The late, and formidable, Sir Roger Scruton when tackling the post-modern downgrade of truth to interpretation filtered through subjective emotion, insinuated that the late 20th Century theory, now popular amongst 21st century academe and Western culture, created a liar’s paradise.

He was right. Post-modern society has no real base justification for its own existence.

Its theology is confused, and syncretistic, producing an uncertain ethic that elevates niceness to heaven entry righteousness, and prides itself on a hypocritical version of tolerance as high enlightenment, while ignoring the high cost of its double standards.

Post-modern ethics, and the society embracing it, is a ship slowly sinking, and few seem aware, or are awake enough to care.

Most people poisoned by post-modern extremes aren’t able identify a hole in the hull, from a shadow in the water.

Whether the ship is sinking or not, is just a matter of your truth versus mine.

For the docile, the rising water devouring the ship could be the result of an increase in the tide, (or for the more conditioned), proof of “apocalyptic climate change”, not the ship’s structural integrity having been compromised.

Such is the nature of post-modern thought. It dismisses evidence-based argument as a fight, and reduces truth to nothingness.

It conditions and sedates, as much as paralyses, fact-based responsible action.

Scruton quipped that the post-modern plausibility structure’s fatal flaw was that any ‘writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him.’

So, Scruton said, ‘don’t.’ [i]

When philosophers reject the ‘goal of truth’ – like Nietzsche and Foucault – they are arguing for the acceptance of falsehoods as truth.

The assumption makes facts pliable; open to interpretation. Thus, the goal of truth is unreachable because truth is merely a plurality of competing perspectives.

The ‘gap between truth and falsehood’ shrinks to the point where neither are distinguishable. The distinction between fantasy and fact is so blurred that skewing fantasy as fact is inevitable.

For example, “the ship isn’t sinking, it’s just your imagination.” Push for further enquiry and you’re bound to be called a “conspiracy theorist,” “fear-mongerer”, or “climate denier!”

Self-destruction and avoidable tragedy aren’t thwarted, they’re embraced.

Harmful and blasphemous lies run free.

The post-modern devaluing of truth injects into society a toxin that C.S. Lewis described as the ‘poison of subjectivism.’

Where Lewis might have applauded the openness of post-modernism to God’s objective Word spoken in time and space as “true myth”, Lewis would reject post-modern praxis as ‘false philosophy.’

Evidence based value judgements, once viewed as ‘rational’ are now dismissed as ‘sentiments, complexes, or attitudes’ produced by a person’s environment, and community traditions.   

Good and evil are determined by “feelings.”

Through the subjectivism [let’s call this the navel gazing of Post-moderns], comes (according to Lewis) ‘the disease that will certainly end our species (and in my view, damn our souls) if it is not crushed; the fatal superstition that men can create values, that a community can choose its ideology as men choose their clothes.’

He would add that men and women are confronted by truth, contra to post-modernism’s false claim that men and women create truth.

‘Everyone is indignant’, he says, ‘when they hear the German’s define justice as that which is to the interest of the Third Reich. But it is not always remembered that this indignation is perfectly groundless if we ourselves regard morality as a subjective sentiment to be altered at will.’ [ii]

Adding,

‘Unless there is some objective standard of good, over-arching Germans, Japanese and ourselves alike whether any of us obey it or no, then of course the German’s are as competent to create their ideology as we are to create ours. Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring.’ [ibid]

Post-modern society is a tyrant’s paradise.

If truth is a construct, truth is (the Orwellian) “whatever the State says it is.”

If, for example, love can be shaped in man’s image, and has no objective grounding, there’s no solid ground on which to dispute the perverted “love” the tyrant has for owning slaves.

If “love is love” and “truth is whatever someone feels it is” then the hands of good men will be bound, and held back from opposing evil, through laws that call it unloving, and intolerant to do so.

This disarming of the responsible strong man, by the tyrannical, weak man, stops the strong man from living out his responsibilities towards others.

Post-modernism’s post-Christian vices and obsessions taint all it comes into contact with. Those who are detached from objective truth don’t connect well with reality.

Christians, and conservatives alike, have to recognise this, and understand how standing on objective truth, undoes the often, false and manipulative messages of the radical Left.

A failure to recognise this will mean stepping on landmine after landmine, with Christians and conservatives shooting themselves in the foot with the gun the Left hands to them on daily basis.

Culture is won through action, empathy and a willingness to engage.

For Conservatives and Christians to deliver an affective, and attractive counter-culture alternative, nothing less than a full commitment to objective truth, expressed through pathos, logos and ethos will do.

Summed up in Lauren Southern’s admonition of Conservatives,

“Facts don’t care about your feelings, but facts don’t care about anything we do. If we don’t start to acknowledge the fact that humans care about feelings at least as much as we care about facts, we may end up faced with a dystopian hell where power cares neither about your feelings nor your facts.”

The Culture War forced onto the West by an unrelenting belligerent Leftist jihadism, isn’t an emotionless spectator sport. Southern is right.

There are real people in need of hearing objective truth, but are failing to hear it because the approach is compromised by joyless tedium.

Too many who profit from being outraged at the Left, don’t want to be an effective answer to the Left. The status-quo of back-and-forth spite, pads their bottom line.                   

God is displaced, and with His displacement, so goes objective truth.

Subjectivism is poison. That is the target. Post-modernism is the context.

The battle ground isn’t Left vs. Right, Black vs. White, it’s truth vs. falsehood.

Post-modernism is a liar’s paradise.

So said Nietzsche, ‘when fighting the dragon take heed, lest you become the dragon.’

Conservatives need to stop playing by the Left’s vicious, lifeless rules, allowing themselves to be lampooned as tribal, irrelevant, bitter old cronies, spitting venom from the sidelines.

An attitude adjustment is in order. An affective opposition, is an effective alternative.

As Southern’s return to the public forum has exemplified:

Love your enemy. (Matthew 5:44) Speak truth in love (Eph.4:5). Be above reproach (Titus 1:6-7; 1 Tim.3:2-3).        

References:

[i] Scruton, R. 1994. Modern Philosophy Bloomsbury Publishing. (p. 6).

[ii] Lewis, C.S. The Poison of Subjectivism, Christian Reflections, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (pp.90-91)

[iii] Scruton, R. 2014. How To Be a Conservative, (p.83)


First published on Caldron Pool, 2nd March, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

I became a Darrell B. Harrison (DBH) ‘Just Thinking For Myself’ (J.T) blog fan about four years ago.

When DBH teamed up with Virgil Walker (Omaha) to do the J.T podcast, DBH took Just Thinking to the next level.

Since then, I’ve been as avid a listener, as my to do list allows.

This isn’t just the Walker-Harrison podcast, this is the Walker-Harrison University.

My appreciation for their insight is the reason why I wrote ‘Genuflecting to ‘Black Lives Matter’ is Straight-Up Idolatryin September, 2020, discussing their infamous analysis of the ‘Church of BLM.’

They said what needed to be said, when others were too afraid to say it.

Their latest three-hour-long exposition on Critical Race Theory is no different.

The dynamic duo agreed that “CRT (created by Marxist legal scholars in 1989) promotes an unbiblical anthropology, hamartiology, soteriology, and eschatology.”

In other words, CRT preaches its own gospel. The “amen and a-woman”; a false “gospel” of race and identity.

All of which are antithetical to Christianity’s Imago Dei (image bearers of God), original sin (all have fallen short), Jesus the Christ (The Gospel), and God’s promised judgement. The end goal of justification where, through His own humiliation, He lifts His creature to be covenant partners, through undeserved and unmerited favour (grace).

The “sufficiency of God’s Word is the battleground,” but instead of challenging ideology with theology, many in the Church appear to bind theology to CRT through a policy of surrender; correctly viewed as accommodation.

CRT is added onto the Gospel under the presupposition that the Gospel isn’t sufficient enough to answer sin. Especially the sin of racism.

Thus, accommodation is surrender. CRT is “a new religion preaching a false gospel. Its adherents seek to remove God as King. They desire to remove His Word as sufficient, and they desire to remove His Gospel as the power of God unto salvation.”

Harrison explains that Critical Race Theory is the progeny of Critical Theory. CT is the opposite to analytical theory. Full of “subjective reflexes, unconcerned with empirical evidence” and “never satisfied with facts.”

Just like Critical Theory, CRT ejects evidence based reasoning, and objective verification. Hence, CRT “doesn’t allow itself to be critiqued.” As an ideology “it refuses to submit itself to the scrutiny of objective evidence or logic.”

Quoting Thomas Sowell, “CRT is not a testable hypothesis.” Meaning that CRT’s accusations, are not supported by empirical evidence.

CRT holds itself to be the determiner of truth, right and wrong. Not a seeker, or subject of objective truth. Nor a hearer and receiver of God’s transcendent morality spoken to humanity from outside itself.

This is imperfect men and women calling the perfecting of the Gospel, imperfect.

They believe that The Gospel is in need of an ideology born from man’s imagination, superstition, and (when left Logosless), corrupted ideas.

CRT is a tower of Babel. The Creature asserting itself arrogantly, over its Creator. In sum, the Social Justice Warrior is the brethren of Iscariot, not Christ.

Ergo, perpetuating the myth of race is preferred over the more accurate term ethnicity when referring to biological differences.

Advocates of CRT can blur distinctions between disparities and differences. From here CRT adherents can claim that “all social and economic disparities are the result of racial discrimination.”

And in their Marxist zero sum game assert that “equality of outcomes must triumph over equality of opportunity,” if real justice is to be achieved.

As Harrison explained, this puts “the pre-CRT civil rights movement at odds with the CRT “civil” rights movement. The latter isn’t concerned with equality of opportunity, but with inequalities of outcome, which it attributes to “racial” power structures.”

For this reason, Walker states, “CRT is a dangerous game, it actually destroys those it claims to help. It cries “racism” while clinging tightly to the same racist hatred it claims to despise and hopes to eliminate.”

As Harrison asserts “the propositions of CRT rest on words of woe and victimhood.”

These are force fed by Marxists to a gullible audience through the five conduits of:

 1. Interest convergence.

2. Unconscious discrimination

3. Intersectionality.

4. Narrative analysis and storytelling.

5. Revisionist history.

In practice these conduits manifest in demands for reparations such as the call for black votes to be counted twice, and the idea that “all white people are racist.”

Walker drops the mic:

“The greatest proponent of White Supremacism in our current culture is Critical Race Theory, and its myth of the almighty, all knowing, all powerful, all seeing “White Man.”  (Slightly paraphrased).

Then kicks the door in:

“Critical Race Theory is culturally accepted racism.”

In concluding, Harrison and Walker explain how CRT is about resetting the West on Marxist terms, replacing Christianity with critical social theory.

The nexus for which is the de-Christianisation of the young through Marxist dominated Universities.

CRT is “a moral proposition that seeks to subjectively tell others what truth is.” This means that “CRT’s Achilles heal is subjectivism and the sin of partiality.”

Critical Race Theory is “a worldview based on vindictive and prejudiced principles that are subjective and changeable depending upon what direction the winds of white supremacy and black oppression happen to be blowing.”

Hence the tendency, says Walker, to “use racism to argue against racism.”

The answer to CRT is, therefore, the unfiltered, unadulterated Good News (Jesus Christ in the flesh) and the Biblical understanding of sin, justice, and the impact of Gospel.

If we embrace the latter, we can answer the former.

As Karl Barth once quipped,

“Away with the yardsticks! Those who cannot sigh with others and laugh about themselves are warmongers.” (Attributed)

By embracing the doctrine of the Imago Dei, not doctrines of racial hate, we can reject both the Marxist Critical Theory’s protectionism of CRT and CRT, which “keeps alive dissentions and animosities of the past; where there is no forgiveness, redemption, only anger, vengeance, resentment and revenge.” (Thomas Sowell).

Listen:

Further reading:

See also Kurt Mahlburg’s excellent outline of CRT in his recent ‘A Common-Sense Guide to Critical Race Theory,


First published on Caldron Pool, 27th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Most honest, level-headed people on both sides of the political aisle would agree that the unrestrained, self-centred use of censorship as a weapon, is barbaric discrimination.

It’s big, bright, and dangerous false dawn; cheered on as it sets civil liberties and civil rights on fire wherever it is blown or directed.

The burnt scarring it leaves behind is left screaming silently to the world that the doctrine of original sin can be ignored, but never truly rejected, because its barbarism has, once again, punched its bloodthirsty fists through the gates; salivating after any opportunity to remove, censor, and/or if possible, rape and behead (Cancel Culture style) Conservative Christians, and Classical Liberals.

Chuck Colson called barbarism, ‘inhumanity done in the name of humanity, the killing of people for their own good.’

He said that the new Barbarians weren’t Goths or Vandals, with ‘clubs climbing over the walls, but the well-dressed people [comfortably] sitting in well-lit rooms with clean fingernails, deciding what was best for other people.’

You’d be spot on if you thought Colson was describing the current bureaucratic caste, legacy media, big tech, big medicine, big business, and their elitist egos, buttressed by self-congratulating sanitised tax-payer funded, leftist political bubbles, and a conditioned public programmed to kneel at every word.

High profile examples of this new barbarism were added this week to the systemic trend blacklisting all those refusing to fall in, line up, goose step in unison, salute, and take the [proverbial] Hitler oath of allegiance.

The cancelling of Gina Carano, Disney stamping trigger warnings all over Jim Henson’s creative legacy, ‘The Muppets,’ and Legacy Media throwing outspoken, Australian politician Craig Kelly under a bus, calling him, in sum, an “ego driven Trumpist, and threat to democracy.”

Christian conservative and former Western Australian, LNP candidate, Andrea Tokaji, ‘was dis-endorsed by the WA Liberal Party weeks before the 2021 Election after five months of campaigning for simply exercising her freedom of speech in an article she wrote months before being endorsed.’ (Rowan Dean, SkyNews)

Then there was Coca Cola repackaging the Nazi doctrine of Blut und Boden, by using their brand to push Critical Race Theory, telling white people to be less white.

While the woke World Council of Churches literally called the modern nation of Israel demonic, claiming that alleged human rights abuses were on the same level as white supremacists in South Africa. Noteworthy, the WCC failed to mention the Chi-comms crushing Hong Kong, threatening Taiwan, and incarcerating ethnic minorities, and Chinese Christians.

In addition, privileged “popstar” Madonna, worth $850 Million, while remaining completely silent about Gina Carano being booted from The Mandalorian, demanded an end to the patriarchy, because of male “systemic oppression”.

Even the Vatican was seemingly keen to join the bandwagon.

NPR reported that ‘Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Cardinal Robert Sarah (of Guinea), removing a conservative who was seen as an opponent of the Pope’s vision for the church.’

The differences were stark. Along with Cardinal Sarah’s conviction for the priesthood to maintain the practice of celibacy. Sarah held the line on irresponsible immigration (open borders), and the clear Biblical Christian line on homosexuality, Western Civilisation, and the ‘Churches’ relationship with the Muslim world.’

