capital.
Just as the world’s media stirred up feelings against Rhodesia and South Africa, it will do so against South Carolina.
Watching CNN on Monday morning, I was shocked at how much time was devoted to a one-sided discussion on the future of the “Stars and Bars,” the old Confederate flag.
What Dylaan Roof did was inexcusable and should be roundly condemned. But he was just one man and a young man, at that. His actions will not inspire the majority to replicate his act. But the fears he expressed about the direction America is headed should be openly discussed. The flag is not the issue.
My brother Nigel in England asked me to write this article to accompany a portrait of King George I that is being sold by his art and antique business. I find George I interesting, so here is the story. (My brother’s official website is http://www.nigelrhodesfineart.com/.)
The first Hanoverian king did not get the dynasty off to a good start.
So desperate were the English to guarantee the Protestant succession after Queen Anne’s death in 1714, that they turned to a distant relative who lived in Germany and asked him to become King. More than fifty closer relatives were passed over because of their Roman Catholicism. It had taken almost two centuries to secure England’s freedom from Rome – there was clearly no turning back.
George I was King of Great Britain and Ireland from August 1st, 1714, to his death in 1727. At the same time, he retained his German titles that he had held since 1698. He was also ruler of the Duchy of Brunswick-Luneberg and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire. His two successors, George II and George III would also hold the same titles, until the dismantling of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.
George I was never comfortable speaking English. If someone did not speak his native German, he would converse in French.
Although the people were thankful to have a protestant monarch, George was never popular. He had a bad reputation even before he arrived on England’s shores. After his wife had committed adultery with a Swedish guardsman, he had the man murdered and then imprisoned her and would not let her see their two children, one of whom was the future George II. While Prince of Wales, the future George II, was anxious for the death of his father, not so much to be king himself, but to be able to see his mother again. However, she died shortly before her husband.
“He was by nature neither warm nor congenial (“the Elector is so cold that he freezes everything into ice,” his cousin remarked), and those who had to deal with him soon discovered that beneath his shy, benign reserve their lurked a deeply suspicious, even vindictive nature. Accustomed to unquestioning obedience, George was selfish and easily offended. And once offence was given, the wrong could never be made right.” (Royal Panoply, George I, by Carolly Erickson, 2003.)
When George became king, he journeyed to England to ascend the throne, but had intended to return to Hanover as soon as possible. His acceptance of his new responsibility owed more to his conviction that it would be good for Hanover, than to any desire to serve the British people.
The year after his ascension, he faced rebellion at home. Jacobites, loyal to the Catholic Stuarts, wanted to place the son of James II on the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland. When the Pretender landed in Scotland and raised his standard against the king, many Scottish towns declared themselves for James. But George was resolute – he had faced the Turks and the French and was not about to be defeated by the Stuart usurper. James soon returned to France, discouraged by the lack of support he received from the people.
Immediately after this victory, George returned to Hanover, one of five visits he made to his old home during his reign. At the time, Hanover was at war with Sweden. George had allied his electorate with Peter the Great, Czar of Russia, in hopes of acquiring territory from the Swedes after their defeat. But George was soon faced with a crisis in his new home and had to return to London, where the government had degenerated into squabbles.
Without realizing it, after 1720, George contributed to the modern democracy that has given the United Kingdom three centuries of stability. Robert Walpole was his first prime minister. Indeed, he was also the first prime minister of the country, one of the most competent prime ministers in a long line of, arguably, questionable heads of government. Walpole blended the power of the Crown with the growing power of parliament, in a balance that remains with us to this day.
Although the king shunned public appearances, on warm summer nights, he would board his open barge at Whitehall with a small party of friends, travelling upriver to Chelsea. Other barges would soon join the royal barge, one of which had a full orchestra of fifty musicians on board. The music they played filled the air and was very popular with Londoners. George had brought with him his favorite musician George Frederick Handel, who composed much of the music played on these royal evenings, music that is still popular today.
