Sir Winston Churchill's epic serial history, "A History of the English Speaking Peoples," begins with the first volume entitled, "The Birth of Britain." First published in 1956, this volume and the successive volumes of the series that carried English history from the time of the Celts on up to the mid-1950's of the Modern Era, contains some valuable lessons, I believe, worth our review in the Emmaus Walk.

It is tempting for a Christian to trust in Christ and forget about the world, or even the fact that one's country is being invaded and destroyed, simply because the process of destruction is gradual and piecemeal, not something so catastrophic and threatening that we are forced out of our comfort zone to try to do something about it.

That temptation, I believe, is a real one, and dangerous. We do need to take stock of our present peril, and the forces which are attacking us with the aim of destroying us as Christians, Americans, and citizens of a free representative form of government. One force is Wester--Secular Fundamentalism--and the other, Islam, is non-Western. But both are allied at the moment, as they combine in a "Great Heathen Army" in order to more effectively assault our nation, faith in Christ, and liberties with their overwhelming power and numbers.

Churchill's history, "The Birth of Britain," first describes the pagan Celtic cultures of Britain and the subsequent invasion of the Romans under Julius Caesar, with a Roman conquest following in the time of the Emperor Claudius, and the Roman colonization and creation of a Roman colony on the ruins of Celtic Britain.

Churchill had begun this history before World War II, but with the war he was forced to put the work aside during the six years of conflict with Hitler and the Third Reich in which Britain fought for its very survival. In his preface he speaks of this and also his reasons for the volume being of use and interest to the world emerging from the Second World War. The United Nations and the forming of a United Europe in close economic ties. He says he has written a history that is his personal view of "the processes whereby the English Speaking Peoples throughout the world have achieved their distinctive position and character." He says he is, quite justifiably, not without experience in historical and violent events of our own time."--rising from Lord of the Admiralty in Britain's government to Prime Minister during the war.

Winston Churchill's views here seem dated and passed over. Much has happened since the 1950's. I am not certain that many people both in Britain and America still care what role Britain plays in the world, as much as they care about the United Nations and the now consolidating European Union of 23 member states (formerly the weak, loose, economic union of Benelux nations and later the Economic European Community--EEC). In the Fifties, when this first volume of Churchill's series was published, both the United Nations and the rudiments of the European Union were quite benign and relatively powerless compared to nation states, chief of which were America and the Soviet Union. Since the 1950's (actually since 1944-45) Britain's power and influence has waned drastically and Britain has sunk to become just another member of the European Union. With member nations relegated to the status of provinces, this giant work in progress is turning from chiefly economic ties and agreements strung across Europe to a political union and a unified monetary system and single currency, the Euro, along with all the full-blown and empowered structures of a world government that will soon surpass anything the United Nations has long sought but failed to achieve (for the United Nations, though it does not lack resolve to become a functioning world government, still lacks the basic, implementing power to tax, and so it cannot raise its own revenues, such as the European Union shortly will be able to do, and thus its governance and highest officer is essentially at the mercy and beck and call of the voting member states).

Even if somewhat dated and passed over by changing conditions in the world, Churchill's views produced this remarkable volume, which still contains, I believe, some events that graphically parallel certain developments now unfolding in the West, which I have already identified as Islam and Secular Fundamentalism, in league, destroying the Western nations and their Christian heritage, values, and Christian-based forms of government. People already speak of "Eurabia" (which would include Britain) and Muslim clerics operating in America speak of a coming "The Islamic Republic of America."

Islam and Secular Fundamentalism are like oil and water mixing together for a common purpose, that of drowning the Christian foundations and government and culture of a postmodern Britain and America. They are also like clay and iron mixed together-- it can be done, but it is an uneasy or unstable combination. These elements, oil and water, clay and iron, can cohere, but only temporarily. Oil and water can form a single liquid with vigorous agitation of the solution. Clay and iron can cohere by simply using wet clay and applied to the bits of iron. Clay when it hardens will hold to the iron--but it is a brittle union, and a single blow to it will shatter the alliance. Cease to agitate the oil and water solution, strike a blow at the congealed or dried clay and iron mixture, and the result is the same: the contrary elements immediately separate, for they are intrinsically alien and "hostile" to each other.

What could cause a union of these contrary elements of Islam and Secular Fundamentalism. Secular Fundamentalism is a radical, aggressive form of atheism and socialism, and quickly morphs into anti-morality, anti-Christian organization and agendas aiming at radical reconstruction of the society, government, and the people under its power. One "value" of Secular Fundamentalism is so-called Tolerance. The others are Multiculturalism, Diversity, and Anti-Sexism, and Feminism. Relativism is a guiding philosophy in this mix. With no value being held normative and absolute (which is a normative, absolutist view itself), this illogical movement arrogantly dismisses the fact of its own inconsistencies as "irrevelant" as it pursues the radical revamping of the whole society and government according to its stated principles and objectives. The Christian world view, based on original sin or the utter depravity of man, on the supreme being, God, on the rights and liberties held to have originating in God and His commandments, in on the morality in the Ten Commandments, on any values based in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and held binding on all mankind, not just Christians, is completely rejected. It is not merely rejected, it is considered an enemy to progressive society and must be eradicated wherever it lives and is sustained, with Secular Fundamentalist principles, institutions, and values substituted, with the full force of law and police enforcement standing behind them to prosecute anyone who does not adhere to this world view and all its manifestations and forms.