An exposition from the Express in the U.K. said that the relationship soured years ago. Instead of ‘removing Sarah directly, Francis decided to fill the liturgy department with a number of [centrists] who opposed his views.’

The Summit news concluded that the 75-year-old Cardinal’s retirement was ‘more of a firing’ because Sarah was ‘mandated to submit his resignation when he turned 75, while other serving in the position have been known to continue.’

Barbarianism is punching its way through the gates.

Out of control censorship is a false dawn, consuming all its being directed towards, and there are very few willing to put up a fight.

To paraphrase Colson, it’s easier to fight those whose actions are clearly inhumane. It’s harder to fight those who do inhumane things and call it “humane”.

References:

Colson, C. 2015. A Flight to Amsterdam, My Final Word, Zondervan (p.42)


First published on Caldron Pool, 24th February 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Trigger happy Disney are adding trigger warnings to the release of classic episodes of ‘The Muppet Show’.

According to the Daily Mail, Disney+ viewers will be met with the “disclaimer” stating:

“This program includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures. These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now.”

This comes a week after the behemoth entertainment company cancelled The Mandalorian star, Gina Carano for sharing a Tik Tok post to her personal Instagram account that they deemed to be “abhorrent and unacceptable.”

In essence, Carano was cancelled over comments she made paralleling cancel culture with Nazi Germany.

Carano’s point was not without some justification.

Cancel culture is largely the Leftist cultural practice of cancelling those who don’t share the left’s political ideology, sign on without question to their new cultural laws, or align with their god-like ideological hegemony.

Where Carano hit a landmine was mentioning the Jews, inadvertently invoking the Holocaust, which is, in the eyes of the far-left “expert class”, sacred ground; earning for Carano a blacklisting.

The now deleted Instagram post read:

“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views.”

Inferring that the suffering of six million Jews (some of whom were Jewish Christians – as testified to by Victor Frankl) is parallel to the American far-left shutting down, censoring, threatening to “de-program”, and banning Conservatives, is a no, no.

The doctrine is clear: Nothing can or should be compared to the persecution of the Jews by National Socialists.

No matter how relevant, even as far as pointing to the history as a precedent goes, to do so distracts attention away from the gravity of that tragedy.

While I share the concerns and understand them, the whole point of “Never Again” is to stop legislation like the “final solution,” buttressed as it was by ideology like “blut und boden” (blood and soil) and ‘Lebensunwertes Leben’ (life unworthy of life), from never happening again.

Banning anyone from pointing, with good reasons, to any precipice that shares relevance to 1930s/40s Germany, undermines this goal.

The Left doesn’t own the rights to the history of the Holocaust. Anyone who slams the Right for pointing out its relevance in contemporary society, isn’t preserving the memory of those who perished, they’re desecrating it because Cancel Culture is fascism proper.

It would seem that the Left like to use parallels, only if they can twist the history of the Holocaust, and human suffering, around in order to weaponize it against their political enemies.

Cancelling Carano, and hitting out against Jim Henson’s loveable and iconic series The Muppets, suggests that Disney are failing to see the light for the love of the encroaching darkness.

In real time, we see the trajectory of political sensitivities, and measuring sticks, similar to those which invaded the hearts and minds of Germans, that conditioned them to see a threat, and an enemy in the Jewish people, where there wasn’t one.  

Is it just a matter of time before Henson is given Billy Bone’s black spot, sent past the rainbow connection, straight to gaol, without collecting $200 hundred dollars, and cancelled completely?

If you think I’m jumping to conclusions, look closer.

Using the Leftist Cultural Marxist, Intersectionality rubric (aka yardstick), which is akin to National Socialists digging in a person’s family tree for Jewish heritage or Aryan purity, The Muppets are as toxic as they come:

  1. Sam Eagle is a Trump voting Nazi.
  2. Animal makes fun of people with disabilities; ableist.
  3. Dr Teeth is a racist, cultural appropriating stereotype; perpetuating a white supremacist narrative of black people.
  4. Miss Piggy’s love for Kermit isn’t inclusive enough. Ergo, “heteronormative” oppression of homosexuals.
  5. Waldorf and Statler are quintessential patriarchal misogynists.
  6. Pepe is a cisgender transphobe; negatively stereotyping Latinos as sex-crazed predators.
  7. Burt and Ernie aren’t “best friends”; they’re repressed gay-lovers forced into hiding by “bigoted homophobes” against gay marriage.
  8. Gonzo perpetuates the mistreatment of illegal immigrants by portraying them as “weirdos,” but scores points because his love for chickens celebrates “LOVE is LOVE” bestiality.
  9. Fozzie the bear is too white.
  10. The Swedish Chef’s gibberish makes a mockery of Sweden; expressing America’s toxic exceptionalism.
  11. Scooter, Bunsen and Beaker are offensive; Scooter is white privileged. Bunsen fat shames scientists, and people who wear glasses. Beaker makes fun of people with social anxiety disorders.
  12. Rawlf the dog is blackface. He negatively reinforces toxic media portrayals of the black community.
  13. Lew Zealand is anti-environment; anti-Climate justice. Zealand supports over-fishing; violence against the Climate.
  14. Crazy Harry’s penchant for explosives encourages white supremacist domestic terrorism, and might be linked to the Jan.6th Invasion of Washington D.C by “attackers, assaulting the Capitol building in an insurrection only stopped by the vigilant, benevolent, glorious Democrat leaders.”
  15. Rizzo is a Republican.

Need I say more?

If, like me you’re asking:

What kind of joyless person watches The Muppets and says “I’m offended by this; that should have come with a trigger warning, I’m now traumatised for life?”

Here’s the answer:

Deluded, practicing life unworthy of life – don’t question this, or “Zor name, vill, also go on ze list!” – Lefties, who, ironically, think that cancelling everyone who doesn’t fall in, goose step in unison and salute, puts them on the same level as allied soldiers landing on beaches in Nazi occupied France.


First published on Caldron Pool, 23rd February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021

*Explicit language warning

World Council of “Churches” (WCC) Commission moderator of International Affairs, Frank Chikane equated Israel with demons in a recent online address.

Chikane told those in attendance that he was “convinced that [Palestine] is dealing with the same demons we dealt with in South Africa. Except that in their case the demons have invited other demons to make their struggle much more difficult…It’s almost like the whole world is against the Palestinians; nobody cares.”

He then asserted his belief that “the whole world seems to be conspiring against them. Trump’s administration came with what was called the deal of the sanctuary; which was really an entrenchment of the oppression and brutalisation of the people of Palestine, permanently robbing them of their rights.”

As The Algemeiner’s Dexter Van Zile retorted,

‘Chikane levelled a hostile incendiary assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish State, and an implicit threat against those who support it. Chikane, who offered not one word of criticism toward the Palestinians, made it perfectly clear that he is devoted to using his position of influence within the WCC to portray the Jewish state as a singular source of violence and sin in the Holy Land.’

Algemeiner explained that ‘the list of participants on the Zoom call included anti-Israel activists and anti-Zionist authors.’

According to Van Zile, Chikane’s address was organised by Christian organisations who have a ‘well-documented history of singling Israel out for condemnation while downplaying Palestinian hate, incitement, and violence towards Israel’ Such as ‘Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Christ at the Checkpoint, Kairos Palestine, and the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation.’

In response, the much-respected Jewish human rights organization, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre called on Christians to show their disagreement, writing on a Facebook link to The Algemeiner,

‘Wanted: Christians who will declare to WCC “not in our name!” Medieval Christendom Jew=Devil dehumanized our people, paved the way to blood libel pogroms and Auschwitz. Now WCC declares Israel=Devil as the Jewish state is threatened by Genocidal Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah?’

The WCC’s ambiguity about where it stands when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict is renowned. Specifically, the WCC’s clandestine support for BDS – The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions protest movement designed to pressure Israel into conforming with its stated ideals, by ending international support for Israel.

Van Zile was right to state in a February 18 follow-up piece, with Frank Chikane voicing support for the misleading, and emotionally charged widespread claim, that “Israel is practicing Apartheid” there’s no doubt to where the World Council of Churches stands.

He adds that WCC advocacy against Israel, while not speaking out against ‘actual crimes against humanity in China and Syria’ – only adds to Jewish suspicions about Christians.

I flat-out agree. The caveat being that the WCC left Christian Gospel orthodoxy for the social gospel of progressive leftism years ago.

It’s best not to equate Leftist “Christianity” with Biblical Christianity.

To qualify terms, Leftist “Christianity” generally rides the Liberation Theology victim train, replacing God’s justice with social justice, and Christ with Marx.

To be blunt about it: Liberation Theology is not a theology of Christian liberation.

As was brilliantly explained by Karol Wojtyla (Pope JPII) in his 1979 Address to Latin American Churches, and Joseph Ratzinger in ‘Theology of Liberation’ (1984) and ‘Christian Freedom & Liberation’ (1986).

All three remain vitally relevant to a Biblical Christian framework of true Christ-centred liberation. The context of which is the self-revealing God, who, in, through and with Jesus Christ, makes Himself known, and makes clear His existence, along with the important distinction between God setting humanity free from sin, not setting humanity free to sin.

Although, WCC members have in the past called their apparent, Marxist “upgrade” of the Gospel, and observable strands of apostasy, “a myth” (see ‘National Council of Churches Faces a New Type of Critic,’ NYT, 1982), they are open advocates of asinine movements such as “Climate Justice,” calling it a ‘the focal point of the WCC advocacy’ in its participation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Chikane accusing Donald Trump of protecting Israel’s ‘oppression and brutalisation,’ along with there being no mention of peace deals that the Trump administration orchestrated between Israel, and some predominantly Muslim countries, also shows that the WCC has taken a hard lean to the Left. Many of whom mock those peace deals, laughing them off as ‘dodgy.’

In an op-ed for the Christian Post Rabbis Cooper and Alderstein responded, saying,

‘The WCC’s moral blindness means that it serves as an expression of Christian love about as successfully as ISIS can raise the banner of Islamic compassion…‘the time has come for Christians to declare “Not in our name.” For their good, more than ours…The WCC’s moral failure is not limited to Israel, however, and that is why it is a danger to those who take their Christianity more seriously than something to use as a political football.’

Fall back on what Eric Metaxas suggested this week and see the dangers for what they are: Americans (and I’ll add Australians) turning-a-blind-eye to CCP human rights abuses, in exchange for cheap Chinese made, Communist Chinese owned, tech – like Hisense big screen TVs and white goods – is in the same ball-park as German society conveniently ignoring the smoke stacks, trains, and violent removal of Jews.

Tack onto this any leap-before-you-look support for dubious schemes like BDS, “Climate Justice,” and support for equating Israel with white supremacy; the concerns of Van Zile, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and the Jewish community find sound justification.

It’s right to stand with Israel, on the proviso that Israel maintains its gracious humanitarian outreach to those who identify as Palestinians, hand-in-hand with Israel’s right to self-defence.

The WCC supporting a one-sided political narrative demands the strong rebuttal: not in my name!


First published on Caldron Pool, 19th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is kelly-gvl-caldron-pool-2021.png

Australian politician, Craig Kelly’s Facebook page has been suspended over at least four quotes he’d posted in February. Each post gave expert opposing viewpoints to the accepted expert narrative over treatments for C0VID-I9.

The Liberal Party member for Hughes told The Australian’s Richard Ferguson that ‘Facebook went through thousands of my posts and only found five that led to the ban.’

Kelly, who isn’t an “anti-vaxxer”, said he “supported the Morrison government’s message on vaccinations,” and that all he is only “advocating for treatments in concert with the vaccine.”

According to The Australian, Facebook declined to comment, but said ‘that social media giant would crack down on any COV1D misinformation on its site;’ [quote] “We don’t allow anyone to share misinformation about C0VID-I9 that could lead to imminent physical harm.” [unquote]

Kelly has been a strong advocate for civil liberties throughout the COV1D-I9 crisis.

He is one of the few politicians with the moxie to tell it like it is. Up until his public confrontation with Labor’s Tanya Plibersek, and a subsequent ‘dressing-down’ by the Prime Minister, Kelly took a strong stand for Australians to have the right to “weigh the evidence” before taking the vaccine.

In a blunt explanation for Kelly’s ban, Rebel News explained that he was “booted” for one week for ‘touting the benefits of hydroxychloroquine.

The Guardian, outlining reasons for the social credit score reduction to Kelly’s page stated that

‘The three posts related to: unproven claims about hydroxychloroquine by professor Dolores Cahill; a profile of professor Thomas Borody in the Spectator which includes advocacy of ivermectin to treat coronavirus; and claims by pathologist Roger Hodkinson that masks are “useless” for children and “paper and fabric masks are simply virtue signalling”.’

In response, Kelly told the Guardian that,

“The points are a legitimate point of view. I’m not posting my opinions; I’m posting the opinions of medical experts. “whether [the views are] right or wrong is a matter of debate, but their views should be debated”.

When asked for comment, Craig Kelly told Caldron Pool that “it was a sad day for free speech and public debate.”

He explained that,

“the four they’ve identified are actually not my opinions but opinions of highly ranked medical professionals, which I’ve put direct links to. In fact, one of them was nothing more than a cut and paste job from a story published in the Spectator magazine, on Australia’s professor Thomas Borody, and how he was suggesting Ivermectin could be an effective treatment against C0VID.”

The minister commented on the leap-before-looking, heavy-handed nature of the ban, stating

“The real danger of this is, Facebook argue, ‘It’s against our Community Standards – it’s dangerous stuff. With the studies that are coming through, it’s very likely in the next couple of weeks that the World Health Organisation will actually recommend Ivermectin, which Borody tried to do six months ago; now that debate has been shut down and over a million and a half people have died.”

Speaking directly about the mounting number of reckless bans, and blocking of reasoned content providing an opposing viewpoint, Kelly added,

“The effect of censoring [of] debate on these early treatments could have possibly been responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

So, where we should have been having more open debate and more free debate, shutting down debate is likely to have killed people. Not just one or two people, but probably hundreds of thousands. This is why throughout the last 250 years people have said free speech is so important. This is why people have said, ‘I may not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to my death your right to say it.’”

Cancel Culture’s COV1D-I9 fanatics may have scored a temporary win over Kelly, but in doing so they’ve added to further erosion of civil liberties.

Noting the word, “crackdown” used by Facebook, a better headline here would be:

Fascistbook suspends truth-teller for advocating the right of informed consent.

 


First published on Caldron Pool, 17th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021

The second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump has ended in an acquittal.

The charge of ‘incitement of insurrection’ concerned the January 6th security breach in Washington D.C., when a mob participating in a MAGA rally broke from the majority, and forced their way into the Capitol building.

The mob, described as rioters by legacy media, carried out acts of vandalism, which culminated in the tragic deaths of two people.

9News reported that Ashli Babbitt, a female veteran was ‘fatally shot by police’ as she entered the building. In addition, The Guardian reported that Officer Brian Sicknick, died due to head injuries inflicted by Capitol Hill vandals, who are alleged to have struck Sicknick with a fire extinguisher.