George will also be remembered for the South Sea Bubble, one of the greatest financial catastrophes in history. Its collapse ruined thousands of people.
The company was set up to refinance thirty thousand pounds of government debt, a vast sum in those days. The debts were converted into shares of the company’s stock. As investors rushed in to make a killing, the value of the shares kept rising, shares in other companies rising along with them. Inevitably, the bubble burst and the shares became worthless. As the king was the Governor of the company, he got the blame, inspiring the Jacobites to plan another insurrection, which also failed.
While George I may not be anybody’s favorite monarch, his legacy lives on to this day in his descendant Queen Elizabeth II. George I founded a dynasty, which has lasted more than three centuries and given the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms unrivalled political stability. For this we should all be thankful. Thanks also to the first Hanoverian who had a small part in this achievement.
Prince Charles and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, are visiting Washington DC. During their visit to the US, they will commemorate three things — the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, the most important secular document in the history of the English-speaking peoples; the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War; and the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.
The Prince of Wales visited the National Archives yesterday where a 1297 copy of the Magna Carta is on loan from Lincoln Cathedral in England. The Magna Carta is embodied in the American Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
I’ve had the privilege of viewing the same Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede on June 15th, 1215, in Lincoln, which is not far from my hometown. A depiction of the event can be seen on the bronze doors of the Supreme Court building.
It’s been over forty years since the Washington Post claimed that President Richard Nixon was brought down by Magna Carta. The charter established the principle that everybody is equal before the law, including the king or president. This principle separated England from the continental powers, where the head of state is above the law. When French President Jacques Chirac was accused of corruption while in office, nothing could be done about it until he was no longer president of France.
Exactly ten weeks after King John was pressured into signing the charter, Pope Innocent III declared it null and void. He said that no people had any right to demand anything of their king. Consequently, England was plunged into civil war.
Magna Carta reminds us that: “God is no respecter of persons.” (Acts 10:34) We are all equal before God, who is the ultimate Law-giver.
It’s a good thing that the royal couple were not in America on Sunday, where they might have seen the first episode of “The Royals,” on the E! Network. This show depicts a fictional royal family ruling in England.
I watched the first 30 minutes of the 75-minute much-hyped premiere.
It was utter and total trash.
If any of today’s royal families behaved like those in the fictional series, they wouldn’t last very long.
Monarchy has a serious side. According to the organization “Democracy Watch,” the seven most democratic countries in the world are all constitutional monarchies. They are: The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Canada and New Zealand (the United Kingdom was not included in the list, maybe because it does not have an elected Upper House).
They have all also been the most stable countries in the world.
Constitutional monarchy also happens to be the cheapest form of government.
There’s a lot to be said for constitutional monarchy. In contrast, there is nothing positive to be said for the new television series, which raises trash to a whole new level – and that’s really saying something when it comes to TV!
While on the subject of royalty, I have to recommend the new “Cinderella” movie.
My son and I took his two girls to see it on Sunday. The girls, aged 8 & 9, have gotten used to me falling asleep whenever I take them to a movie. Brooklyn, the youngest, promised to wake me up if this should happen again.
But it didn’t. The movie was engrossing. It is beautifully made with real people.
I have never been one for fairy stories, even when I was a child. But this was different. It’s a real old-fashioned love story, with an upbeat ending that will leave many in tears.
Lily James (Rose in “Downton Abbey”) plays a very convincing Cinderella. (One of her ugly step-sisters is played by Downton’s Daisy.) Richard Madden plays the prince. Helena Bonham Carter, one of England’s greatest actresses, plays a humorous Fairy Godmother and Cate Blanchett plays the Wicked Step-Mother.
The movie was directed by Kenneth Branagh, one of England’s greatest theatrical talents.
A superb movie, perfect for the whole family. It’s also perfectly respectable for married couples to go without children — I intend to take my wife who could not go on Sunday.
"Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened." — Sir Winston Churchill