We are moving

Hi

First of all, I'd like to apologise for the inconsistent activity of late. This has been caused due to personal commitments, which have understandably left me little time for blogging. However, thankfully, these problems are now solved, and I am ready to re-commence my activity in the blogosphere!

a) WE ARE MOVING: This site is moving to the shorter, more convenient address of;

http://thewwp.blogspot.com

This is to make it more convenient for our readers. Remember to add the new address to your bookmarks! The old site will remain online, as there a number of acclaimed articles still on there, but all new articles will be on the new site.

I would like to thank my regular visitors for their continued support and loyalty during this tricky time, and look forward to hearing from you again in future, as without you, WWP would not be possible. Please visit our new site!

Stay tuned for our next article, which is coming soon.

Regards


Michael (Editor, WWP)

Human nature and leftists versus the truth

If someone was to ask me what is the main problem with leftists, its that they cannot-will not grasp human nature. This failure to properly recognise and deal with human nature is at the root of their intellectual and ideological flaws. They can use all the long words they like; they can put forward ever complex sociological theories; they can keep writing more and more laws onto the statute books. None of it will work, because human nature is not malleable. Like it or not, human nature, in all its gory technicolour is with us, and will be till kingdom come.

This would not be a particular problem, were it not for the fact that leftists control/have a controlling share in our mass media, legal system and educational establishments, all of which are bad areas for sociological flat earthing to be going on. The result is our societies continue to suffer more and more as a result of the powers that be failing to grasp the root of crime and other social pathologies. In this essay, I shall attempt to explain this further.

Human nature; Leftist views

According to leftists, humans are perfect beings. They are born with no propensity for violence, greed, cruelty or any other negative character trait. Marx for example held that humans are born perfect, but as they become exposed to "bourgeoise" values, they begin to exhibit negative traits such as greed and selfishness as they internalise these values. Modern leftists also hold that humans are born in a state of tabula risa and that it is societal pollutants such as poverty, discrimination etc which spoil their perfect nature, and explain their negative anti-social behaviours and pathologies.

Therefore, leftists hold that society can be made perfect. If we just put enough effort into eliminating the societal pollutants like poverty, racism, homophobia etc, then humans will no longer be polluted, because the polluting factors will no longer exist. Without pollutants, people will then awaken to their perfect nature, and we can all skip around the rainbow of a classless utopia, as Marx predicted would one day happen, once the society responsible for these pollutants had been restructured completely to the point where it was no longe recognisable.

Attracting the naive idealists

This world view, and this belief in the perfectability of humanity and the creation of a heaven on earth with enough of our collective efforts is wonderfully appealing. It comes as no surprise therefore that the membership of many leftists groups is over flowing with idealists, many of whom I don't doubt are decent enough people. Another defining trait is their sence of urgency and at time outright zealotry. Part of the reason leftists become so wild and unruly, especially at protests, is because they honestly believe that heaven on earth is just one last push away, and if someone believes they can be responsible for pushing us into it, then of course they will be very determined and at times aggressive.

This zeal for removing societal pollutants such as poverty explains the quite frantic nature of movements such as the "Make Poverty History" campaign, which I have written about in the past in a somewhat critical light. This is because I hold that poverty can never be totally erradicated, and even if it could, it is not poverty that explains the negative side of human behaviour. That is better explained by their urges and nature, which are not going to change because a person chooses to walk around with a white wrist band on.

The sad truth

The sad truth about human nature is, well, human nature. We are not the perfect angelic beings just waiting to be enlightened as the left envisions us being. We are all born with genetic programming for violence, hatred, cruelty, lust, greed and other traits. As a Christian, I recognise this as being the result of man's fallen state (i.e. as a consequence of Adam's sin, all men are inherently flawed and imperfect, and thus have an automatic inbuilt propensity for evil). But you don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge that human nature is anything but perfect, and it is not the result of Western civilisation and its societal pollutants of "homophobia" and "patriarchy" and "bourgeoise values". For evidence, just look to non-Western cultures, where we see the same traits of cruelty, greed and selfishness being exhibited in abundance. Therefore, Western society and its traditional values are not to blame for negative human behaviour. We see exactly the same kind of human failings and evil in all human societies, many of which bear not even the slightest resemblance to Western societies on any dimension.

However, because leftists hold that societal pollutants are in-built into traditional Western society and values, then it is their duty to completely dismantle that society and thus remove the pollutants. If one studies my earlier acclaimed essay "Revolutionary Defeatism" you will get a more detailed picture of this. One could call it scorched earth, whereby leftists will happilly plunge the West into flames such is their desire to destroy what they view as its sources of pollution. What they sadly fail to grasp is that 1) these pollutants do not have their origin in Western values 2) even if they did, erradicating Western civilization will not stop humans behaving in an evil manner.