Three other people died during the incident, in what 9News referred to in speech marks as “medical emergencies.”

According to The Guardian, 50-year-old Benjamin Phillips, a computer programmer and huge Trump fan, died of a stroke. 55-year-old Kevin Gleeson, died of an ‘apparent heart attack, related to a history of high blood pressure’; and Rossane Boyland, 34, who had a ‘criminal history, including possession and distribution of heroin,’ lost consciousness, due to what 9News alleged was the direct result of being ‘crushed by the crowd.’

The Democrat push to pin the security breach, and subsequent vandalism from both known, and alleged MAGA supporters, on Donald Trump, as “insurrection at the Capitol”, was supported by big government Democrats, big media, big tech and big business.

The Guardian were quick to label the tragic event a ‘planned insurrection,’ joining legacy media’s chorus of buzzwords such as “invasion,” “attack,” and “incitement.”

Joe Biden called it ‘an assault on the citadel of liberty’; and Nancy Pelosi (speaker of the house) – among others – laid the blame on the then sitting President Trump, calling for him to be removed from office.

Silicon Valley joined the assault, using the constructed narrative of “insurrection at the Capitol” as an excuse to boot Trump from their social media platforms; killing off a competitor through the equivalent of a permanent D.O.S (denial of service) attack on Parler; which was justified through the distorted claim that the fervent freedom of speech, social media service, was a hotbed for ‘right-wing extremism.’

The January 6th tragedy involving between 500-800 people was a nexus for Trump’s nemeses.

Four-year-long “hate Trump because love trumps hate” campaigners, got in before a clearer picture emerged, and the dust settled. They called for impeachment, capitalising on the momentum of public confusion and concern.

The following weeks saw Trump’s enemies salivate over the possibility of connecting Trump, and Conservatives to the deaths, security breach, and vandalism.

This involved a ‘new rhetorical framing,’ or ‘rhetorical inflation’:

‘[Where] Trump supporters used to be portrayed as nationalists, as extreme patriots whose desire to “make America great again” was too laudatory of the U.S.A.  Now they are being portrayed as insurrectionists and [anti-American jihadist] terrorists who are trying to destroy America.’ – (Gene Veith/Jonathan S. Tobin)

Far-left Democrats are being true to their “whatever it takes to win” promise. It’s a zero-sum game and they know it.

Just like they knew what they were doing when they ‘played an edited video of former President Donald Trump’s speech on January 6, 2020, at the beginning of the impeachment trial on Tuesday, leaving out his call for supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” (Breitbart)

Tackling this ‘new rhetorical framing,’ CBN called out the hypocrisy of those citing Trump’s use of the phrase “fight like hell” as proof of incitement to insurrection. Stating that ‘several members of the impeachment team, have used similar rhetoric in the past.’

Such as, but not limited to, ‘Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., as well as Reps. Joe Neguse of Colorado and Eric Swalwell of California, [who’ve all used] “fight like hell” or similar phrasing in their past statements.’ (Fox)

Rand Paul (Rep.Kentucky) used the example of Chuck Schumer’s speech given during the Kavanaugh trial to a mob in front of the Supreme Court, when the leading Democrat said:

“you have unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price, and you won’t know what hit you.” – ‘the mob charged the door of the Supreme Court and they tried to tear it down. They stood on top of statues, they were confronting and belligerent.’

Paul, in Trump’s defence then appealed to context, saying,

“The thing [here] is [that] you have to look at the President’s actual words. What did he say? He said go fight. Let your voices be heard, and he said march peacefully and patriotically. How can you twist that into words that incite violence?…I think Democrats if they look in the mirror, they’ve been guilty of much more than they’re accusing Trump of.”

The far-left failing to secure a second impeachment against Donald Trump is a blow to their ‘planned’ “insurrection at the Capitol” narrative (new rhetorical framing).

Stakeholders should take note. This push for the impeachment Trump, on trumped up charges, also shows that the far-left’s libido-dominandi driving the hate-fest for anyone, and anything they deem to be unworthy of an opinion, is far from over.

Cancel culture is on full display here.

Breaking down the votes for, and against impeachment, The ABC revealed a well-organised (“pre-planned?”) co-ordinated approach from the Left, with some on the Right supporting the motion (seven in total).

The Left were unanimous. ‘Senators voted 57-43 not guilty on the charge of incitement of insurrection’, which is 10 numbers below the 67 ‘required to convict’ Trump.

The far-left’s real loss here, is the failure of cancel culture to cancel out Donald Trump’s chances of running for President again in 2024. Which was, according to a wise American friend of mine, “the whole reason for the push for impeachment in the first place.”

The far-left engaging in ‘rhetorical inflation’; the twisting of words, facts, and events, in order to carve out a self-serving narrative, is a greater threat to Constitutional Democracy, and civil liberties, than an imperfect man, who for four years served for next to no pay, in the office of President, but sometimes posted mean tweets to his personal Twitter account.

Trump’s second impeachment trial was a fake charge, based on fake news.

I stand by my statements made earlier this year: The real oppressors are masquerading as the oppressed. Cancel culture is fascism proper.


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th February 2021.

© Rod Lampard, 2021.

Without a doubt, interference in the United States election was a four-year long campaign to manufacture the 2020 election result, on a ‘whatever it takes’ to payback Trump for dethroning Hilary Clinton basis.

The framework of debate, if debating about 2020 electoral procedures and its outcome were allowed, includes the relationship between interference in the election, and electoral fraud.

Being convinced there was election interference, doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing that there was widespread electoral fraud.

MyPillow’s CEO, Mike Lindell’s now banned 2 hr exposition ‘Absolute Proof’ takes this approach, but lands squarely on the conclusion that the election result was ‘the biggest cyber attack in history’ involving both foreign and domestic players.

Absolute Proof’ is a “paper or plastic” critique of electronic voting systems. It seeks to show how easy it is for ‘votes [to be] wiped out and replaced’ through malware programs like ‘Qsnatch.’

Lindell’s argument draws from professional assessments, and forensic analysis, which establishes the plausibility, intent and technological process that can be used to manufacture an election result.

Acknowledging assurances from organisations like Dominion, (and others) regarding the safety and security of their product, Lindell unpacks how, despite those assurances, ‘massive security vulnerabilities’ compromise electronic voting systems, and make them susceptible to interference, through digital manipulation from outside forces.

As was reported today, ‘hackers broke into a Florida city’s water supply’ program, and messed with treatment chemicals that could potentially have poisoned the water supply.

Lindell’s questions come about because of ‘deviations in the count [that] didn’t make sense’, claims that the CCP have a known relationship with Dominion (see NBC’s article from 19th Dec. 2019 supporting this), right up to ‘having access to Dominion code,’ and the fact that questions like his are met a ‘solid wall of resistance. With those asking them told to “leave it alone.”

Fortifying this is the en masse, Social Media banning of Mike Lindell. Cancel Culture’s equivalent of a public beheading.

All of it removed from the eye of the public by Big Tech, because it questions the authorised version of events, handed down from what the NY Times called: ‘a group of federal, state and local election officials [who’ve] said “there is no evidence” any voting systems were compromised.’

Lindell’s crimes? Supporting President Donald Trump, and challenging the culture of silence about electoral procedures, and the election.

Questioning that is justified, in the context of Time Magazine gloating that a cabal was involved in manufacturing the 2020 election outcome, and how these revelations infer that this cabal was the Deus Ex Machina Biden needed to win against Donald Trump.

One of Lindell’s strongest points comes from Allied Security Operations Group’s (ASOG) investigation (Transcript: Scribd)  into election fraud. Specifically, Dominion equipment in Antrum County.

ASOG’s high calibre report was rejected without a whole lot of due process.

The questions being asked were dismissed as a Right-Wing conspiracy theory, and their evidence quickly discounted as being ‘false’ and ‘misleading.’

MSN citing, John Poulos, the CEO of Dominion called ASOG, a “biased, non-independent organization.” Backing ‘assertions from Michigan State officials’ about election integrity, while dismissing ASOG, because they have ‘no apparent expertise in election administration and technology. Their work is limited to the previous release and amplification of other false information and fake documents.’

ASOG was dismissed under the blanket narrative that ‘the qualifications of those who authored the report are suspect, with no evidence or credentials provided to back up their “expertise.” (Sec. of State, Michigan Jocelyn Benson)

Factcheck.org (who are financially supported by Google and Facebook, among others) also rebutted the ASOG report in an “analysis” written by U.S Election Assistance, Government employee, Ryan Macias.

He also claimed that “the majority of the findings are false and misleading due to the fact that the entities reviewing the system lack knowledge and expertise in election technology.”

Macias follows this up with an offering of tribute to the only election narrative allowed, concluding: “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.

It should be acknowledged that,

a) Macias, by all appearances, a career bureaucrat, worked with the Californian Sec. of State’s office ‘shaping the voting system and approval process in California’, 10 years before joining the U.S E.A.C in 2016.

b) has an operations management connection to Dominion.

c)  appears to have analysed the ASOG report, not the evidence.

Where ASOG visited ‘Antrim County twice and examined Dominion Voting Systems’, Macias admits: ‘I have not had access to the Antrim County voting equipment, or any voting equipment in the State of Michigan.’

Exhibited by his rebuttal’s convenient dismissal of the ASOG report as ‘preposterous,’ based solely on a flimsy appeal to authority, and the approved narrative.

Macias primarily attacking ASOG, not the report, and his admission of not having done the groundwork ASOG did, works against his accusations of ASOG “bias”, opening up questions about bias of his own.

Add to this, the bandwagon genetic fallacy Macias appeals to in order to discount ASOG’s findings.

Done so on the grounds that ASOG lacks inside knowledge, and electronic expertise; and are only ‘regurgitating unsubstantiated claims of [so-called right-wing] misinformation and disinformation.’

From which Macias (much like Michigan State Democrats, as linked above) concludes ASOG’s findings can’t be trusted, or given serious consideration.

ASOG’s findings aren’t imagined.

What is imagined is Macias’ Fact Check credibility. All he’s done is regurgitate the official Michigan Democrat party-line.

Does Lindell’s ‘Absolute Proof’ provide absolute proof of potential election interferance?

Yes. Move past the opinions, and what Lindell does is pose a series facts and questons. Unlike the suppression of opposing viewpoints from far-left ministry of propaganda “fact-checkers”, Lindell gives the facts a platform, leaving the viewer to decide.

Weighing some of the unadulterated information Lindell presents, I’m more convinced, than I was, that actual election fraud took place. Allbeit carried on a well-hidden, covert micro-scale, which, when tallied gave Biden that Deus Ex Machina, dubious, winning spike.

With a long list of Leftist meltdowns and tantrums since 2016, alongside Time Magazine’s confession, and Lindell’s expositional; election interferance and the possibility of electoral fraud, can’t be ruled-out as a ‘right-wing conspiracy.’

Attach the facism proper tendencies of the Left,

1. legacy media’s hyped-up “insurrection at the Capitol” narrative.

2. calls from Leftists demanding the ‘deprogaming of conservatives.’

3. The ‘portraying of Trump suppporters as terrorists, trying to destroy America.’

4. 10,000+ vetted for loyality Militia (National Guard) being poured into Washington D.C., under Biden’s orders.

5. The cover-up or justification for the sins of far-left activists, such as Maxine Waters.

All of this leaves no doubt in my mind that the 2020 election was interfered with, and that this inteferance in the Democratic process was probably just the beginning of a much larger “coup” orchestrated by the far-left to punish and subdue, an unsuspecting public, and their political opponents.

In this sense, was Biden’s election was the real insurrection?

With the evidence, intent and censoring of questions, I can see why people moved from questions about electoral interferance towards conclusions about electoral fraud.

As Terry Turchie, former FBI Counter Terrorism division, told Lindell:

“the purpose of any intelligence operation of this magnitude is to conceal itself, and to be so hard to figure out that by the time you get to the conclusion, it’s too late.”

Absolute Proof’ is no smoking gun.

This said, Lindell hits a raw nerve.

Huffpost accused Lindell of ‘going off the rails’, YouTube deleted the video, and Twitter booted him, locking out both his personal and business accounts – without due process.

The Leftist hegemon’s demonisinig censorship of him, his argument, evidence and video infer that Lindell’s ‘Absolute Proof’ shines a light, where the Left don’t want light to shine.

Note that the Michigan A.G is pushing to steal the livelihoods of lawyers who failed to fail in, line up and jackboot march in unison.

With the quick suppression of anyone seeking a true and independent anaylsis of the evidence, such as JSOG presented back in January; combined with a Leftist army of so-called “Fact-Checkers” pushing a party-line, the Left’s anti-liberal behaviour shows that Lindell’s ‘Absolute Proof’ carries serious weight.

Lindell makes a good case.

Even without his conclusions, drawn from a variety of sources and evidence about Democrat election interferance, there’s also a ton of incriminating circumstantial evidence; a varifiable signpost proving that Leftist’s were not only capable of manufacturing the outcome of the 2020 election, but had probable cause, and acted with intent to do so.

Such as statements of intent, that ‘they’d do whatever it takes to remove Donald Trump from office.’

This, along with left-wing Russian collusion conspiracy theories, wall-to-wall demonstrations, and violent demonisations of the Trump administration.

In addition, we have Time magazine’s Molly Ball (a Nancy Pelosi biographer)who’s confessed to the existence of

‘a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.’

Ball’s admissions are bold, and her justifications pivot on the hope that no one will care enough to notice the dishonest, type ‘a’ leftist sleight of hand abuse of language, justifying interference (even perhaps electoral fraud) as not ‘rigging the election’, but ‘fortifying’ it.

Just as, “ALL white people are racist, is anti-racism”, “abortion is healthcare”, “love is love”, “men can be women”, “Trump is Hitler”, “socialism has never been properly tried,” “Same-sex marriage is about equality,” and ‘Antifa’s fascist tactics is “anti-fascism.”

Joining the manipulative chorus of Leftist slogans, and falsehoods, is the four year long, dark Democrat campaign of fear and division, culiminating in the conditioning of the electorate to “vote for Biden, or face certain death at the hands of Covid, Climate Change, Rascists and Nazis.”

As Mark Powell expressed this week in response to Time magazine,

‘So, are we truly supposed to believe that the ultimate goal of the polyamorous relationship between Big-Media, Big-Tech™ and Big Business™ was the protection of our democratic freedoms? Because, if so, then someone better quickly inform The New York Post whose bombshell expose article on Hunter Biden’s laptop was more censored than a communist cultivated coronavirus.’

The zero-sum dishonest game from the Left, that blurs distinctions, up-ends definitions, interferes in elections, and redefines truth as opinion, makes ‘Absolute Proof’ worth the time and effort.

Eat the fish, spit out the bones.


First published on Caldron Pool, 11th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

GQ’s February 3rd fashion page featured Joe Biden.

Teo van den Broeke sub-headed the article:

The 46th potus is more than the saviour of the Union… He’s a true-blue style icon too.

