“Although the nations of Europe receive cut after cut, most of the leaders of those nations, as well as the leaders of the European Union, still will not acknowledge that Europe is being bled to death. That is because they will not or cannot diagnose, much less get rid of, the ideological disease that causes internal bleeding.” Ibid
There was a form of torture and eventual execution employed by Chinese authorities from about 900-1905. The formal name is lingchi, meaning death by a thousand cuts. The victim being put to death did not expire immediately, but instead bled to death very slowly and excruciatingly.
Lingchi describes what is happening to Western European nations. They are slowly dying because of Islamist terrorists’ thousand cuts.
But it is clear that, although the nations of Europe receive cut after cut, most of the leaders of those nations, as well as the leaders of the European Union, still will not acknowledge that Europe is being bled to death. That is because they will not or cannot diagnose, much less get rid of, the ideological disease that causes internal bleeding.
They do not comprehend that importing surgeons of death hidden among millions of immigrants is a recipe for national suicide. They also don’t realize that dealing with one wound at a time won’t staunch the hemorrhaging. Examining the latest wound and waiting for it to scab over while the next one is being inflicted will not heal the bleeding body politic.
Nor will the same, tired and futile political placebos offered as palliatives for the latest wound — like the attack in Great Britain — actually deal with the underlying problems. Candlelight vigils, lighting up landmarks with the colors of the flag, speechifying and rationalizing terrorist behavior will never, ever deal effectively with the knife wielding inflictors of death and destruction.
Tragically, the European nations just have not exhibited the will to do what needs to be done.
But they must. They simply must.
It was Viktor Orban of Hungary, who in a fiery speech just last year, eloquently defined the problem and the malaise of Europe’s leaders. He realized Europe’s (and thus Hungary’s) national identities would be erased by the influx of foreigners whose ideology was adamantly opposed to the still largely Christian character and identity of Europe. He also recognized that the bureaucracy of the European Union was committed to the eradication of national boundaries and histories, wanting instead a cosmopolitan immigration policy that reinforced an ideology of internationalism.
Orban pointed the finger directly at Brussels:
“If we want to halt this mass migration, first we must curb Brussels. The main danger to Europe’s future does not come from those who want to come here, but from Brussels’ fanatical internationalism. We should not allow Brussels to place itself above the law. We shall not allow it to force upon us the bitter fruit of its cosmopolitan immigration policy. We shall not import to Hungary crime, terrorism, homophobia and synagogue-burning anti-Semitism. There shall be no urban districts beyond the reach of the law, there shall be no mass disorder, no immigrant riots here, and there shall be no gangs hunting down our women and daughters. We shall not allow others to tell us whom we can let into our home and country, whom we will live alongside, and with whom we will share our country. We know how these things go. First, we allow them to tell us whom we must take in, then they force us to serve foreigners in our own country. In the end, we find ourselves being told to pack up and leave our own land. Therefore, we reject the forced resettlement scheme, and we shall tolerate neither blackmail, nor threats.”
Orban made it clear that the Hungarian people have a right to retain their national identity, which was bought with the treasure of blood and revolution in 1848 and once again in 1956. Doubtless recalling the defeat of Hungary by the Ottomans at Varna in 1444 and the subsequent Islamization of the Balkans, he stood up for the Christian inheritance of the Hungarian people. He stated the heritage of Hungary and Europe are worth preserving:
“We adhere to the ancient law, and also measure our deeds by universal standards. We teach our children that their horizon should be eternity. Whether we shall succeed, whether finally we see the building of a homeland which is free, independent, worthy and respected the world over — one which was raised high by our forebears from 1848, and for which they sacrificed their lives — we cannot yet know. We do know, however, that the current European constellation is an unstable one, and so we have some testing times ahead. The times in which we live press us with this question, which is like a hussar’s sabre held to our chest: ‘Shall we live in slavery or in freedom?’ The destiny of the Hungarians has become intertwined with that of Europe’s nations and has grown to be so much a part of the union that today not a single people — including the Hungarian people — can be free if Europe is not free. And today Europe is as fragile, weak and sickly as ‘a flower being eaten away by a hidden worm.’”
In what was probably the most important part of his speech, he pointed out Brussels had a politically correct list of forbidden sentiments. He said that speaking the truth about what is happening in Europe is stifled:
“Europe is not free. Because freedom begins with speaking the truth. Today in Europe it is forbidden to speak the truth… It is forbidden to say that those arriving are not refugees, but that Europe is threatened by migration. It is forbidden to say that tens of millions are ready to set out in our direction. It is forbidden to say that immigration brings crime and terror to our countries. It is forbidden to point out that the masses arriving from other civilizations endanger our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions. It is forbidden to point out that those who arrived earlier have already built up their own new, separate world for themselves, with its own laws and ideals, which is forcing apart the thousand-year-old structure of Europe. It is forbidden to point out that this is not an accidental and unintentional chain of consequences, but a preplanned and orchestrated operation; a mass of people directed towards us. It is forbidden to say that in Brussels they are concocting schemes to transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and to settle them here among us. It is forbidden to point out that the purpose of settling people here is to reshape the religious and cultural landscape of Europe, and to reengineer its ethnic foundations. — thereby eliminating the last barrier to internationalism: the nation-states. It is forbidden to say that Brussels is now stealthily devouring more and more slices of our national sovereignty, and that in Brussels many are now making a plan for a United States of Europe — for which no one has ever given authorization.”
Could one find a more succinct summary of what is happening because of Brussels’ commitment to globalism, which is essentially a supranational order that encourages and even requires the extinction of individual nations such as Hungary and other nations within the EU?
He concludes nations must fight for their identities:
“The question upon which the future of Europe stand or falls is this: Shall we be slaves or men set free — That is the question. Answer me! Go for it, Hungary; go for it Hungarians!”
As for the nation most recently afflicted by yet another deep terrorist cut; namely, Great Britain, she would be wise to take Orban’s advice. She should regain the British lion’s roar.
Perhaps Prime Minister Theresa May could start by calling out the Muslim mayor of London for saying that Britain must get used to terrorism as a regular part of daily life. Perhaps she could advise deporting imams and others who are advocating death and destruction for British “infidels.” Maybe a new political agenda could include surveillance of mosques whose leaders believe all non-Muslims deserve death. Certainly, she could advocate beefing up police and armed forces and push for severe penalties for those who would dare to attempt to take down her and the entire British government.
Maybe words like “treason” and “sedition” could come back into use and the penalties for such behavior enacted swiftly and promptly. Certainly, the evil people intent on inflicting yet more cuts to the body of England should be dealt with severely.
Meanwhile, the British must strengthen their resolve to retain their national identity and history — a history that was shaped by Christianity in a thousand beneficial ways. Britain was and still largely is a Christian nation. The battle she faces in order to retain her identity is largely spiritual in nature.
Unless Britain and other oppressed and afflicted European nations take strong steps to preserve their identities and are willing to strike back with force against radical Islamist terrorism, they will continue to be tortured and eventually bleed to death — just as Orban predicted.
Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her a prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts and opinions also have appeared in numerous online magazines, including National Review, CNS, RealClearReligion, Fox News, The Christian Post and Russia Insider. She may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org