Read Online The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps by Mike Evans - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Mike Evans
Ads: Link
development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing socially in accordance with its proclaimed intentions, with the help of brilliant technological progress. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.
This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him….
…This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. 20
With those few words, Alexander Solzhenitsyn suddenly found himself a pariah. Once lionized by the media, now this great man was treated as though he didn’t exist all because, within the rulebook of the intellectual elite, no one who believes in God is to be taken seriously. What’s more, the late 1970s were supposed to be an era of détente, a time of lessening tensions; to issue moral judgments about Communism was seen as destructive to all chances for world peace. But Solzhenitsyn was never interested in lessening tensions. He knew that standing for the truth meant confronting the lie—confronting evil.
In his treatise “The Reagan Doctrine,” Lee Edwards writes:
Many conservatives consider Reagan’s “evil empire” speech the most important of his presidency; a compelling example of what Czech President Vaclav Havel calls “the power of words to change history.” When Reagan visited Poland and East Berlin after the collapse of Soviet communism, many former dissidents told him that when he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” it gave them enormous hope. Finally, they said to each other, America had a leader who “understood the nature of communism.” 21
Ronald Reagan was a great admirer of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Reagan agreed with his belief that the conflict between the Communist ideology and that of the free world presented a moral conflict. Unlike the liberal Left, Reagan did not accept the idea that Western democracy and a godless Communism could peacefully coexist. He believed that at some point, confrontation between the two superpowers was a certainty.
Reagan felt that every time relations between the two countries eased, the Soviets took advantage of the opportunity to take three steps forward in their plan for Soviet domination. It was his belief that the entire objective of the Soviet Union was to root out the seeds of democracy wherever they were planted and replace them with the tares of Communism.
The liberal Left had nothing but contempt for President Reagan’s view of Communism. He was labeled as an “extremist” and compared to Joseph McCarthy, the rabid anticommunist of the late 1940s. And like President George Bush, he was labeled a Fascist. Liberals refused to believe that a totalitarian state was by definition evil in Reagan’s day, and they still do not today.
Jesus’s battle was between darkness and light! He taught us to pray that God would deliver us from evil. One hundred million people died in the twentieth century under totalitarian regimes. As a Jew, I am very aware of the Jews who died in the USSR and Europe, but that is only part of the heartbreak. I stood in Cambodia in the killing fields with a weeping pastor. We were surrounded by skulls and bits of clothing. The pastor took me to the tree in the park where the skulls of members of his church were crushed. Only six members of his church escaped death.
I echo the words of President
This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him….
…This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. 20
With those few words, Alexander Solzhenitsyn suddenly found himself a pariah. Once lionized by the media, now this great man was treated as though he didn’t exist all because, within the rulebook of the intellectual elite, no one who believes in God is to be taken seriously. What’s more, the late 1970s were supposed to be an era of détente, a time of lessening tensions; to issue moral judgments about Communism was seen as destructive to all chances for world peace. But Solzhenitsyn was never interested in lessening tensions. He knew that standing for the truth meant confronting the lie—confronting evil.
In his treatise “The Reagan Doctrine,” Lee Edwards writes:
Many conservatives consider Reagan’s “evil empire” speech the most important of his presidency; a compelling example of what Czech President Vaclav Havel calls “the power of words to change history.” When Reagan visited Poland and East Berlin after the collapse of Soviet communism, many former dissidents told him that when he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” it gave them enormous hope. Finally, they said to each other, America had a leader who “understood the nature of communism.” 21
Ronald Reagan was a great admirer of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Reagan agreed with his belief that the conflict between the Communist ideology and that of the free world presented a moral conflict. Unlike the liberal Left, Reagan did not accept the idea that Western democracy and a godless Communism could peacefully coexist. He believed that at some point, confrontation between the two superpowers was a certainty.
Reagan felt that every time relations between the two countries eased, the Soviets took advantage of the opportunity to take three steps forward in their plan for Soviet domination. It was his belief that the entire objective of the Soviet Union was to root out the seeds of democracy wherever they were planted and replace them with the tares of Communism.
The liberal Left had nothing but contempt for President Reagan’s view of Communism. He was labeled as an “extremist” and compared to Joseph McCarthy, the rabid anticommunist of the late 1940s. And like President George Bush, he was labeled a Fascist. Liberals refused to believe that a totalitarian state was by definition evil in Reagan’s day, and they still do not today.
Jesus’s battle was between darkness and light! He taught us to pray that God would deliver us from evil. One hundred million people died in the twentieth century under totalitarian regimes. As a Jew, I am very aware of the Jews who died in the USSR and Europe, but that is only part of the heartbreak. I stood in Cambodia in the killing fields with a weeping pastor. We were surrounded by skulls and bits of clothing. The pastor took me to the tree in the park where the skulls of members of his church were crushed. Only six members of his church escaped death.
I echo the words of President
Similar Books