The GQ “Grooming director” gave a glowing portrayal of the 46th President.

Complete with the praise, adulation and hagiography, you’d expect from a leftist media starry-eyed by their glorious leader, and drunk on the euphoric sense that they now not only own you, but have absolute control over your very existence.

Broeke’s “woke” rendition of the many sides of Biden, looks like a cheap Communist Chinese commercial advertising a knock-off Barbie range they’d stolen from Mattel’s design floor.

So much so, that if GQ hadn’t given it a blue tick approval by posting it to their Instagram page, anyone seeing this stuff on social media would think the geniuses at the double B (Babylon Bee) had birthed it.

GQ went all out. With high gloss, a professional set, with some serious attention to detail; right down to Biden’s correct positioning of the A-minor chord on the guitar.

Broeke’s article has all the buzzwords one would expect to see written on posters praising Dictators. The kind we see in video games like Just Cause 3, or Ghost Recon, factual copies of real life examples found in Saddam’s Iraq, Islamist Iran, Cuba, China, North Korea, Soviet Russia, Venezuela, and potentially, the new Democrat headquarters recently relocated to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

GQ’s praise ticks all the propaganda boxes.

From noting the ‘no surprises, designed by Ralph Lauren inauguration outfit’ to ‘it was expensively stitched demonstration of both his dependability and stability, acting as a cypher for his unimpeachable patriotism.’ [!!!]

A career political being portrayed in high-end, expensive designer clothing, like Nancy Pelosi eating Ice Cream from her $20,000 tax-payer funded fridges, during her comfortable COVID-19 lockdown?

No surprises here.

Also, not surprising is GQ dumping some smug bitchiness on Trump. Stating that their celebration of the new president was also a celebration of the fact:

‘we no longer need to look at the giant orange buffoon in his two-legged body bags day in, day out.’

This coincided with the snarky GQ “Grooming director” referring to Trump as a ‘clown’, an ‘overinflated orange rodeo clown,’ and implying that Trump was in the list of ‘dead Presidents being carried around in Biden’s pocket.’

If you’re wondering about whether fat shaming the “former” President breaches Cultural Marxist “hate-speech” rules you’d be right to do so.

The problem there, of course, is that the Intersectionality yardstick only applies Cancel Culture to those pushed into the “oppressor” category by the so-called “oppressed” – “you are what they say you are, agree or else!” means, they can be what they say they’re against, because “it’s never wrong” when the Left does it, it’s just “never properly been tried before.”

Broeke isn’t even trying to be funny, and the juvenile smack-talk only bolsters this observation.

Let’s call a spade a spade.

GQ calling Biden ‘more than a Saviour’, while pouring scorn on Trump, is fascism proper.

GQ isn’t winning graciously.

This fascism proper comes further into focus, when you realise that this photoshoot, was photoshopped.

To quote Broeke,

‘we thought we’d give Biden the all-American makeover of his (but really our) dreams.’

What follows is a series of images showing Biden dressed in a range of clothes, in a range of settings, alongside glowing comparisons with Benjamin Franklin, JFK, James Dean, Billy the Kid, and Ennis Del Mar.

It should send a chill down the spines of every genuinely concerned keyboard warrior who fell in line, and goose stepped in time with the attempts to falsely paint Donald Trump as a racist, Nazi and/or Hitler.

There are enough trimmings here to make Leni Riefenstahl smile, and Moa, Pol-Pot, Stalin and Goebbels green with envy.

If I’ve read GQ right, Biden’s inauguration was a coronation.

This is everything you’d expect from the 47-year career politician, who’s addiction to executive orders, and ‘vetted for loyalty’ standing army now garrisoned in Washington D.C, leaves Donald Trump’s so-called “fascism” in the dust.

Quality control at GQ, must be on COVID-19 Wuhan Virus sabbatical.


First Published on Caldron Pool, 9th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Like Iron Maiden’s pro-life, Cold War protest song, ‘2 Minutes to Midnight, truth bombs from Independent Canadian rap artist, Tom MacDonald’s latest release, ‘Fake Woke’ epitomise a truism: sometimes truth-affirming criticism comes from the most unexpected of places.

Instead of jumping ship to ride the go-with-the-flow anti-Trump, Joebama-is-the-messiah crowd, MacDonald has gone head-to-head with the culture of fear, lies and division, that keeps the far-Left in positions of power, and helped Democrats take the Presidency.

MacDonald, acknowledging cancel culture – which arrests freedom of speech by gagging anyone speaking truths that don’t affirm or confirm to the far-Left’s ideological party-line – wrote in a tweet on the 13th of January,

‘I don’t even know if I can release any of the new music I had planned to start the year with. The risk of getting deleted/banned/removed from platforms is REAL. I’m seeing it happen to dozens of people every day.’

The song was released on January 29th. Since then, it’s flown under the radar of Big Tech censorship, and their trigger-happy, fall-in, line-up, goose step in unison, salute or else, thought police. This may change as the song’s popularity continues to explode.

So far, the only real controversy has been over MacDonald’s opening lyrics referring to Eminem and Cardi-B as hypocrites and poor role models. With Hiphop24x7, being the only Rap affiliated site so far to cover it in context, albeit briefly.

According to Popvortex, the self-released single is the current number 1 song on itunes.

However, this polling position appears to depend on where you look.

Fake Woke’ is listed nowhere on the Apple Web Top 100, but in the actual itunes store it’s sitting at number 17; with over 3 million views on YouTube since its release on YT four days ago.  

Kristin Smith’s review for PluggedIn (Focus on the Family’s online entertainment, culture and society news site) noted that the song’s ‘extremely controversial’ lyrical content comes from how the lyrics contrast with Hollywood, the music world, and “progressive” legacy media’s own bigotry.

This is exhibited by the far-Left’s oppressive intolerance towards anyone with a different opinion, or opposing viewpoint.

As per Caldron Pool editor, Ben Davis’ apt observation,

‘Bigotry is NOT refusal to affirm the opinions of the day. Bigotry is “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.” (Oxford)

With ‘Fake Woke’ MacDonald has good reason for concern.

Humourless Cultural Marxists abusing their positions of power and perma banning whatever doesn’t suit them, or support their manipulative, forced conformity to new cultural laws, is now standard practice.

As the song states:

‘Cancel culture runs the world now, the planet went crazy
Label everything we say as homophobic or racist
If you’re white, then you’re privileged, guilty by association. They never freed the slaves, they realized that they don’t need the chains. They gave us tiny screens; we think we free ’cause we can’t see the cage. They knew that race war would be the game they need to play. For people to pick teams, they use the media to feed the flame.’

MacDonald isn’t new to controversy. His August 2020, ‘People So Stupid’ took aim at the mislabelling of heterosexual men as homophobic, because they refuse to date transgender “women”, perpetual victimhood, and abortion.

 ‘Fake Woke’ hits a similar vein, challenging Black Lives Matter, and defund the police; putting a mirror up to the face of politicians (most often on the Left) who preach anti-racism, but need racism to keep votes, and campaign dollars rolling in:

‘Segregation ended, that’s a lie in itself
That was a strategy to make us think they were tryin’ to help
They knew that racism was hot if they designed it to sell
We buy up every single box and divide us ourselves.’

Adding to this, MacDonald slams the slaying of truth, with specific reference to the slaughter of the Hebraic word “Amen” on the altar of radical feminist wokeness,

‘Censoring the facts turns our children into idiots
They claim it’s for our safety, I’ll tell you what it really is
Removing information that empowers all the citizens
The truth doesn’t damage points of view that are legitimate
They’re tryna change amen to a-men and women
How’d we let ’em make praying a microaggression?
Instead of asking God for the strength to keep winnin’
We cheat to get ahead, and then we ask Him for forgiveness.’

In an interview with Fox News, MacDonald said,

“I just thought that it’s important to point some fingers at the hypocrisy and the way the world is changing; not for the better…People have become allergic to opinions in North America in these last five years, and pretty soon they’re gonna cancel everything.”                  

As I wrote last year. The fight isn’t left vs. right, black vs. white, it’s truth vs. falsehood.


First published on Caldron Pool, 4th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

The planned Hollywood Union show trial of Donald Trump was extinguished after the former President, woke to the fake woke people’s court nonsense, headed them off at the pass.

Trump’s response? Resign.

By doing so he effectively nullified Hollywood’s self-serving attempt at using its Union arm to charge, and convict him (as far as it’s within their power to do so) with crimes he never committed.

USA Today reported that President Trump ‘resigned from SAG-AFTRA after facing expulsion from the actors’ guild’ for his alleged “incitement” of riots on January 6th.

As noted, ‘on January 19th, the Screen Actors Guild board voted “overwhelmingly” that there is probable cause’ in regards to ‘Trump violating its guidelines for membership.’

USA Today added that ‘the charges are for Trump’s [alleged] role in the Capitol riot, and [again, allegedly] sustaining a reckless campaign of misinformation aimed at discrediting and ultimately threatening the safety of “journalists”, many of whom are SAG-AFTRA members.’ (parentheses mine).

The NY Times called the move a ‘disciplinary hearing’ then repeatedly referred to the former President as ‘Mr. Trump, a businessman.’

According to the NYT, SAG-AFTRA has confirmed the move, with the Union President stating,

“Donald Trump attacked the values that this union holds most sacred — democracy, truth, respect for our fellow Americans of all races and faiths, and the sanctity of the free press […] there’s a straight line from his wanton disregard for the truth to the attacks on journalists perpetrated by his followers.”

Rolling Stone rightly called the hearing an attempt to ‘banish Trump,’ and included Hollywood’s simple ‘thank you’ reply to his resignation.

In the official resignation letter Trump labelled the Union’s move a ‘blatant attempt at free media attention to distract’ [people] from lawsuits against the Union such as the group lead by Ed Asner. Who, according to Hollywood Reporter, are suing the ‘SAG-AFTRA Health Fund and its board of trustees for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties…Actors say they’ve been abandoned by their guild, and are losing their health coverage.’

The resignation letter is classic Trump; a reminder of why we “the-deplorable-little-people”, which includes 75 million+ Americans, and many more worldwide, still respect the imperfect man’s steadfast grit and love for his country, despite the being the primary target of irrational hate from an all-too-powerful, and smug elitist caste.

Trump’s move also disarms far-Left Democrats from using any Hollywood verdict of ‘guilty as charged’, ‘off with his head’ exile, as a precedent, or proof of his guilt, in its own potential State sponsored criminal [show] trial.

Despite Biden’s mandated ‘healing and unity’, many Democrats have made it clear that they’re not through with trying to punish the man who dethroned the Clintons, and helped awaken the world to the free-pass handed to powerful allies in Hollywood. (E.g.: Weinstien; Epstein et.al)

It’s the kind of trial that’d make Nazi, people’s court judge Roland Freisler jump with whatever is the fascist equivalent of joy.

Alongside an over-excited Goebbels ready, with pen and paper, to spin the “historic” and “unprecedented” act of “social justice” quelling “dangerous” hate-speech from individuals deemed enemies of the Reich.

Of course, Hollywood’s relationship with Nazism borderlines morbid obsession. There’s a reason why we see few movies portraying the war crimes, and human rights abuses from other countries under Socialist rule.

It’s worth noting that Hollywood’s Anti-Nazi league (later run by Communists, once they booted Christians) [i] practised a policy of neutrality, courting the Third Reich and its cinema market.

Let’s not forget that the league went silent in their opposition to Nazism, when Soviets signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop non-aggression pact with the Nazis, which saw the Nazis and Communists tear apart Poland, and enslave the Polish people.

Hand-in-hand, both Nazi and Communist, socialists one and the same, mined Poland to satiate the wolf (Nazi) and the bears’ (Bolshevik) socialist empire building, blood lust. [ii]

After four years of anti-Trump hysteria, Hollywood’s obsession with Nazism begins to look a lot more like admiration.

If the attempt to try Donald Trump reveals anything, it’s not Hollywood’s anti-Nazism, it’s Hollywood’s fascination with fascism.

As Thomas Doherty observed,

‘In the digital age, the collection and repackaging of images of the Nazis remains a growth industry, sustaining documentary features, action films, and cable channels.’ (Hollywood & Hitler, p.371)

It’s fair then to ask:

Do the dollars attached to Hollywood’s obsession with the Nazi worldview mean that Hollywood is essentially marketing Nazism?

Does this explain why they a) don’t speak about the just-as-equal evils of socialism, and b) are quick to spread alarmism about a so-called “far-right extremist” crisis?

Nazism and Communism are two wings on the same vicious bird.

It’s a shame that the subjective bias of Hollywood has held them back from speaking this truth to power.

References:

[i] The Communist beachhead in Hollywood caused a split, which created the far-left’s Popular Front, and the Catholic, National League of Decency (formed in 1934).

Doherty, T. 2013 Hollywood & Hitler: 1933-1939 Columbia University Press


First published on Caldron Pool,  6th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Conflating Donald Trump “losing” the 2020 election with Conservatives, and their allies [i], losing the Culture War is a mistake.

Just as unsteady is the conclusion that the modern Conservative position is now irrelevant; not the majority view in the West, or that “progressive” elites have categorically won their Culture War.

This mistake is being made by many on the far-Left, who are overjoyed with the feeling of total domination; enlivened by the prospect of a Stalin-style purging of political opposition; buoyed by a false sense of security, and contempt, stemming from what is being played out as a total victory.

It’s a falsehood that shouldn’t be echoed by Conservatives and those not aligned with the Left’s extremist ideological hegemony.

It’s a false conclusion that denies key variables.

Such as the collective impact of four years of Leftist tantrum throwing. Including among other things, division, threats, and intimidation. Their war-like strategy of attrition. The wearing down of the masses through a blitzkrieg of outrage, blame and false witness, carried out against Conservatives because many on the Left couldn’t handle the legitimate 2016 election outcome.

It denies context.

Such as the universal impact of the COVID-19 Wuhan virus, mass destruction caused by Marxist Black Lives Matter riots, and the Biden-Harris campaign of fear: “vote for me, or face certain death at the hands of COVID, “Climate change”, Nazis and racists.”

Distance sharpens perspective.

Step back for a bit, recalibrate and you’ll see that today’s conservative movement isn’t dead. It’s not even on life support, but there are improvements that need to be made.

Here’s one area where I think this applies.

While 95% competition and only 5% cooperation persists among conservatives and their allies, they will remain a house divided; doomed to struggle in the Culture War forced onto society by the far-left.

As opposed to excessive self-promotion, and the holding back of support for fear of losing an audience to any “competition”, unity in purpose demands creative cooperation.

The “I’ll let you share my stuff, but be damned if I’m going to do the same for you” has to go.

More cooperation and less competition amongst those within replacement media is the primary means through which Conservatives, and their allies, will overcome the leftist hegemony’s marginalisation, and monopolisation of the masses.

Cooperation and less competition counter the attempt from the far-Left to suffocate all means of communicating reasoned opposing viewpoints, which includes the Conservative Biblical Christian message.