Examples "for" or examples "of"

One area leftists failure to grasp human nature is particularly clear is in the realm of criminal justice. When it comes to punishing criminals, leftists are appauled at the idea. They instead cling to the dream of "re-habilitation", and looking at the "bigger picture". That is, they claim that person x would not have committed the crime in question had he not been poor, or come from a broken home etc. In other words, the criminal only does what he does because of societal pollutants and, as more radical leftists add, internalising the cultural values of the traditional West. It would be insane to punish someone if the ultimately repsonsibility did not lay with them, hence the leftists shyness to punish anyone. Indeed, the word "punish" is considered taboo in leftist circles when discussing crime.

According to leftist sociologists and criminologists, the real challenfge is not in dealing with the criminal, but in re-structring society. Also, they argue that the government should "Set an example" for the criminals. This is best seen in the leftist attitude to the death penalty; they argue that by executing people, the government sets an example that killing is ok. Therefore, the leftist claims that by abolishing the death penalty, we "set an example for the people". Of course we righ wingers are under no such delusion about what this action results in; more violent crime.

In Britain, the death penalty was abolished during the leftist administration of Harold Wilson in the mid-1960's. Leftists, who believed by abolishing they would set an example to the criminals; the result? By the end of his reign, the murder rate had soard a massive one hundred and twenty five percent, criminal gangs had turned the East End of London into an urban battle zone and child sex killer Ian Brady and his accomplice Myra Hindley had abducted, tortured, raped and mutilated several children. Human nature at its worst, and no amount of "example setting" by the government was going to stop it.

The solution

In traditional English speaking nations governed by right wingers, we have always understood that crime is the result of flaws in human nature, and therefore our legal system was geared towards dealing with those flaws when they hurt people. Thats why we believe in punishment. We are not trying to change human nature, which is impossible. We are simply setting up a legal system that very sensibly deals with people who allow their flaws to hurt others. Nor do we right wingers treat every criminal case as an experiment in sociology. We treat it on the merits of the individual case. And rightly so.

Marx and his disciples in left wing movements across the globe have set about the impossible tas of trying to prefect the unperfectable. They are doomed to failure, but their political arrogance and naivety prevents them from seeing it. As with communism, whenever their utopia fails to materialise, and crimes still occur, they conclude it must be because they aren't trying hard enough to remove societal pollutants, or arent setting a left wing enough example for the criminals to follow.

We don't need to set examples for criminals; we need to set examples of criminals.

The Problem with Pacifism

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other" John Stuart Mill

Pacifist groups are making a come back. They are dusting off their badges and taking to the streets and to cyber space with their views, determined to spread the message that violence and war are intrinsically immoral. They have been amongst the key shock troops in the so-called "Anti-War" movement that has mushroomed in size and marched in every major city on planet earth. These pacifists are undoubtedly very principled, sincere people-unfortunately being sincere doesn't make you right. After all, it is possible to be sincerely wrong. And make no mistake, the pacifists are indeed sincerely wrong.

Human Nature

If theres one thing most left wingers can't grasp, its human nature. According to Marx and other authors of his ideological stripe, humans are perfect creatures, who have simply been polluted by the society in which they were born. Once these societal pollutants (poverty, inequality, discrimination etc) have been removed then there will be nothing left to stain our nature. Humans will then be made perfect, and we can then skip into the rainbow as we commence the first day of our eternal "classless utopia". Sounds great; except its wrong.

Leftists explain most phenomena in terms of society polluting an individual in question. Every time there is an execution in America, the anti-death penalty leftists argue that "poverty" or "abuse" in the killers childhood were to blame for their crimes, and that therefore this person should not be held to account for their crimes. Instead, they argue the authorities should socially re-programme their societies in such way as to remove the societal pollutants of "poverty" and "abuse" or whatever else they blame it on to prevent further crimes. Their geopolitical explanations are based on a similar theory. They argue that because of international competition for resources and the ability of national governments to decide whether or not to fight, wars begin. Therefore, if resources are shared, and the right of a government to decide to go to war is a decision they hand over to the UN, then no more wars.

However, we rightists are under no such illusion. Crimes do not occur because of societal pollutants. They occur for something a little more basic than the theories of abstract post-modern sociology. At an international level, wars dont only begin because of greed or a desire to control resources, sometimes the pure desire to inflict tyranny on others is enough. Something else is to blame. That something is called human nature. Hard wired into our psyche is the potential for violence. The potential for cruelty. The potential for selfishness. Its all there in our DNA, like it or not. And the evidence is irrefutable.

In Seville, UNESCO announced that violence and killing are not natural. They are wrong. Extensive evidence from the earliest days of human pre-history show evidence of organised violence and warfare. Stone age human skeleltons have been un earthed which show clear signs of having being murdered. Throughout human history there has been rape and cruelty, as shown by the existence of laws against it in the earliest human societies. Thats just the way we are. Brain washing and re-education can only do so much to change human nature. Over 70 years of state communism attempted to do this using the full machinery of a total state and failed to change human nature in any way, shape or form. Human nature cannot be changed, and any attempt to change it is on a highway to nothing.