This world view, anti-Christian, anti-democratic, intolerant (for Tolerance does not apply to anything Christian or to Jesus Christ), even anti-Western (for it denigrates the Latin civilization of Britain and Amerca as the basis of the West, classicism is no longer valued, and even English language, law, and culture are no longer thought worth preserving)--this new world order is a complete repudiation of the Judaeo-Christian civilization and world-view that has formed and made us what we are, as opposed to Asian or Middle Eastern culture, religion, and non-Western, anti-democratic government and society. Both use democratic processes, up to a certain point, but only with the objective of forcing their agendas and their world-views on everybody under their power, achieving a totalitarism, a police state, one religious and Muslim under Sharia law, the other Secular Fundamentalist, under the "dictatorship of relativism" and the chief tenets of anti-Christian, atheistic, amoral Secular Humanism.

The decay of classical liberalism, and its centuries old philosophic ideal of human progress that suffered some terrible mortal blows due to the barbaric brutality and destructiveness of Nazism and Communism, with all their atrocities of death camps, Siberian work camps (the infamous slave labor Gulags), mass exterminations of Jews, Russian kulaks, Ukrainian Slavs, and other groups considered unfit to live, not to mention their many wars of aggression against neighboring states, all caused educated elites to turn to the last hope of liberalism, world government. This last hope came to reside in the United Nations, formed in New York at the close of World War II, by nations which hoped to create an international governing body of some power that would help to eliminate the tensions and conflicts that could lead to another world conflict. World government, then, was thought to be the only way to save and preserve world peace and world civilization and keep mankind from sinking back into barbarism, chaos, and war-mongering national states like Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Winston Churchill must have been one former leader of a Great Democracy and leading state who thought the United Nations (taking a leading role in the formation of that world body) had some fair chance of achieving world peace and preserving civilization thereby from a reoccurrence of another Nazi Germany-type aggression on the world politic.

Would he recognize the present state of things and the dilemma faced by Christians and all those who favor traditional values and morality and the national and domestic institutions and traditions and way of life that enshrine them? Would he be on the side of the Secular Fundamentalists such as former Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, or would he see that they are just another form of the thing he hated so much in Nazi Germany--a highly advanced society and culture that only resulted in the most barbarous inhumanity, committing mass murder against helpless people, systematic genocide and hideous crimes of all kinds, the Holocaust being one of them, in which six million innocent Jews were slaughtered, exterminated like insects, in the death camps in Europe? He stood virtually alone in Britain and in Europe when he foresaw the evil of Nazism even in its first formative stages and then bravely, against much criticism and loss of prestige, repeatedly warned Britain and the West against trying to appease it, or compromise with it.

He was absolutely right about it, Chamberlain the British Prime Minister that tried to appease Hitler, was proved dead wrong. History has shown this clearly enough to be a lesson we in the West should never forget. But we have forgotten it! And, moreover, most Westerners do not want to be reminded of it! Secular Fundamentalism has so changed the majority or mainstream world-view that is current in society and in the media and in educational circles and in government too, that compromise and appeasement are not thought dangerous--they are welcomed, as a result of the popular notion that there is no real evil, that we can deal with our enemies, no matter what crimes they have already committed, no matter what atrocities they announce to the world they are wanting to commit--and they will be tamed, they will cooperate with us and leave us alone, if we only concede whatever they demand.

To preserve its enjoyment of personal peace and affluence at all cost, military strength and service to one's country and national defense is of no importance or value, strangely enough, to the Secular Fundamentalist world-view and its adherents. Round table talk, diplomacy, concessions--they will do the job the army and the weaponry and the generals once did so messily and bloodily to "protect" the nation. Nations do not matter anyway. Civilized socieities, it is thought today, do not exercise force or act aggressively toward other nations (though such acts are repeatedly evidenced in the news at over 20 on-going active, hot conflicts, most all perpetrated by Muslims attacking other religions, across the globe). The coming world order and the coming world government are what matter to these people. What does it matter if Europe becomes Islamic? What does it matter if Sharia Law, which is the exact opposite of Secular Fundamentalist's relativism and amorality and the divine right of the individual to do anything that person desires, takes over large parts of Europe? These people do not look that far ahead--and it is not far ahead. Instead, the question is ignored, dismissed out of hand, deemed not worthy of discussion. Whenever there is an impasse in the discussion process with Islamicizers of Europe, the Secular Fundamentalist's option is to concede, retrench, then make another failed stand further back. The line or border of Islam, thus, moves forward, inch by inch, as the Secular Fundamentalist line or border in society always moves backwards in retreat.

Secular Fundamentalism is philosophically incapable of conceiving that the chief enemy to the existence of the West is Islam, not Christianity and Christian values. For that reason, Secular Fundamentalists suffer from an incurable blindness. Secular Fundamentalists, thus, make friends with whomever is the enemy of their arch-enemy, Christianity, and so they discount the fact that this "friend" could possible, and really is, a much worse enemy and they are actually playing into the hands of their ultimate destroyer. The Secular Fundamentalists' "friend" that happens to be Islam, has made it clear it hates Secular Fundamentalism and will, when it can, exterminate or convert all Secular Fundamentalists. Blind as Secular Fundamentalists are, they do not consider this serious or a threat, even after the catastrophe of 9/11. Homeland Security in the U.S. warns that "sleeper cells" of Muslim radical groups or Jehadists aiming at the violent overthrow of the country are present in major cities all across the country and may well possess nuclear suitcase bombs. A nuclear meltdown of American cities, with bombs set off simultaneously in seven major U.S. cities-- New York and Washington being among them--is a distinct possibility, even in the near future.