Take as a shining example PragerU’s relationship with The Daily Wire, BLEXIT, and the WalkAway movement. A partnership, not always in agreement, but a partnership nonetheless that accounts for a good portion of their success.

It boggles the mind that other groups aren’t borrowing from their leadership in this area. Choosing instead to work against, rather than with those who on the same team.

Healthy competition has its place, but when that competition compromises cooperation, we’re no longer talking about teamwork, we’re talking about friendly fire, and causalities of war.

The adage there is no “I” in team pulls its own weight on the battlefield of ideas.

Conservatives in media need more of a ministry approach, less of an industry approach. More willingness to work with, rather than against each other. Less suspicion over motive, and more momentum in communicating the message.

This is what we aim for at Caldron Pool.

We’re aiming high, and are praying that others, particularly our army of dedicated readers, and Australia’s replacement media industry will be aiming towards as well.

It’s a mistake to view the Biden Presidency as the death of the Conservative movement.

If the first weeks of the Biden administration are anything to go by, the far-Left overplaying their hand is inevitable.

There’s still work to be done.

Support the alternative.

Build up a replacement media that will challenge the hypnotic newspeak of legacy media, and the 24/7 manipulative propaganda opiate keeping the masses under their thumb through disaster porn.

Be the alternative.

Add your voice to the conversation.

Become a regular supporter of Caldron Pool by donating here.

References:

[i] I refer here to Tulsi Gabbard, Bari Weis, and Brett Weinstein, among others.


First published on Caldron Pool, 2nd February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Connor Court Publishing’s Fundamental Rights in the Age of Covid-19, edited by Augusto Zimmermann and Joshua Forrester, is a formal Classical Liberal rebuke of totalitarian anti-COVID-19 prohibitions.

Its chief criticism is against the blatant absence of any steadfast verbal or visual confirmation (from most of our elected representatives) affirming a desire for the dogged preservation of civil liberties. Reassurances which should have gone hand-in-hand with most daily briefings about Government initiatives aimed at protecting citizens from the COVID-19 Wuhan Virus, but didn’t.

This lack of passion for the conservation of civil liberties (even from so-called Conservatives or Christians in government) justifies the kind of necessary criticisms found in Fundamental Rights in the Age of COVID-19. One such being the danger of despotic Government’s undermining constitutional law, and placing citizens at risk of Governmental abuses of power by politicians arbitrarily granting themselves the right to act outside the Constitution.

The protection of civil liberties is a debate worth having.

Zimmermann & Forrester’s readable compendium achieves this and more.

Beginning with Rex Adhar’s cost to benefit analysis of lockdowns balancing the economic argument with the medical. His charge that elected representatives have ‘abdicated political decision-making to scientists’ is evidenced by ‘rushed COVID-19 laws’ was pointed. The bottom line is that the disproportionate responses to COVID-19 are likely to create greater casualties than the virus itself.

James Allan rightly states that many of the people advocating for lockdowns weren’t affected by them; and that ‘one of the effects’ of following the Communist Chinese Party’s lockdown fanaticism, was the ‘turning of law enforcement in an arm of the nanny state’ (p.43).

Noting in contrast to many Western nations adopting the CCP’s dehumanising Communist meat-grinder, that Taiwan (p.43) and Sweden’s response worked, and they ‘didn’t drive a truck through civil liberties’ (p.46 & 47) in order to do so. All for a virus ‘nowhere near The Spanish Flu’ in terms of ‘lethality and seriousness.’ (p.44).

As Morgan Begg argues, the virus has been exploited by bureaucrats, with ‘many of the isolation and social distancing rules going beyond what should be required under the guidelines’ (p.69). The ‘disproportionate response’ exposes citizens to ‘structural flaws in [COVID] legislation’ (p. 74) that allows governments (particularly Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews) to rule via emergency powers without accountability.

David Flint’s essay in chapter 5 is on par with Adhar’s ‘abdication’ argument. Governments let [helpful, but also unreliable] computer modelling rule the day (p.83). [i]

Another highlight is Anthony Gray’s distinction between whether a law is ‘prohibitive’ of foundational rights (Constitution) or ‘protecting’ those foundational rights, applied when testing laws against the constitution. For Gray Western Australia’s border closure offends Section 92 of the Australian Constitution.

Expanding a little bit in this direction, Polish contributors, Kudla and Blicharz see the marginalisation of Christians, and Churches as “non-essential” being the result of bureaucrats exploiting COVID-19, as well as ‘the collision of two fundamental rights: the right to practice one’s religion and the right to protect one’s life’ (p.144).

While condemning the marginalising of Christians under COVID-19 “protections” the authors contrasted Poland’s Church and State cooperative approach with the dehumanising, “non-essential” quota applied to the Church by most Western nations (p.159).

In other words, while Pastors and Christians were told that 2,000 years of care and charitable service was “not essential”, Polish (and even Italian) authorities recognised that Pastoral Care is an essential service.

While there are some overlaps, Zimmermann and Forrester’s careful ordering of well referenced essays creates an interwoven text. It all flows in an engaging, consistent and logical direction.

Rocco Loiacono’s criticisms of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations, and Government overreach, pivot on the principle of the ‘informed consent’ of the governed. For him 2020 saw the rise of ‘elected dictatorships…aided and abetted by a now all-powerful health bureaucracy’ that tends to ignore ‘frontline medical advice, preferring instead to hide behind [a] cadre of unelected bureaucrats, and state of emergency’ powers (pp.165 & 171).

The chapter is punchy, includes Big Tech’s ban on Doctors like Simone Gold, advocates for HCQ, and concludes with an appeal against rapid rollouts, when herd immunity still can’t be ruled out, with reference to the ‘horrible effects of thalidomide, a sedative given to pregnant women in the 1950’s and 1960’ precedent: ‘just because we are assured something is safe, or legal, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is’ (p.180).

Closing out the book, Gabriel Moens, with whom Jacques Ellul would agree (see Technological Society & Propaganda), talks about Government’s manipulative use of behavioural science (Obama in particular p.192), remarking that Government ‘intervention should be a last resort, not a reflex instinct’ (p.193). [ii]

The well-read, and prolific, Bill Muehlenberg presents a theological ‘petition, flight, and as a last resort, fight’ push back against the surrender of religious freedoms to what is essentially leftist Gnosticism (and exceptionalism).

Understood as such through Thomas Sowell’s description of ‘the exaltation of the anointed above others’ (p.220) – and I’d add Eric Voegelin’s ‘Science, Politics and Gnosticism’. The (conservative) sinner saved by grace ridiculed by the Übermensch “victim” class: sinless (leftists) saved by special knowledge.        

As was witnessed in Michigan (Gov. Gretchen Esther Whitmer, U.S) and Victoria (Premier Daniel Andrews, Aust.) when these Leftist bureaucrats approved fiats granting Leftists the right of protest, while denying other community groups that same right; often through police intimidation, encouraging neighbour to denounce neighbour, arbitrary arrest, and cost prohibitive fines.

Recall how Black Lives Matter, and anti-Australia “Invasion Day” protests went unopposed, but anti-lockdown protesters and unity preaching patriots were dehumanised as “Grandmother killers”, banned, blocked or defamed by celebrities and the legacy media as selfish deplorables.

While good, Monika Nagel’s defence of civil liberties (Chpt.11) through Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the good and bad of Globalisation, and the purpose of fundamental rights, was unanchored; too existential. It lacked transcendent; concrete, objective ground.

The only protection of fundamental rights comes from the commanded order as revealed by God through His self-revealing in time and space, through Covenant and Christ: God gives us those rights, good government recognises, and protects those rights. It doesn’t make themselves the source of them or the determiners of good and evil.

As has been said, man over-Lord is man overboard. Anything else displaces the Logos from His rightful place, positioning man-made power structures to rule, tyrannically, instead.

Further along, Johnny Sakr’s use of Luis de Molina’s theological argument in respect to the relationship between Divine Sovereignty and creaturely freedom, seems overly verbose.

Though, Sakr’s end point linking up Molina’s theory with a “where is God in all this” question is well worth the effort. From God’s freedom, comes our freedom, and all the responsibility it infers.

Navigating both fatalism and open theism, Molina’s description of God’s Providential activity in the life of humanity as ‘strong actualisation and weak actualisation’ can also be read as Calvin’s distinction between ‘God doing and God allowing”, Karl Barth’s ‘God’s free, Divine Lordship and the invitation for participation given to His Creature as Covenant partners.’

As I have come to express it:

Not all suffering comes from God, but God works through all suffering. Those in Christ are not free from suffering, but are free in their suffering.

Steven Samson’s appeal to history, predominately the act of ‘interposition’ as just protections applied by just protectors against despotism, whether it be a Monarchy, Democracy or Republic, joins up with Muehlenberg’s argument.

Samson’s chapter is a fine read. In it pushes towards the conclusion that COVID-19 counter-measures were blurring, if not being used to abolish a separation of powers by merging the judicial, executive and legislative tiers into one politically aligned body.

William Wagner later calls this: ‘Governance by Decree.’

For Wagner COVID-19 reveals an erosion of fundamental rights as granted by foundational laws. ‘Decades of judicial activism diabolically evolve constitutional law, enabling State Governments to justify their infringements, emboldening them to govern despotically.’ Consequently, we see ‘an activist judiciary enabling Executive tyranny’ (p.351)

Wagner amplifies Samson’s,

 ‘which will prevail: politics – the art of persuasion and consensus-building – or despotism – the coercion of surrender and acquiescence? ‘days of reckoning are upon us.’ (p.338)

In sum, Fundamental Rights in the Age of COVID-19 asks and seeks to answer two main questions from a Classical Liberal perspective:

  1. Where are the sunset clauses for Totalitarian anti-Covid-19 measures?
  2. Why are our politicians not standing up for the protection of civil liberties, with as much gusto as they are protecting people from a pandemic?

There are syntax errors and some spelling issues, making the exceptional body of work look rushed.

I also think the limited number of references engaging with leftist academics might work against the book; opening it up to asinine accusations of confirmation bias. The Spectator and The Australian are linked to frequently.

Overall, Zimmermann and Forrester’s book is a readable compendium, full of uncomfortable truths that we need to adjust our ears to hear.

The slack approach from politicians in protecting civil liberties; the ease at which people have been willing to hand over total control to Government, not just without question, but with thunderous applause, lets an unelected bureaucratic caste lead our us, and our elected representatives around by the nose. We shouldn’t be letting such apathy and compromise slide.

COVID-19 prohibitions on fundamental rights are an atrocious betrayal of constitutional protections.

This isn’t justice and liberty. It’s fascism proper – make-up on a muddy pig.

In the words of Anglican theologian John Stott,

‘…the one thing a totalitarian regime cannot endure is to be refused the total allegiance which it coverts.’ [iii]

*Fundamental Rights in the Age of COVID-19 is currently available via Connor Court Publishing or Amazon/AU.

References:

[i] This ‘abdication’ is also evidenced by how the ‘Australian government ignore[d] world’s best practice, that of Taiwan, which was available at the time when relevant decisions were being taken’ (p.79). Reasons for this might include the fact that the CCP has ‘long made it clear that Taiwan is to be treated like a pariah’ (p.80).

[ii] In sum, “never waste a crisis” can be translated: disaster porn is a drug and they know how to use it.

[iii] Stott, J. 1992, Contemporary Christian, Christ & His Cross (p.67)


First published on Caldron Pool, 31st January, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Last November the Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison (LNP-Cook) gave a ‘UK Policy Exchange Virtual Address.’

As out of place as it sounds in a virtual setting, the virtual audience was treated to a traditional owners’ acknowledgement, followed by thanks to any members from the Australian Defence Force who might have been watching.

Morrison commended Boris Johnson on his ‘global ambitions for Britain’ which include economic development, and newly opened post-Brexit trade avenues. The P.M talked up his connections with his British counter-part, and made special note of Australia’s longstanding relationship with the United Kingdom.

Among the list of acknowledgements and praise, Morrison also mentioned values both he, and Johnson share.

Paradoxically placing ‘Liberal-Conservative traditions’ alongside restrictive policies that conform to Australia’s ‘emissions reductions’ and the ‘global climate change agenda.’

After citing the Treaty of Westphalia, and Hugo Grotius’ prison work ‘The Rights of War and Peace’, Morrison, in quarantine after a state visit to Japan, inadvertently compared quarantine with imprisonment.

The P.M stating, ‘Grotius wrote most of the book while imprisoned in the Loevestein Castle…Given that I join you today from quarantine isolation… I hope my own isolation will be nearly as productive.’ 

From there Scott Morrison gave a defence of nation-states, as ‘building blocks of an international order’; a ‘community of nations built around common understanding of international law.’

That ‘nation-states mattered [at the time of the Westphalia Treaty] and they matter now.’

The ‘key point’ being that ‘the collective efforts of like-minded nation-states can make a difference.’

This ‘society of sovereign states’ hold international institutions accountable; ‘especially true for liberal democratic states, where no authority can ever rise higher than the people who elect their own governments.’ 

The Prime Minister moved to applaud the soft-capitalist policies of China’s ruling Communist Party. Stating that ‘no country has pulled more people out of poverty than China. And [that] Australia is pleased to have played our role in the economic emancipation of millions of Chinese through the development of the Chinese economy.’

Extending an undeserved, but gracious olive branch to the CCP, Morrison declared

‘Australia desires an open, transparent and mutually beneficial relationship with China as our largest trading partner, where there are strong people-to-people ties, complementary economies and a shared interest especially in regional development and wellbeing, particularly in the emerging economies of Southeast Asia.

Equally we are absolutely committed to our enduring alliance with the United States, anchored in our shared worldview, liberal democratic values and market-based economic model.’

Qualifying the above olive branch with a subtle rebuttal of the CCP’s year-long one-sided, punitive trade-war with Australia, Morrison pointed to Australia’s national interest, saying, Australia will not be pushed by polarisation into making a choice between two powers, who seem to forget that Australia is a sovereign state in its own right – ‘at all times, we must be true to our values and the protection of our own sovereignty.’

Closing with a rejection of those using COVID-19 as a trojan horse to impose ‘The Great Reset’ (as proposed by the WEC, and promoted by Time Magazine among others) Morrison stated that ‘the pandemic recession [wasn’t] the product of the failure of world capitalism or liberal, free market-based values.’

He denied the need for a ‘reset’ of values, or a ‘reset’ of the economic agenda among like-minded liberal democracies, concluding that

‘it is actually these values that have provided the platform for the greatest period of peace and prosperity the world has ever known, and has underpinned the very global institutions that has helped sustain it.’

Get past the “safe space” buzzwords, like emissions reductions, climate change, inclusion, empowerment, and the use of terms like extremism, terrorism ‘in all its forms’ without qualification, the speech is impressive.

Noticeable for its defence of Australia’s sovereignty, multi-ethnic nationalism, economy and social values built on classical liberalism.

Notable for its gracious, but firm rejection of the Chinese Communist Party’s manipulative political manoeuvring.

Noteworthy for its (carefully worded) rejection of global communism, otherwise known as ‘The Great Reset.’