Preying on the weak

Now let me propose something to you; lets suppose I place a sign on my front door saying "No matter what, I will never use force to defend myself, no matter what you try to do to me or my family and no matter what you try to take from me". This might make sense; after all, the overwhelming majority of people I know and who I spend my time with are decent, law abiding people who would never dream of doing me harm. Therefore, I'll never need to defend myself. Sounds like a great idea, its just that its not from people like this who you need to be prepared to defend yourself.

Criminals and tyrants will see any sign of unilateral pacifism as what it is; a sign of supreme weakness and naïvety, which the wicked will be only too happy to take advantage of. History is sadly full of examples of how peaceful individuals, and peaceful societies made unilateral statements of non-aggression and were swept away by the pitiless tyrants who neighboured them. Take the people of Tibet; the Tibetans were a peaceful and noble people who had no history of violence against anyone. Their peaceful religion of Buddhism has/had a very strong prohibition on violence under any circumstances, and for all its ethical appeal, this was to prove their downfall.

The Communist Chinese had no such shyness about shedding blood. In the early 1950's, they began making threats against their neighbours. Despite the peaceful protests and attempts at peaceful diplomacy from the Tibetan authorities, the Chinese communists snorted at them, and launched an invasion of Tibet. Atrocities were widespread; reports of rapes, tortures and massacres began to come out of Tibet. Ancient Buddhist monasteries were dynamited or converted to secular purposes. Holy Buddhist scriptures were burned. The Tibetan language and other aspects of unique Tibetan cultural identity were suppressed, and anything upto 1 million Tibetan people were forced to flee, including the leader of their spiritual community the Dalai Lama. Today, there is almost no trace of Tibetan indigenous culture, a sad testament to the cost of pacifism. Whilst it is an ethically admirable and appealing stance, it does not impress those from whom we have most to fear.

During the Cold War, leftist groups like CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) marched through the streets of the West's major cities, urging us to destroy our nuclear weapons irrespective of what the USSR did with its. This was at a time when the Soviets had over 1 million men poised to invade Western Europe lined up along the East-West German border, backed by hundreds of super sonic jets, hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces and of course, thousands of nuclear weapons. Documents de-classified by the Kremlin have shown that the reason the USSR never rolled into Western Europe with its tanks was the fact it knew the Wests leaders would use nuclear weapons to defend themselves against the USSR's very large troops formations and even against its cities. Makes you think what would have happened if we'd done what CND asked....

Are you Tibetan or a Spartan?

Compare the sad fate of the pacifist Tibetans to a culture that believes in self defense. The Greek people have spent millenia being attacked by their neighbours, but time and time again, resisted the tyrants who would smother their freedom and suppress their identity. At the battle of Salamis, the Greeks fought a heroic battle against the Persians who threatened to invade their nation and smother the fledgling Greek culture in its infancy. Had the Greeks not resisted there would have been no classical Greek culture, and therefore no democracy, and no Greco-Roman culture, without which the Western World would be unrecognisable.

Later in their history, the Greeks were overwhelmed by the Ottoman Turks, who began attempting to ruthlessly destroy Greek culture. However, the Greeks refused to give in, strongly resisting any attempt to erase them as a people, until in the early 1800's, they rose up against their oppressors and over threw them. Even to this day, the Greek people remain amongst the most culturally, linguistically and religiously unique. Had their ancestors been pacifist, this would not be the case, and the Greeks would be a sad, small footnote in a history book. One of my favourite stories is about an ancient visitor to the Greek city of Sparta. He asked one of his Spartan friends why there were no city walls around Sparta. His companion smiled, pointed to the young men of Sparta and said "We don't need walls. These men are our walls". The Spartans were no pacifists; hence the unwillingness of their enemies to attack them, and hence why there is still a Greek culture today.

Conclusion

Pacifism is nice on paper, and how nice it would be if human nature was such that there was no more war. However, human nature is bad. And whats more, it will never change, no matter how much money and aid we spend alleviating poverty. No matter how much we educate the people. It will never change. We need to get that into our heads. No amount of "social justice" or "economic justice" will change our DNA code. As long as there are evil men (and we've already established that there always will be) there will be a need for men who fight them. Without good men who fight, yes, fight evil, then evil will triumph. Its all well and good having good, principled people, but they will all lay dead at the hands of the evil if there are not good men prepared to fight to protect them.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the men of Sparta protecting me than the men of the anti-war movement.....

The Iran Nuclear crisis; the "options" on the table

The Iran nuclear crisis is hotting up. Iran is moving ever closer to producing nuclear weapons, and as it gets closer, its celebrations become even more extreme and confrontational. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made increasingly murderous remarks about America and Israel, and it is strongly rumoured that he believes it is his duty to trigger the judgment day that will usher in the return of the "Mahdi", a messianic figure in Shia Islam. Meanwhile, the Israeli's have said they will "not tolerate" a nuclear armed Iran, and are strongly rumoured to be planning a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities at Bushehr and Nantaz. Meanwhile, Iran has begun beefing up its military, conducting war games and making threats that it will respond if attacked.