[FULL transcript]

WATCH:


First published on Caldron Pool, 12th January, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

The lessons provided this week by the unjustified social media ban of Donald Trump, along with the industry wide cancellation of Parler are dangerous precedents.

This abuse of power from Big Tech is solid proof that political favouritism exists within Silicon Valley.

Arbitrary cancellations, double standards, and selective censorship, tells their customers (and investors) that Big Tech cannot be trusted to apply their own EULA standards to their favoured side of politics; nor live out their civic responsibility in preserving the basic tenets of liberty and justice for all.

First, we have a sitting, duly elected president, booted from communication platforms without due process or factual evidence, under the extremely weak premise that he “incited violence.”

This premise IS weak because it rests on confirmation bias. An abstract quote, ripped out of context, to fit the false idea embedded in four years of manipulative propaganda from the Left, in the false belief that Donald Trump is a “Fascist, Nazi, Racist” and worse.

This was best expressed today by ACL director, Martyn Isles’ in his apt conclusion

‘[Trump] said the three words, “fight like hell” in one Tweet about opposing electoral fraud, they say he directly incited an insurrection. That is deliberately one-eyed and unfair, and clearly not his intent. He was certainly unpresidential, but you can’t ban a bloke for that.’

Second, we witnessed the public execution of a private business, when a monopoly of business competitors entertaining industrial espionage denied Parler’s right to trade, exist, create, and compete.

All seemingly for the sole purpose of squeezing more political leverage from the 2020 election, for the lifeless Democrat campaign which was only kept alive because Big Tech, and Big Media ran interference for the Democrat Left, behind the justification that they were stopping misinformation.

Then there’s the Left’s dissonance and double speak.

Those defending Twitter’s right as a private business to operate as a private business, by permanently banning the President, justify the execution of Parler, also a private business, but apparently denied the same rights and responsibilities, for refusing to comply with the well-financed, and powerful Leftist hegemony.

Further to this is the standard being communicated, which I think both sides would agree on, if the reasoning here is properly understood.

If Twitter and Facebook can decline service to customers based on private convictions or conscientious objections, Christian businesses and professionals should be LEFT ALONE TO do the same.

If the argument in defence of Twitter extends to Christian florists, bakeries, school, Churches, and NGO’s, we should now expect permission for those entities to have the full ability to politely decline to bake or service an LGBTQAAI+ wedding, or employ anyone who is not in agreement with the ethos, and values of those entities.

If Jack Dorsey’s Twitter can deny service to a customer on the grounds of “it’s a private business”, “he’s acting on” conscience and convictions, Christian businesses who offer a respectful and reasoned disagreement with SSM, the practice of homosexuality, and the rising authoritarian ideology associated with it, should by rights, also be able to do the same.

The big difference being that most of these Christian businesses aren’t power drunk entities, crushing competition by way of bearing false witness, or cancelling those they disagree with.

From the growing list of court cases against Christian businesses from LGBTQAAI+ lawfare groups, more often it’s the other way around.

Proof that for most people aligned with the Radical Left, force and duress, are now not just a way of life, but inform the implementation of fundamentalist, Cultural Marxist policies.

If worse is to come from a society divided into oppressed and oppressor by a Radical Leftist horde, it won’t be because of Donald Trump.

If worse is to come, it will because discerning voters are fed up with the Left’s “you are what we say you are”, now “fall in, line up, goose step in unison, salute or else!”

Blatant double standards, dehumanising pejoratives, self-centred politics, and hypocrisy are not conducive to “unity and healing.”

Gagging freedom of speech, hijacking private businesses, policing thought, bearing false witness, and enforcing new cultural laws; all of it is yet another reminder that for the past four years at least, the real oppressors have been masquerading as the oppressed.

It’s a zero-sum game. They know it, and the only winners are those who submit, are willing to revise history, denounce their neighbour, and renounce their faith in the One who reveals Himself in Covenant and in Christ.

If civil unrest, or God forbid, a Civil War erupts in the West, let the record show that it was the Radical Left who fired the first shot.

To quote British Theologian, John Stott:

‘Freedom is much misunderstood. Even those who talk loudest and longest about freedom have not always paused first to define what they are talking about.

A notable example is the Marxist orator who was waxing eloquent on the street corner about the freedom we would enjoy after the revolution.

“When we get freedom,” he cried, “you’ll be able to smoke cigars like that,” pointing at an opulent gentleman walking by. “I prefer my cigarettes,” shouted a heckler.

“When we get freedom,” the Marxist continued, ignoring the interruption and warning to his theme, “you’ll all be able to drive in cars like that,” pointing to a sumptuous Mercedes which was driving by.

“I prefer my bike,” shouted the heckler. And so the dialogue continued until the Marxist could bear his tormentor no longer. Turning on him, he said: “When we get freedom, you’ll do what you’re told!”


First published on Caldron Pool, 12th January, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Trump has conceded the 2020 election to Joe Biden. In his speech, the President first condemned the ‘heinous attack on the Capitol’ saying he was ‘outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem.’

Before Trump was permanently banned from Twitter, he called for calm, asserting that ‘America must get on with business’, and that his ‘only goal was to ensure the integrity of the vote.’

The president added that he was committed to a peaceful transfer of power, stating, ‘my focus now turns to ensuring a smooth orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation.’

What’s important to stop and recognise here is that this concession doesn’t mean Trump has to surrender to blatant injustices committed by monolithic, and now potentially unstoppable faceless power brokers behind the scenes. Among them, Big Tech and legacy media.

Trump’s next move should be to:

  1. Fund replacement media.

The biggest ally Trump can count on is one who’ll tell him the truth; who isn’t afraid to say “Bad Trump” or “Good Trump”, as Ben Shapiro has done when the hot, political tamale is in play.

2. Establish an election integrity foundation.

Regroup, fight back against the system from within the system. Outsmart, and outplay corrupt stakeholders who hold the keys to voting booths and electoral tickets. Trump should petition for an independent Electoral Commission, voter I.D, an end to ballot harvesting, and electronic voting systems.

3. Back alternative social media platforms such as Parler, Connectzing, MeWe and Rumble.

Platforms who aren’t in the back pocket of Christophobic, anti-classical liberal Radical Leftists sitting on golden thrones in Silicon Valley at the expense of freedom.

4. Look towards 2024, with an eye to what happened in 2020.

Not as a candidate, but backing candidates from among the few Republicans and even Democrats who’ve backed him. One team suggestion might be Tulsi Gubbard, and Ted Cruz. Even a Tulsi/Ivanka power ticket would send the Radical Democrats into a tail spin.

5. Trump should take a leaf out of Chuck Colson’s journey.

Perhaps the greatest thing Trump could do to dump hot coals on the heads of his haters, is live out his alleged Christian faith with greater vigour. To put his faith in Christ, his best foot forward, letting God take care of the rest.

As John wrote,

‘By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.  Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.’ (1 John 4:2-4, ESV)

If many on the Left are doing business with the Devil, as is apparent by the blurring of distinctions, hijacking of definitions, preaching of falsehoods, confusion, and the gaslighting of all who argue an opposing viewpoint, Trump and his supporters cannot fail if they appeal to a theology of the cross, not a theology of glory.

Events from 2016 onwards are visible signs that the United States is dying a slow death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts.

We’re seeing the fruit of this self-harm, pushed since 2016 by mostly those on the Left, in how it benefits leftist fat cats, career politician Rhinos, fringe political extremists, and sycophantic “centrists.”

What should concern everyone is that under the cover of COVID-19, Radical Democrats seem to have hatched a way to manufacture election wins without even trying. Consequently, this could be the beginning of one-party rule in the United States.

The kind of one-party rule that seems to hover over California, which has only a veneer of choice at the voting booth remaining, may be reflected in the federal governing structure.

Where, like all standard dictatorships, so Jacques Ellul observed, the idea of choice is entertained, even promoted, all in order to give the people the feeling that they have a Democratic voice. However, in reality that freedom is an illusion designed to appease the populace, and outsiders.

Under the cover of COVID-19 they are turning neighbour against neighbour, and man against God. Then justifying it with manipulative slogans to condition people to be seen, but not heard, speak only when spoken to, and to leap without looking, when they say “jump!”

The Apostle Paul’s words to the Church in Thessalonica still ring true today for any confessing Christian with ears to hear, ‘You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober.’ (1 Thess. 5:5, NIV)

Nothing in recent history has brought us as close to the Johannine predictions of anti-christ.

If Trump fails to do any of these things; if he fails to uphold grace and truth in the face of an increasingly one-sided, belligerent aggressor, the next to follow the beheading of truth on the Leftist’s gallows is justice.

Kyrie Eleison.


First published on Caldron Pool, 10th January, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Earlier this month, Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison announced that his Government had made the surprise unilateral decision to adjust the Australian national anthem by replacing the phrase “for we are young and free,” with “for we are one and free.”

Although Scott Morrison has claimed the adjusted phrasing had the support of the majority of Australians, his claim of majority support doesn’t appear to be backed by any clear formal consultation with Australians.

Breaking the news, The ABC appealed to the overused, ad nauseum click-bait term “historic”, quoting Morrison as saying that the change was about ‘recognising the timeless land of ancient First Nation’s people.’

The 1-billion-dollar tax payer funded national broadcaster reported that ‘Indigenous leaders welcomed the new wording’, but (as is easily predicted) others complained that the “for we are one and free” isn’t representative of the socio-cultural fabric of Australia.

As cited by the ABC, Indigenous Australian Composer, Deborah Cheetham, stated that changing the anthem “one word at a time is probably not the right way to go. It may be time to write something that captures the spirit of the nation.”

According to the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, boxer and Indigenous Muslim activist, Anthony Mundine, wasn’t happy either.

Mundine called the change ‘tokenistic.’ Then played the mythological race card, and ranted about how the Australian National Anthem was white supremacy.

So much for the “spirit of unity.”

So much “for we are one and free.”

It appears Cheetham, and Mundine were just as surprised by the change, as the majority of Australians who are said to be in “support of the change.”

We see and hear this every Australia Day. Mostly summarised as Black = sinless, white = sinner; never the two shall meet, until the sinners have been either obliterated, or made subjects of the sinless.

Activists are telling us it’s not enough. They want more.

Which is why the arbitrary anthem change is also one further step towards implementing the myth of race into the Australian constitution – under the label of Indigenous recognition – which would not only codify a protected minority class in law, but segregate citizens, apply preferential treatment, not measured by need or merit (as is currently the case with Abstudy, and a whole range of social outreach programs), but by a man or woman’s shade of melanin or ethnic heritage.

As the somewhat insightful SBS documentary ‘First Australians’ could not avoid concluding, while racism existed, there was no clear-cut white vs. black oppression that fits the narratives of genocide spewed forth every Australia Day.

Indigenous tribes were not a nation. Though tribes congregated, had a degree of similarity in mythological beliefs, they were not an organised, united, advanced entity, or civilisation with towns, roads, common government, and a shared common law.

As clumsy as European settlement was in seeking to live amicably with those tribes, European settlement united those tribes with the birth of the Australian nation.

As SBS’ ‘First Australians’ and atheist Robert Kenny’s ‘The Lamb Enters the Dreaming’ documents, Christian Europeans (although flawed in many ways), were a vanguard for Indigenous languages and survival.

Christians stood with Indigenous communities against the rise of Social Darwinist secularism, which with rise of the 19th Century’s popular ‘survival of the fittest mantra,’ had relegated Australia’s Indigenous people to extinction, largely through secular humanism’s embrace of evolutionary ethics.

We should be cautiously willing to accept the Prime Minister’s call. Purely on the grounds that “for one and free” from “for young and free” does a lot for national unity.

The caveat to this is highlighted by the outrage from a minority of privileged urban activists, who want to not just rewrite Australia’s national anthem, but rewrite European Australian history with revisionist Cultural Marxist black vs. white, us vs. them, cognitive distortions.

These are often applied using the vicious lens of the Stasi like, Leftist intersectional rubric, which makes McCarthyism, The Inquisitors and the Salem Witch trials look like a day at the fair.

I’m fully aware that my argument here will be lost on many people. I accept this. In fact, I know I’ve lost the argument before even stating it.

Not for lack of good reasoning, but for the fact that like Malcolm Turnbull’s dodgy, 2017 Gay Marriage plebiscite, (one that was used to change the definition of marriage, on the claim that it had majority support, but saw over 2 million Australians abstain from participating in), 2020 has revealed a willingness among Australians to accept what they’re fed, without question; bear false witness against their neighbour, and throw hate on dissent by demonising any reasoning that might form part of a valid opposing viewpoint.

Allowing a change to the National Anthem without first hearing the national voice via a referendum or formal consultation, isn’t the same as the governed leaving the Government to decide on fixing a road, or building a much-needed dam or bridge.

Allowing the Government arbitrary rule over changing items essential to national identity without the voice/debate/approval of the people is civic negligence.

Referendum isn’t a plebiscite. Referendums are the voice of the people. It’s what gives Australians their united voice, and keeps the power of Government at bay. Referendums are a key part of our God given and constitutionally ratified Democratic rights. The moment we allow bureaucrats to bypass that voice, all is lost.

To quote Professor of Law at the Sheridan Institute, and Caldron Pool contributor, Augusto Zimmerman,

‘Regardless of whether you agree with the substantive nature of this change, surely this effectively opens a dangerous precedent for further arbitrary behaviour.’

If we’re going to boot this essential public voice in the name of convenience or financial cost, given the lawfare pandemic against Christians post SSM, and the COVID-19 totalitarian shift towards greater dependence on a nanny state, we may as well boot the word “free” along with the word “young”!

No referendum. No change to the national anthem.


Also published on Caldron Pool, 8th January, 2020.

Note: Precedent for referendums being held outside constitutional changes, were held in relation to national identity and national service in 1916 and 1917. 

‘Referendums, other than for purposes of constitution alteration, were held in 1916 and 1917. These referendums related to the introduction of compulsory military service and were rejected by the people. The first was authorised by an Act of Parliament[174] and the second was held pursuant to regulations made under the War Precautions Act.[175]‘ (APH.gov.au)

©Rod Lampard, 2021

‘The cross [grace] will always constitute an assault on human self-righteousness & a challenge to human self-indulgence…Escapism & conformity are opposite mistakes, neither is a Christian option.’

– John Stott, Contemporary Christian, 1992:26 & 27

This is the way.


“Defund the Police” Alyssa Milano has offered unsolicited advice to anti-maskers in a swipe at gun owners.

The Daily Wire unpacked the nonsensical anti-gun Twitter tirade where the Milano, keyboard warrior and actorvist, asserted that

 “Anti-maskers are the same people who think they need an AR-15 for ‘protection.”

This was followed by her “shouting to the bleachers” in an apparent attempt to make herself better heard, writing,

“LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK: A MASK WILL PROTECT YOU *MORE* THAN AN AR-15 WILL.”

Conflating questionable protections against COVID-19 with the effectiveness of guns as a deterrent against an aggressive assailant, is false equivalence.