In this essay, we shall explore in depth some of the possible options on the table for the Bush administration and their pros and cons.

Option 1: Do nothing

This option is reminiscent of what the Bush administration chose to do with North Korea. When Bush branded North Korea part of an "Axis of Evil" in 2002 and made clear his desire to seek "regime change" there, the North Koreans rapidly set about acquiring nuclear weapons. In the mean time they bought time by entering into negotiations they had no intention of honouring and making typically murderous dramatic threats, such as promising to turn South Korea into "A sea of fire" in the event of a US attack. Soon North Korea had nuclear weapons, and the Bush administration quietly went away. There will never be an Iraq-style regime changing invasion of North Korea by America because North Korea's possession of nukes now makes that an impossibility; no US president would ever survive politically if American troops were killed by the tens of thousand and/or if Taepodong ICBM nuclear missiles found their way onto US soil, which they have the range to do.

Pros: The advantage of doing nothing with Iran is, in the first instance a pro because it avoids war. Wars are very expensive, both in terms of their vast costs and in terms of their human casualties; 50,000 Iraqi's have died since the 2003 invasion, over 2,000 coalition troops have died and 20,000 coalition troops wounded. Also, wars are politically expensive. The infamous "body bag" factor shows that as US casualties mount in war, the president of the day suffers falling popularity. Not good for re-election. Another advantage of doing nothing with Iran is it would help downplay accusations from some corners that Bush is a "war monger".

Cons: The Bush Doctrine states that the USA's greatest threat in the C21st is when regimes with a history of hatred towards America and a history of backing international terrorism acquire WMD's and pass them on to terrorist groups to use against America. The only way to deal with this threat is to pre-emptively invade these "rogue states" and bring about "regime change" in them. Iran is a text book example of a "rogue state" in this regard, indeed, a much better example than Iraq or North Korea. If Bush does nothing with Iran, then the Bush doctrine has ceased to have any foundation.

Furthermore, if Bush does nothing, this could embolden other unpleasant regimes (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela etc) to develop nukes. North Korea proved to the world that if you have nukes, you don't get invaded. If like Iraq you don't have nukes, you do. These regimes will therefore simply take the steps needed to acquire nukes, and the Bush doctrine, set up to prevent nuclear weapons falling into the hands of dictators, could actually spur more nations to go nuclear as a means of ensuring the Bush doctrine is never used against them.

Option 2: Sanctions against Iran

Pros: Sanctions look nice on paper. They send a clear message of disgust towards the recipient of the sanctions, whilst not being a direct act of war. Also, they can grind down the nation in questions economy, which has two pleasing side effects. Firstly, it makes it harder for the regime in question to find the money for it's WMD programmes, which are certainly not cheap. Secondly, as sanctions bite, and/or the regime cuts back on its peoples needs to fund it's WMD programmes, the population begins to dislike it's government, increasing the chance the people will topple it, like what happened across Eastern Europe in the late 1980's and early 1990's. This provides the Bush administration with lots of great images of celebrating people over throwing their despotic regimes (great for using in re-election broadcasts) and also means US military deaths do not happen, as the need for US invasion vanishes with the revolution.

Cons: Sanctions however are not perfect. Sanctions look good on paper, but regimes can always find a way around them, especially if it works through third parties (do the words "Oil for Food" sound familiar?). Furthermore, its unlikely sanctions would pass the UN, given the large Islamic vote at the UN, and also the fact that nations frosty to US interests such as France and Russia could veto them on the Security Council. Sanctions also tend to hurt the most vulnerable in the target nation, as harrowing images of malnourished Iraqi children throughout the 1990's proved. Additionally, as was proved in Britain during the 1940's submarine blockades, hardship amongst the civilian population, far from turning people against its government (which can always claim any hardship is not its fault), can actually increase the people's loyalty to the regime, and stiffen their resolve to beat the nation responsible for them.

Option 3: Surgical air strikes against nuclear facilities

Pros: Firstly, surgical air strikes are relatively cheap to do, certainly much cheaper than the cost of a full scale invasion, yet they achieve similar results. The US could use a combination of F-16's and Tomahawk cruise missiles to deliver bunker buster strikes to pin point locations in Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In just a few hours of attacks, Iran's nuclear programme could be could back decades, and the regime, which has boasted about its nuclear prowess for some time on state television, would be humiliated. Surgical strikes on nuclear facilities also have a good track record; in 1988, Israel pre-emptively carried out surgical air strikes against Iraq's Osirak nuclear weapons facility, at a point when Saddam was on the verge of acquiring his first nuclear bomb. The attack left the plant in ruins. Had that strike not happened, Saddam would have had operational nuclear weapons in time for Gulf War I. Certainly makes you think....