The logical fallacy may have garnered Milano attention, but her use of it isn’t impressive.

For me, Milano’s appeal to faulty logic joins the “either/or” Joebama train of fear, election campaign which preached the falsehood of “vote for me or face certain death at the hands of COVID, climate change, racists and Nazis, man!”

This also furthers serious concerns about how COVID-19 is being used by the Leftist “elite” to expand their influence, control and financial power base.

Further to this, surely her anti-gun rant inadvertently equates gun-toting criminals with a virus, and therefore comes under the Leftist banner of “hate speech”, intolerance, bigotry and fascism?

Noting Milano’s hypocrisy in high definition, The Daily Wire referenced a Fox News piece from September reporting Milano’s reliance on local police.

According to Fox, Police were called by Milano’s neighbour because said neighbour was concerned about a “a man dressed in all black, walking in the woods between our properties with a gun.”

Milano’s husband then rang the police in order to ‘find out when they were arriving.’

The gun toting man turned out to be a ‘hunter stalking squirrels with an air rifle.’

Entering 2021, be sure not to overlook the hypocrisy.

The lived-out message from our would-be overlords hasn’t changed:

There’s one rule for those who wish to rule us, another for those they wish to rule.

Come the zombie apocalypse or anything close in equivalence, be assured of this fact: following any celebrity’s advice outside exceptions like Denzel Washington in ‘The Book of Eli’, will prove to be as stupid a move, as Hollywood’s spate of unoriginal, “avant-garde” films, that drip with all the trimmings of California’s Radical Leftist social engineering industrial complex.


First posted on Caldron Pool, 30th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Here are my top ten most read articles of 2020.

I’m pleased to say it wasn’t an inactive year. If you have a favourite and it’s not listed, drop the link in the comments.

Thanks for sticking around.

Top Ten:

1. Answering Cancel Culture With Unconquerable Joy

2. ‘The Chosen’: Powerful & Unique Define Dallas Jenkin’s Award Worthy TV adaption of Jesus’ Life

3. Rapper 50 Cent Just Endorsed Trump, Cue the Executioners

4. Victoria’s “Vichy” government is Undermining Australia’s Relationship Reset with the Chinese Communist Party

5. Woke Healthcare workers lose their Wokeness When asked Whether Black lives in the Womb Mattered

6. Why is It That The Only Black Voices That Seem To Matter, are Those Pre-Approved By Leftists?

7. Hollywood Double-Standard: Beverly Hills Officials Ban Public Gatherings Due to Violent Protests

8. Dennis Prager Backs Anti-COVID-19 Drug HCQ Saying That “The Left is Weaponizing Medicine”

9. New York Times Labels ‘The Great Reset’ a ‘Baseless Conspiracy Theory’

10. The Protests, Rioting & Looting Aren’t about Black Lives, They’re Marxist Political Rallies


©Rod Lampard, 2020.

“Oh, to grace how great a debtor,

Daily I’m constrained to be!

Let that grace,

Lord, like a fetter,

Bind my wandering heart to thee.”

– The Martyr & The Chain, Spurgeon. Puritan’s Garden.

Merry Christmas (2020).

December 28, 2020 — Leave a comment

To the few readers who steadfastly endure my scribbling and find some encouragement in it, all the best in Christ to you and your family over the Christmas break, and beyond. Romans 8:15

– Rod.

Twas the night before the Happy Holiday (formerly known as Christmas) when with much fanfare, the 21st Century Herod and his advisers bitterly proclaimed thus:

“This baby, the so called “Prince of Peace” is a Nazi, racist, and homophobic bigot. We deem him a threat to our “happy holidays”, all “religions of peace,” our entitlements, and the glorious goals of our perpetual revolution. We, the protected minority. We, the ruling class therefore command that all male Hebrew children be killed. Our dominion, our choice.”

With that they called in their keyboard warriors, social media trolls and paramilitary “peaceful protestors”, saying:

“The Christ child’s birth is nothing but a conservative, bourgeois conspiracy, comrades! According to our Intersectionality rubric, He is violence against everything we stand for, which is surely justification enough for our violent suppression.”

Legacy media, obeying the script handed to them, ran headlines demonising the Christ child. Crying in well-funded unison they whined,

“His existence as an outright repressive assault on everything we’ve built; everything we want people to believe in.”

The Bethlehem Times produced article after article arguing that this birth was,

“blasphemy against the State and that it must not go unpunished. We’ve heard of the academics; how three bourgeoisie wise-men cheated us. Traitors to our glorious academic-industrial complex, all of them!! Therefore, any who refuse to give up this child’s location should be tried and tortured; and treated like the vermin, we say they are.”

The Herodian News Network anchors ran wall-to-wall panels, with repeated 24/7 coverage, saying,

“It’s their kind that hinders us from completely implementing the tolerant and inclusive ways of our glorious leaders. The way of our glorious revolution. This child, the “Prince of peace” is a threat! He challenges us, our religion of peace, and our people. He must be found and executed!”

Celebrities even weighed in posting impromptu sing-a-longs imaging there was no heaven, stating,

“Comrades, you know that ‘State power must be exercised in all spheres, even in that of thought! For what we do is for the good of the people, we know what’s best for them, better than they know themselves.”’ 1

Academics took to Twitter hashtagging in anger that their

‘tenured collective’s survival rested on their egos and ideas dominating the higher ground in the hearts of the people. God would never come as a cisgender man! The future is female! Cancel the bigots who disagree!”

“I concur!” said another.

“This birth represents heteronormative oppression. We must rally people to take up arms against it. He who says that God became man is guilty of hatred towards women. It is said that the husband, one carpenter by the name of Joseph, has wed this woman, Mary, under strange circumstances. As it has been told to us, this Joseph is said to have been given the task of caring for the child by Angels. This only reinforces the evils of patriarchy. It will perpetuate the lies that claim healthy child-rearing at its best, involves both a man and a woman; a father and a mother. This heteronormative oppression MUST be stopped! We must cancel this Christ-child!”

I have an idea, boasted yet another,

“We’ll paint this cisgender male Christ-child, and the nativity scene itself, as evil; constructed to further the chains of bigoted societal norms.”

Blue tick accounts on social media piled on, frantically sharing and resharing that,

“The birth of the “Prince of Peace” threatens our control over what we say is peace; We must have war! War is peace! These ‘Christ-child’ breeders are an assault on ALL humanity. The State alone is the peace bringer. The State alone is the saviour of the people.”

Herod and his bureaucrats, sensing some quick political gain, sent their support, declaring:

“At the heart of this child there is a war on peace! He will stand against our truth and its phobic misrepresentations. He will not be easy to control through our mass propaganda and He will unhinge progress.”

Scientists fell in line justifying the murderous “peaceful protest” against the Christ-Child as “the betterment of humanity.”

Expert after expert filed peer reviewed papers claiming that this “Christ-child was anti-science.” That in order to do science, science mustn’t be questioned. “All must believe the science.”

Feminists staged a women’s march and rose up in their thousands, demanding that Mary be brought to heel by Herod’s men in charge, chanting:

“Hell, yes! Hell, yes! How dare this woman choose to keep her unexpected pregnancy! Worst of all, she claims to have been chosen by God! Send her to Planned Parenthood, where she’ll be re-educated in feminist healthcare and women’s rights! That child must not be allowed to live!”

Others screamed:

“How dare she stand against us and think for herself. This must not go unpunished! Think of the women who might follow her and keep the child?”

Still more, applauding the “peaceful protest” against the “Prince of Peace” cried out,

“Love is love! Her convictions and religious beliefs are phobic, sexist, and irrational. This woman’s pregnancy, and the prophecy attached to it is a farce, therefore this child’s life should be deemed not worthy of life.”

Members of the judicial community, waving their flags of virtue, also chimed in gaslighting Mary claiming she was to be held to blame for Herod’s bloodletting.

“It’s perfectly just. We cannot be to blame; we wouldn’t have had to act as we have if Mary had been willing to treat the child as a sexually transmitted disease and remove it. Thus, we decree that Mary is to wear the blame. This woman has forced Herod’s hand.”

Herod, buoyed by the support, wrote into law that,

“the decision was unanimous. Therefore, let nothing sway you.”

His soldiers were to wipe out all males up to the age of two. Making certain that the Christ-child was eliminated.

Not to be left out, the approved opposition among Herod’s theologians and poets lined the pavements with salutes, arguing that Herod was showing

 ‘great compassion. His ridding the State of this Christ-child was the liberation of his people. His chosen course was the only socially just action he could take. The birth of the Prince of peace; the Son of God, and its proclamation before everyday people would inspire ignorance, non-conformism and counter-cultural activists into disobedience. Zealots will rise. Worst of all it will inspire unity and solidarity amongst those we seek to control for their own benefit.”

The poets and theologians then sang,

“Only Herod could be called King. Only the State and the glorious leaders of the revolution can be called saviour! There can be no other!”

Herod, whose preferred pronouns were he/him, then proclaimed,

“Then let it be made known that all who disagree with us are traitors, haters and infidels! Anyone not thinking along with us is against us.”

“We’re told that the prophecy of Isaiah has been fulfilled, that this child is a saviour.”

“But the quiet proclamation announcing the birth of a Jew; a baby boy from Judea is ethnocentric; it’s offensive to other “races”. It propagates the legitimacy of Israel’s existence, and threatens our power on the world stage.”

“Organise the outrage! Get the wheels of the State moving and manipulate the ignorant. Send out the murderous minions and shut down all this unlicensed good cheer. The party must not be seen to approve of this unsanctioned movement. Stop the early rumblings of this pathetic prophetic Jesus movement.”

And everybody said: “Long may our glorious revolution, the party who enforces it, and its leader who embodies it, reign!”


References:

Weil, S. 1936 Oppression & Liberty p.109 Routledge & Kegan Paul 1958.

First published on Caldron Pool 24th December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Salvatore Babone’s 2018 book ‘The New Authoritarianism’ is an exposition on how tyranny and fascism are spawned by the exaltation of civil rights over against civil liberties.

Babones first unpacks populism’s role as an often one-off ‘positive alternative’ wave which breaks society free from ‘the tyranny of the expert class’ (p.xiii), giving constitutional democracy back its buoyancy.

The ‘populist revolt’, if coming against anti-classical liberal authoritarianism, is like a fresh wind filling dead sails, and righting the ship. 

Babones helps us understand that the election of Donald Trump personified a classical liberal revolt against the modern liberal (radical leftist) ‘expert class.’

Many of who hold the view that ‘“positive” rights’ trump ‘“negative” freedoms.’ 

As Babones writes, the ‘philosophy of safeguarding freedoms has evolved into the philosophy of demanding rights.’ (pp.7-8)

The demand that modern liberal authority be recognised and obeyed, without question, has created ‘a tyranny of experts.’ (p.11)

For Babones this ‘New Authoritarianism’ is observable in the increase of restrictions on civil liberties. One example is in how the elevating of civil rights over against civil liberties is creating a protected class of minorities who are given such status by an ‘expert class’ – even if minority groups within society haven’t asked for it, or perhaps even want it.

Minority groups are informed through a variety of deceit filled propaganda campaigns that demand compliance under the expert class-knows-best imperative “it’s for your own good.”

The majority are also bonded to the same cloud of deceit through simple slogans full of falsehoods or half-truths.

This cements a greater reflex in the masses, by which, so Jaques Ellul pointed out, the masses act without thinking and are happy to do so, producing in some an unquestioning fanaticism that will always buy whatever the ‘expert class’ sells them.

Consider the principle of the führerprinzip in 1930s Germany where the word of the ‘expert class’ was to be taken as the Word of God.

No one can dissent. “You are what the expert class says you are. You will do think and work as the expert class tells you to, or else!”

This is propelled forward through sleight of hand political manoeuvring in the halls of power, right down to peer pressure, that is designed by the ‘expert class’ to solidify the loyalties of an entitled ‘protected class’, and forge greater ownership of the masses.

Note Gene Veith’s excellent analysis in ‘Modern Fascism’ about the ‘Nazifying of the Universities.’ Hitler’s elites were in large part University educated.

‘contrary to the myth that the Nazis were uneducated brutes, most of the killers of the death squads had college degrees, including some with Ph.D.s in philosophy, literature, and even theology[.…]‘one study of a local Nazi party organization shows that 43.3 percent were university students […]’

It’s not just Nazism that illustrates the ultimate manifestation of this ‘expert class.’ Communism and Nazism are two wings on the same vicious bird, and as such Communists, despite their counter-claims, share the same tyranny of the elite, bourgeois characteristics.

Babones’ scrutiny joins up with that of Elull, Elshtain and Veith, in urging extreme caution with who those in a society trusts, and in whom society puts its trust in.

Taking into account the Social Darwinian views of the German elite, I would argue that the ideas which led to Auschwitz were the direct consequence of an elevation of civil rights over against civil liberties.

Civil liberties were thrown to the ground, and in the name of social justice, the persecution of the Germans at Versailles manifested into the persecution of the Jews.

This is why civil liberties need a revival. Civil liberties allow for civil rights.

Any dispelling of this necessary order (or sequence) creates disorder.

What remains is a dysfunctional paradigm from which (as the historical record of the 20th century attests) Hell-on-earth is sure to follow.

The dehumanisation and mistreatment of the Jews was justified* by the ‘expert class’ as the addressing of “a great social evil” – the depression, war reparations, etc.

By which the ‘expert class’ pushed a victimhood narrative. This is the very same approach used by cultural Marxists – Radical Leftist Jihadists – who’ve weaponized “civil rights” legislation under the broad, poorly defined umbrella of “social justice.” It’s an eery fit.

Call it designed or the law of unintended consequences, either way, what people need to understand is that the exaltation of civil rights over against civil liberties will eventually negate civil rights.

This is why Classical liberal civil liberties – freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the like – should be protected against the lawfare of modern liberalism’s cultural Marxists. Such as arbitrary “hate speech” and “anti-conversion” laws which are ambiguous and open to misinterpretation and abuse.

In conclusion, Babones’ brief treatise on ‘The New Authoritarianism’ is reminiscent, though not equal to, Jacques Ellul and Jean Bethke Elshtain’s criticisms of modern liberalism and the danger it poses to Western constitutional democracies.

They all direct attention to the fact that constitutional democracies will not survive the replacement of Biblical Christian Classical Liberalism, with the god-of-self, Christless, modern liberal trojan horse.

The ejection of these former foundations in favour of a subjective, thoughtless rush into social justice legislation which exalts civil rights, will mean slavery to, and fanatic devotion of an ‘expert class.’

Constitutional democracies will survive this ‘tyranny of experts’ if civil liberties are protected and guided by authentic Biblical Christian objective morality.

Civil liberties and civil rights share the same platform, and stem from the same place – such as the Imago Dei, the Divine command and the Divine order: “Let us make man in Our image…” (Genesis 1:26) –  but civil liberties and civil rights are not the same thing.