Cons: It is now known that during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the US considered pre-emptive surgical air strikes against nuclear weapons sites in Cuba. What eventually made them decide against that course of action was Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis Le May could not guarantee the attacks could destroy all the facilities, and so much as a single one that was missed or not fully destroyed would have been used against America in a counter attack. If the US could not guarantee hitting just a few sites on the tiny island of Cuba just a few hundred miles off the US coast, how much more true is it of the vast nation of Iran? Furthermore, the attacks would kill hundreds of Russian nationals, who are known to be involved with the Iranian nuclear programme, provoking confrontation with Russia. There is also the very real possibility that bombs could go astray and hit civilian targets ("collateral damage" does not look good on CNN). Also, if (as is very possible) any US planes were shot down, and their crews had to bail out over Iran, their safety would be anything but guaranteed. Assuming they were not killed by lynch mobs or the troops who captured them, the air men could be executed by the Iranian government, as happened in 1942 when the Japanese executed several "Doolittle Raid" airmen who had bailed out over Japan.

Option 4: Invade Iran and bring about "Regime change"

Pros: This option is useful, as the bulk of America's offensive force is already in the Middle East, and therefore is already ideally placed to launch an invasion of Iran. Also, there are many ethnic and religious groups within Iran (e.g. Baluchistani's and Parsees) who would cheerfully help attack Iranian forces, thinning them out and making it hard for them to focus on fighting the US. Furthermore, it would topple yet another potential enemy of America, and justify the Bush doctrine. With the Islamist regime in Tehran deposed, funding for the hundreds of terrorist groups Iran backs around the world (such as Hezbollah) would dry up over night, as would their supply of Iranian weaponry. With Iran under US control, the pincers would tighten around Osama Bin Laden in (one assumes) Waziristan, who would find himself trapped between US forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan and then Iran. If Bush could bow out in 2008 having toppled the 9/11 backing Taliban, surrounded then trapped America's most wanted man ever, and having dealt with long time US enemies Iraq and Iran along the way, then the Republicans would romp home to electoral victory.

Cons: Iran is not like Iraq. When the US attacked Iraq in 2003, the Iraqi's were weakened by ten years of crippling sanctions, and had suffered the loss of most of their heavy military equipment in Gulf War I. They had no air force, and no real navy to speak of. Their generals were corrupt and couldn't wait to surrender, nor could most of its infantry. Iraq's terrain is flat, and excellent for quick movement of troops and supplies. Within a few weeks, Saddam had been over thrown, and it was "Mission Accomplished".

This is not the case with Iran. Iran is four times the size of Iraq, and has very unusual geography, including steep cliffs and jagged mountains. Iran also has nearly three times the population of Iraq, which is very heavy on fighting aged males (a result of the pro-natalist policies of Khomeini in the early 1980's). This provides the Iranians with a huge pool of men to dip into for conscripts. Also, the Iranians have a track record of fanatical resistance to invaders. During the Iran-Iraq war, thousands of Iranians joined Basanji and Pasdaran suicide brigades, whose job was to clear mine fields for the tanks by marching across them. Even Iran's children got involved, and many were urged to go to the front by their parents, issuing them with plastic keys made in Taiwan which they told them was the key to Paradise if they died in battle. These are not the type of people you want to be fighting.

Also, even if/when the war was won, winning the peace would be even harder. In Iraq, it has been nigh impossible to reconcile the demands of the Kurds, Shia and Sunni factions. Iran is even more ethnically diverse than Iraq, and this, added to the possibility of US proxy indigenous forces used for the invasion suddenly wanting their own way and turning violent is a possibility. It has happened before, when the Taliban stopped being a proxy for us against the USSR and turned violent.

Conclusion

The Iran nuclear crisis is not going away. Even as we speak, uranium is being enriched for nuclear weapons, and the Iranian military are preparing plans to fight a defensive war. This is the most serious test of Bush' presidency. We have looked at the options he has, none of which are particularly appealing ones, but he must choose the right one or Amhadinejad, who once said "Israel should be wiped off the map" will soon have the weapons to make that threat come to life, and Ahmadinejad who so craves the armageddon may very well just have it...

Columbine 7 years on

Two days ago was the 7th anniversary of the Columbine tragedy. It was on that day in 1999 that the most bloody high school shooting in US history occured when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris rampaged through their high school in Littleton Colorado with guns and home made explosives. By the end of the day, they had killed and injured dozens, then turned the guns on themselves. The tragedy wounded the peaceful suburban community and has left scars that will probably never entirely heal. However, one of the most striking features of that day was the number of Christian children who died, and the subsequent way in which the heroic way many of them met their deaths has sparked a spiritual revival amongst the Y2K generation, which had previously been written off by many commentators as being hopleslessly materialistic and hedonistic.

In this article, I will pay tribute to the bravery of the martyrs and hopefully do justice to them.

Why?

The big question about the tragedy is "Why?". Why did two boys from stable and successful family backgrounds attending and high school in a middle class community suddenly launch such a murderous attack on their fellow students? Everyone has their theory; in the early days, it was believed that the boys, who had reportedly been bullied by the student athletes ("jocks") launched the attack as a way of getting back at the bullies. Indeed, on the day of the attack, survivors remarked that the boys had barked "All the jocks stand up!" upon entering certain rooms of the school, seeming to lend credence to this theory.

However, it is false. As one "jock" replied when asked about what he thought of this theory, he pointed out that had Eric and Dylan wanted to kill jocks, they could have done so by going into the school gymnasium at 8 am when it was filled with student athletes working out. Instead, Eric and Dylan seemed to focues their attention on the library where the overwhelming majority of their victims were killed, and if one was looking for atheltes, a library would not be the place one might choose to look for them. It therefore seems extremely unlikely that attack was part of a revenge against athletes scheme.

Martyrs

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowlegde him before my Father in heaven" Matthew 10:32

The word martyr comes from a Greek word meaning "witness", and many of the young people who died at Columbine gave a powerful witness to their faith, and their willingness to acknowledge God rather than deny Him in a bid to save themselves from the gun men. Tapes found after the shootings revealed that the gun men had a particular hatred for Christians; in one tape dated just a month before the shootings, Harris remarks sarcastically "Yeah, I love Jesus, I love Jesus.....yeah shut the f**k up!". He went on to mock Jesus' crucifixion remarking "Go Romans! Thank God they crucified that ass hole!" before joining in with Klebold in a chant of "Go Romans! Go Romans!".It was apparently well known that Harris and Klebold despised Christians and in a Washington Times article about the shootings stated "...it was widely known...that Harris and Klebold had little tolerance for devout Christians". The same article suggested this could have been because "...they represented everything Harris and Klebold disdained".

At the start of the killing spree, Klebold and Harris shot devout Christian, Rachel Scott as she chatted to a friend near the cafeteria. Scott, who was 17, reportedly survived the first shot, but as she tried to crawl away was grabbed by one of the shooters who yanked back her hair and barked "Do you believe in God?". She replied "You know I do" at which point the shooter finished her off. Scott, who was beautiful and renowned for her artistic nature has gone on to be an inspiration to Christian youths across the world. Her journal, which was recovered from her body days later contained a number of very telling spiritual remarks, and have been read by millions worldwide.

As the rampage continued, they made their way into the library, which was filled with senior's filling out college applications. They went from table to table taunting their victims before killing them, until they came to the table of Cassie Bernall. They pointed a gun at her and asked "Do you believe in God" at which point she replied "Yes". obviously infuriated by her refusal to deny God and thus try and save herself, Harris remarked "There is no f**king God" and shot her. Cassie Bernall, a troubled teen who became a born again Christian and turned her life around has also gone on to become a hero to millions worldwide and a book of her life "She said Yes" is masterpiece.

Political point scoring

One of the most disgusting consequences of the tragedy was the way different groups tried to use it as a way of political point scoring. Most guilty in this respect is arch-leftist Michael Moore, whose movie Bowling for Columbine is nothing more than ceaseless propaganda, using the precious memory of the dead as a club to beat out his narrow political agenda with. In the movie, Moore has the gall to suggest that the presence of a missile factory in Littleton is what inspired the shooters. He suggests that America's gun laws are to blame for the tragedy, despite the fact that several of the victims family members have strongly denied this was the case. Perhaps the best refutal of this comes from Rachel Scott's father, who strongly attacked this claim in the book "Rachel's Tears".

Another worrying trend was the fervour with which atheist groups attempted to refute the story of Cassie Bernall's martyrdom, claiming that her famous interchange with the gun men never happened, and was simply Christian propaganda (link). The official investigation concluded that the interchange had probably occured, but may not have been with Cassie, and may instead have been with another student similar in voice and appearance. However, as Cassie's mother remarked "It doesn't matter whether Cassie said 'Yes' that day. What mattered is she said 'Yes' everyday to God".

Conclusion

The tragedy was one of the defining moments of the Y2K generation, impacting very strongly on wider popular youth culture (link). It is unlikely that the families of those killed will ever truly heal, although most have shown admirable dignity and courage in its wake. When one reads the accounts of Rachel Joy Scott, Cassie Bernall, Daniel Mauser and the other victims, one it immediately inspired by how these ordinary young people met their deaths with such courage. I was particularly inspired by the story of Cassie Bernall, who turned her life around after dabbling with the darkside of teen culture, becoming a born again Christian shortly before her death. You can see a website maintained by her family at this link. A similar website exists for Rachel Scott at this link.

There is ongoing work towards a permanent memorial for the victims (link). But as a culture, the greatest memorial we could give, is to never forget the memory of those lost, and work to heal a wounded generation of young people to ensure these tragedies never happen again.

Heroes of the West: William Wallace (Scotland)

There is something unique about Westerners; they just will not tolerate tyranny or injustice, no matter what the odds of challenging it are. Whether it be the American revolutionaries dumping tea in Boston Harbour, or their descendants fighting heroically at Midway, Guadalcanal or Normandy, Westerners fight and die for perhaps the most precious thing this world affords; freedom. It was this cause of freedom that left a yearning in the hearts of many Scots in the early middle ages. One man would step up to meet that challenge, and that man was William Wallace, who would go on to be immortalised in the award winning movie Braveheart. So what was the real William Wallace like Early years William Wallace was devoutly religious and showed a genuine Christian concern for the weak and oppressed. Yet at the same time he was as fierce as a lion when the occasion commanded it. Particularly influential in his formative years was his uncle, who was also a clergyman. Wallace enjoyed relative comfort in his youth, and learnt several languages. He also learnt that freedom is sacred, never to be surrendered Dico tibi verum, libertas optima rerum; Nunquam servili sub nexu vivito fili. Roughly, this translates as "I tell you, no gift is like freedom; they never live in slavery". It would become a major part of Wallace's world view.

As he grew older, Wallace filled out into an awesome physical specimen. He grew to be over 6 feet 7 inches tall, at a time when most men barely reached 5 feet tall. He was always armed with a long claymore broad sword, and was a ferocious fighter, whose size and strength terrified any adversary on the battle field. It would be to the battlefield that he would soon be drawn...

The massacre of Berwick 1291

In 1291, Edward I of England kidnapped Scotland's nobility and threatened them. They agreed to allow his forces to annex Scotland, and English rule was harsh and humiliating for the Scots. Whilst the "elite" of Scotland may have turned the other cheek to this oppression, the common man would not. In 1296, Scottish men carried out an attack on an English military base in the city of Berwick. As a reprisal, Edward I sent his forces into the city, and there was a three day orgy of looting, beating, rape and summary executions. Historians estimate at least 17,000 Scots were killed, and some put this figure at over 20,000. Edward believed this act would show how hopeless any resistance was. But he was wrong; instead it sparked outrage across Scotland, and when news of the massacre reached Wallace, he could take no more, and raised an army to fight the English. Wallace had already been harassing English baggage trains, and was now ready to fight them on the field of Battle.

Battle of Stirling Bridge

In September 1297, Wallace's militia met the English army, and the contrast between the two could not have been greater. The English army, the finest in Western Europe at the time and un-beaten in battle for nearly a century, versus the rag-tag Scottish farm peasants armed with basic spears. The commander of the English army, the Earl of Surrey was amused by the sight of the Scottish militia, and was confident that as his own forces outnumbered the Scots 4 to 1, all he needed to do was threaten them and they would back down. He was to be sorely mistaken. When a peace delegation arrived from the English camp to persuade the Scots to surrender, Wallace replied with a now famous remark;

"Tell your people that we have not come here to gain peace, but are prepared for battle, to avenge and deliver our country. Let them come up when they like, and they will find us ready to meet them even to their beards".

But this was not just bravado. Wallace was also a keen tactician, and knew that this remark would provoke the Earl of Surrey into launching an attack. Indeed, when Wallace's reply reached him via the returning delegation, the Earl exploded in rage, and decided to send his forces to attack Wallace. However, this meant crossing the narrow, rickety wooden bridge across the river separating the two armies, and Wallace had been counting on them to make this mistake...

The bridge was very narrow, and Wallace positioned his militia men near the bridge. As the English came across, the bridge was so narrow they could only cross perhaps two at time, no where near enough to fight for a toe hold for re-enforcement. The narrow columns of English troops were trapped and butchered by the Scots. The English would usually rely on their highly skilled archers to equalise this, but Wallace commanded his men to fight in close, to stop the English from firing on them with arrows lest they kill their own troops. By the end of the day, the English army had suffered what was then the worst defeat in its history. However, Wallace's trusted friend and advisor De Mornay, had been killed that day.

Defeat and Betrayal

Wallace then marched his militia into Northern England, to create a buffer zone against future invasion. However, the Scottish militia was ill equipped to maintain such an ambitious campaign and was out of its natural fighting territory. The English rolled the Scots back, until the two armies met again, this time at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298. This time the English archers, this time commanded by Edward I himself, showed no fear in firing on its own infantry as they fought close quarters with the Scottish militia, and in doing so used a weapon that Wallace could not counter. Wallace's forces were massacred, many of its key lieutenants captured, and Wallace himself was forced into hiding. However, it would not last long...

In August 1305, Wallace's hideout was betrayed by John Feith, and Wallace was seized. He was taken away, and subjected to ghoulish torture before being executed and his severed head being placed on a pike in London. It looked like Wallace's dream had died. Or had it?

Picking up the torch

Edward I was a fierce and ruthless commander; his successor was not. So when a dashing and tactically aware Scottish noble man by the name of Robert the Bruce commanded a Scottish militia at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1315, the result was a total rout for the occupiers, and Scotland was declared free of English rule as a result. The now famous Declaration of Arbroath was read out at Arbroath Castle in 1320, in a document that is unmistakably the ancestor of the US Declaration of Independence. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Wallace had been the man who had given heart and soul to the freedom against tyranny.

Freedom is precious. Men have fought and died for it. So lets take it a little more seriously. Perhaps the final words on the matter should be from Wallace himself, who when asked of the importance of freedom said;

"For as long as one hundred of us shall remain alive, we shall never in any wise consent to submit to the rule of the English, for it is not for glory we fight, nor riches, or for honour, but for freedom alone, which no good man loses but with his life."

Heroes of the West: Jerzy Popieluszko (Poland)

Jerzy Popieluszko (1947-1984)

Whilst often thought of as an Eastern nation, Poland is more accurately described as part of the West. Indeed, at a time when most nations in Eastern Europe became Orthodox, Poland chose to remain part of the Western Catholic fold. This Catholic faith is a defining characteristic of Polish culture, and has remained a foundation stone of Polish identity in times of crisis, serving a not dissimilar function to the role the Eastern Orthodox church played in the Balkans during the Islamic Ottoman occupation.

When Poland fell under the jackboot of Communism following World War II, the Poles found themselves under one of the most repressive and vile regimes on earth. For nearly half a century, the Polish Communist Party (PZPR) ruled with an iron fist, making use of its internal secret police, the Sluzba Bezpiecznestwa (SB) to crush internal dissidents. However, during the 1970's and 1980's the Polish people became increasingly tired of their tyrannical leaders and began moving against them. Several strikes were crushed with brutal force. Nevertheless, the anti-communists, such as "Solidarity" continued to fight the regime, led by their leader Lech Walesa. His spiritual advisor was a charismatic priest named Jerzy Popieluszko.

Popieluszko was renowned for his ability to mobilise the people in dignified protest against the evil regime they were under. During several periods of martial law, the Catholic church remained one institution which the atheist Marxist regime had little influence over. The Catholic clergy in Poland were often on the front line in the liberation struggle. When future Pope John Paul II requested the local communist authorities build a bigger church for his worshippers, they of course, refused. So he simply decided to hold the mass in the open, a public symbol of outright defiance to communist Poland's godlessness. Popieluszko became famous as a skilled public speaker who routinely criticised the outrages of the regime in his sermons, and he became the spiritual advisor to Lech Walesa, who was increasingly being seen as the leader of the anti-communist movement in Poland. Walesa would later go on to become Poland's first post-Communist President. You can hear a sample of Jerzy Popieluszko's melodic voice at this link, when he spoke the BBC in the early 1980's (Polish language).

The Sluzba Bezpiecznestwa secret police repeatedly intimidated Popieluszko, from sending him menacing phone calls and letters to attempting to force his car off the road, all of which failed to make this brave and noble man back down. It was clear to them Popieluszko was no coward, and was never going to stop until his people were free. So when Popieluszko went missing in October 1984, there were fears for his safety. These fears, sadly, proved to be well founded when the body of a man was found floating face down in the Vistula Water Reservoir two weeks after he had gone missing. His body showed clear signs of beating and ghoulish torture. The Communist authorities believed they had solved the problem; but they had just made it worse for themselves, as the murder of a priest was seen as particularly dastardly and low, even by the standards of the regime. To many people, murdering a priest was the last straw.

His funeral became a rallying point for anti-communism (see pictures from it at this link). At his funeral, a heart shaped wreath was placed on his coffin bearing the letter "S" for Solidarity; many mourners passed by his open coffin, his face badly mutilated by the beating and torture he had endured before being killed. As his coffin was carried from the church, banners from Solidarity and one saying "God, Honour, Motherland" were held aloft by the defiant mourners, whilst the security forces looked on nervously. Two men traveled to his funeral from the town of Kielce, holding a banner saying "Father Jerzy you are our hope for peace and freedom"Many of the mourners stood by his grave and gave a defiant "V" for victory sign with their fingers, a gesture that had first gained popularity in Poland as a sign of defiance to Nazi rule. Now it was a sign of defiance to the communists. The martyrdom of Popieluszko was a catalyst for freedom.

By the end of the 1980's, Communism in Poland had collapsed, and the shock waves traveled to neighbouring Germany, where the Berlin Wall fell. Not long after that, the Soviet Union collapsed as did the corrupt and blood thirsty client regimes of Eastern Europe. In just a few short years, Eastern Europe was free. When the history of the C20th is being written, Poles such as John Paul II and Lech Walesa are rightly named as amongst the most influential figures in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe. But we must never forget the sacrifice and bravery demonstrated by Jerzy Popieluszko, who laid down his life for his peoples freedom. Popieluszko is now being discussed as a potential saint by the Catholic church. In closing, I will leave you with perhaps the finest tribute to him, was paid by US Ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe, who, speaking on the 21st anniversary of his murder stated;

"It is right and just to commemorate the death of Father Jerzy Popieluszko. Father Popieluszko was a true, modern-day, Polish hero and martyr, who died in the struggle for freedom in his beloved Poland. His courageous support of Solidarity in the face of oppression is an inspiration to all freedom-loving people around the world. "It is a consolation to all of us in Poland today, especially to Father PopieluszkoÂ’s church, parishioners, family and friends, that his sacrifice will be remembered forever and that his flame will burn brightly in the pantheon of Polish heroes."