As Babones pointed out, ‘China’s people don’t lack liberal rights like paid maternity leave. What they lack are basic freedoms – and, of course, democracy.’ (p.54)

The protection of civil liberties and therefore also the protection of civil rights, may require a reawakening to the importance of civil liberties; and renewed awareness of how national sovereignty, an embrace of multi-ethnic nationalism, as well as faith based reasoning, and steely-ANZAC determination, has, up until the past two decades preserved them.

What many good little secular humanists concerned about the loss of civil liberties fail to understand is that Classical liberal freedoms only work within the boundary of Biblical Christianity.

The secular humanist rejection of God who is free [vi], and from whom all freedoms flow, inadvertently advocate for the removal of these freedoms by ejecting Jesus Christ.

The result being the enthronement of an anti-christ who rules against freedom in favour of “new social justice moral codes” designated as “civil rights”.

Where civil rights are asserted over and against civil liberties, hell on earth is sure to follow.


References:

[i] Babones, S. 2018. The New Authoritarianism: Trump, Populism, and the Tyranny of Experts, Polity Press.

[ii] Veith, G.E. 1993. Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview, Concordia Publishing House

[iii] Elull, J. 1965. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Minds, Vintage Books

[iv] Elshtain, J.B. 1995. Democracy on Trial, Basic Books

[v] Elshtain, J.B. 2008. Sovereignty, God, State and Self: Gifford Lectures, Basic Books

[vi] See Karl Barth CD.II:1:328-350

*I’m not saying it was justified. I’m expressing how it was viewed as “just.”

First published on Caldron Pool, 21st December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Obscure social media accounts calling themselves “fan accounts” of Joe and Jill Biden’s dogs must have missed the “Healing and Unity” Joebama memo.

One Instagram post shows Biden’s dogs trying to tear apart a chew toy of Donald Trump with the caption claiming that the photos were from Naomi Biden who ‘took them during a Tug of War match.’

Another, which was also shared to the “Oval Pawffice” Twitter account showed Biden in sunglasses showered in radiant yellow light, resembling propaganda images of a Latin American dictator.

The Hill reported that the social media accounts were an ‘ode’ to ‘Champ and Major Biden’, which went viral on Twitter’ after a mysterious spike in voter numbers handed the November 2020 election to the 78-year-old, 44-year career politician.

The accounts boasting of Joe Biden’s apparent election “win” went live in November, and their intimate content infers that the owner of the accounts must have some strong, inside connection to the alleged President-elect.

Images celebrating physical violence towards President Donald Trump aren’t surprising, given four years of Democrats campaigning on a platform of hate, division and lies, but they do raise questions about the mangled hypocritical contrasts between the exhausting, open war of criticism against the Trump family, and the cone of protective silence being put up around Joe Biden and his son.

Noteworthy, the many intellectual class pundits, theologians and Pastors who were convinced that “Trump was literally Hitler” in 2016, are nowhere to be seen or heard from, on the blatant deification of Joebama Harris Clinton as a 2nd revelation of Christ.

Biden and the Democrats already have their Storm Detachment,  Sturmabteilung, ersatz pre-election Kristallnacht, and one party ruled states, all that’s missing here is Leni Riefenstahl’s ‘The Triumph of the Will.’


First published on Caldron Pool, 17th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Advocates for Julian Assange are calling on President Donald Trump to pardon the besieged Wikileaks founder before Assange-hating Leftists are inaugurated back into the White House in January.

The Wikileaks founder is facing extradition from Britain and over 100 years in prison for playing a role in publishing compromising Pentagon documents on [the Deep State’s – as some would argue] ‘misconduct’ during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011. (Swedish rape charges brought against Assange in 2017 were dropped in 2019 due to ‘a weakening of evidence.’)

Assange is disliked by career politicians on both sides of the political aisle.

None so vengeful as The Democrats because Wikileaks published Clinton campaign emails during the 2016 election, which is said to have won Donald Trump the unwinnable election.

Meeting with Assange in February this year, Senator Andrew Wilkie and M.P George Christensen, dubbed by the ABC’s Fran Kelly as an ‘odd couple’, have been spear heading a high-level political advocacy group in favour of Assange’s release.

Wilkie, himself a “whistleblower” (knighted as such by veteran journalist, Laurie Oakes, legacy media and academia), was a Government analyst who resigned, and publicly challenged the legitimate allegations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

For Wilkie, Assange is innocent.

The charges in the U.S are based on allegations which claim that Wikileaks endangered Americans. However, “no one has been able to point to where National Security was compromised, hurt or put a risk by Wikileaks.”

In regards to the Clintons, Wilkie said, “I don’t like Trump, and would have preferred Hillary win, but if we are to really argue that Wikileaks is a journalistic organisation, [we have to look at whether or not they] released material without fear or favour.”

Wilkie told Fran Kelly, Assange “did the right thing” by acting in the “public interest.”

Wilkie and Christensen’s 11 member, Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Friends Group was formally approved by both the Australian Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives in October 2019.

According to a February 2020 article in the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘apart from Mr Christensen [the case to free Assange] has no other government members. Both the Coalition and Labor have been reluctant to voice public support for the Australian activist.’

In consideration of the gathering shadows drooling with anticipation at an approaching Biden presidency, Christensen has stepped up his advocacy for Assange by publicly asking President Donald Trump to pardon Assange.

Posting on Facebook, George Christensen upped the ante:

‘How to annoy Killary.

1. Go to www.PardonJulianAssange.com or www.georgechristensen.com.au/pardon-julian-assange

2. Send a message to Donald J. Trump

asking him to pardon Julian Assange.

3. Remember that Jeffery Epstein didn’t kill himself.

In an exclusive for Sky News, Christensen explained,

“Assange has been a target of the Democrats. You hear a lot of lefties suggesting this is Donald Trump’s war on Assange. It’s anything but. It was started under the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton hates his guts obviously for exposing who the real Hillary was. You’ve had a war on Assange by the Democrats and the Deep State ever since. Joe Biden called Assange a criminal, a high-tech terrorist. [Pardoning Assange] is one way that Donald Trump can stand up for free speech. He’s been a big fighter on that his whole presidency, and against the Cancel Culture ideology of the Left. I think this is one way he can stand up once again and show that he is that defender of freedom of speech.”

Citing well-reasoned broad concerns about voting irregularities, and evidence of electoral fraud, he added,

“…the same people who’ve wanted Trump our of office, are the same people who’ve waged war on Julian Assange. They want to lock him up to rot in a gaol cell. [Pardoning Assange] is way that Trump can ensure that free speech is protected.”

It might not be a matter of will Donald Trump pardon Julian Assange, but a matter of does he have the time to do so.

After the November election saw the Democrats take power through questionable means in four key states, Trump has had his hands full trying to preserve the Union alongside states who upheld their end of the constitution.

As noted by Fran Kelly, not everyone agrees that Assange should be acquitted on the grounds of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Wikileaks pioneered replacement media and were first on the field in the fight for truth against falsehood, and they’re hounded by Cancel Culture, and a political class whose wealth and dynasties are built on the backs of tax payers, smiles, lies and hi-fives.

If the hate-Trump/loves-trumps-hate, anti-Assange Democrats get their way, as four years of division, violence and threats of revolution seem to have afforded them, like a large portion of America and the free world, Trump may be Assange’s last hope in securing freedom.

You can send a resolute message to the political class and legacy media by clicking here to sign George Christensen’s petition asking for President Donald Trump to pardon Julian Assange.


First published on Caldron Pool, 14th December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

That Andrew Klavan wisdom shines through once again.

Linked below is his take on the looming electoral college confirmation of President Joebama Harris Clinton.

I’ve been a cautious supporter of Trump since 2016.

There’s four years of articles to back that up.

I still am, and with that sentiment I agree with most of Andrew Klavan’s conclusions here.

Chief among them being the generous view that “if we believe God brought Donald J. Trump into office, we have to hold the same view for Joseph Biden.”

God still reigns. If He can thwart and humble a false prophet like Balaam; and speak through the “hee haw” of an Ass, we can be well reassured that America is in good hands.

Highlights:

  • Trump’s Achievements In One Term Makes Him One Of The Greatest One Term Presidents 19:40
  • Media Threw Election To Democrats By Censoring Hunter Biden Story 25:00
  • The Press Continues Their Lies By Covering Up The Biden Leaked Tape That Confirms His Plans To Defund The Police 31:40

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

I have respect for the talents of Wanda Sykes. I don’t have any patience for racists, or time to devote to writing a 1000 word essay on why I consider her most recent tweet to be passive aggressive nonsense.

So I summed up a 280 character response, which was met with a speedy backhanded reply when Wanda blocked me.

Wanda isn’t the first celebrity to hide behind passive aggressive statements. This platform of hate and division has been the Democrat platform since 2016.

Evidenced in large part by Celebrity leftists who ride the hate either demanding or implying a desire to see Trump supporters (most of whom are mild mannered working mums, dads, and students) rounded up, punished, and purged.

Those celebrities either are Radical Leftist Jihadists themselves, or are fond of keeping in good with them, and see immediate personal gains in upholding the four-year-falsehood groupthink which asserts that Trump supporters are “racists”, “bigots”, and “Nazis” – (the list of gaslighting pejoratives conjured up by the us vs. them mentality of the Radical Left, goes on and on.)

Since the beginning of the year I’ve held stronger to the notion that our battle, and the ones ahead for Western Civilisation, if not also the world, are grounded in the theological task of choosing between myth, superstition, man’s imagination and God’s Word. Sifting fact from fiction and balancing feelings with objective opinion.

To risk sounding like a broken record, I’m convinced that the battle isn’t black vs. white, Left vs. Right, it’s Truth vs. Falsehood.

This is the battleground and individuals like Wanda Sykes, emboldened by legacy media’s half-truths, lies, and the Hollywood echo chamber, characterise its front line.

Many in the West, having enjoyed relative peace under the shared values of Classical Liberal freedoms, framed as they are by Biblical Christian objective morality, have fallen asleep to how easily those freedoms can be lost, and are clueless to how much protecting those freedoms and healthy traditions cost.

We’ve collectively forgotten, and in some cases deliberately abandoned the barricades which hold back the Abyss, applauding, even participating in their destruction.

Every Advent I’m reminded of this through a tradition theologian J.I. Packer held.

Each year (so I was once told by one of my Professors at college who studied under him) Packer, a fan of Puritan literature, would make an effort to read through Pilgrims Progress. Taking up this tradition for Advent, (usually reading it with my kids for homeschool) I’ve come to see why Packer revisited the book every year.

Among the numerous insights released by Bunyan’s allegory is the reminder that truth when coming to blows against falsehood, always involves the persecution of those seeking to buy truth in an unavoidable Fair filled with people who see truth as a threat to the profit they make off selling falsehoods.

As Bunyan told it:

‘One chanced mockingly, beholding the carriages of the men, to say unto them, “What will ye buy?” but Christian and Faithful, looking gravely upon him said, “We buy the truth.” At that there was an occasion taken to despise them the more; some mocking, some taunting, some speaking reproachfully, and some calling upon others to smite them.

It’s almost four hundred years since these words were written, and they still hold a prescient grasp on the way of the world.

To quote Packer,

‘For two centuries Pilgrim’s Progress was the best-read book, after the Bible, in all Christendom, but sadly it is not so today. Yet our rapport with fantasy writing, plus our lack of grip on the searching, humbling, edifying truths about spiritual life that the Puritans understood so well, surely mean that the time is ripe for us to dust off Pilgrim’s Progress and start reading it again.’

For Wanda and company’s victims or potential victims (not saying that I am one) , any psychologist worthy of their degrees would say: “if the hat fits wear it, if it doesn’t, hand it back.”

The worst kind of “comedian” is one who loves to dish out the heat, but can’t take it when it’s thrown back at them.

Taken in context with the background material, which includes four years of actual documented demented Democrat hate, we should note well how the real oppressors are masquerading as the oppressed.


©Rod Lampard, 2020.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, George Christensen (LNP – Dawson) has requested Scott Morrison ‘consider legislation or regulation to ban coercive measures by private companies or state governments that seek to restrict service to those who choose not to receive the [COVID-19] vaccine.’

Christensen’s bold public stand is a reply to QANTAS executive, Alan Joyce’s November fiat, requiring customers, regardless of age and susceptibility to the virus, be denied service if they didn’t cough up proof of having received a vaccination against COVID-19.

While not breaking ranks with Scott Morrison’s leadership in response to the Wuhan Coronavirus crisis, Christensen, joins Craig Kelly in breaking free from under the shadow of fear cast by bureaucrats, and corporations manipulating the deadly coronavirus for the cameras.

Exceptions to Christensen’s proposal for legislation would include ‘high-risk cohorts of the community, such as aged care homes’ where ‘vaccinations may be required prior to entry just as it is with the influenza vaccine.’

As Caldron Pool has consistently warned, the denial of freedom to trade, think, assemble, speak, and worship, for not meeting arbitrary laws that infringe on Classical Liberal freedoms in the name of civil rights, turns a war against the virus into a war against the people.

The denial of livelihoods will, has and is already affecting lives.

The implementation of authoritarian rule starts with laws demanding proof of an oath, party membership, “approved” melanin, or “approved” ethnicity. In the case of a mandatory COVID-10 vaccine, ‘it begins with travelling on an aircraft. It [will] end with trying to buy bread.’

Regardless of whether you read Revelation literally or metaphorically, the “get vaccinated against COVID-19 or else”, is mark of the beast territory.

Especially when hypocritical would-be anti-Christs in business suits, or fanatic activists with a power fist are selling it.

Christensen’s careful “no” to mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations is a potential win for civil liberties.

(Full transcript and copy of the letter is available via Caldron Pool).


First published on Caldron Pool, 12th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Technocrats at Google have silenced YouTube users and content providers, after it surrendered to an avalanche of Leftist demands for the “free speech” platform to enforce “right-think” and “right-speak” about the recent U.S election.

In early November the NBC reported that YouTube was holding firm, and staring down ‘growing criticism’ for allowing boisterous disagreement and analysis.

According to the NBC, ‘YouTube wanted to give users room for “discussion of election results,” even when that discussion is based on debunked information.’

Fast forward to December and YouTube has given in to the pressure, now determining to censure any thought, or spoken word that challenges the election result, the pure farce that is the office of “President elect,” and election fraud.

The New York Times, not without smug adulation for the ‘reversal’ noted that YouTube have decided to backflip on its steadfast decision because it wanted to stamp out ‘misleading information’ and ‘false claims.’

YouTube defended both it’s decision to hold out against criticism for so long, and for its capitulation, saying, in essence, “we’ve let people have had their say. Since a large portion of states of ‘certified their results,’ fraud or no fraud, it’s now time to move on, surrender, and acknowledge Joe Biden’s, legit or not, ascendency to the throne.” (paraphrased from the NYT)

The anti-freedom of speech about-face is a complete 180 from YouTube’s previous policy which allowed commentary on the 2016 election loss by Hilary Clinton to Donald Trump. The most notable of which was Leftist commentary, and false claims about concretely debunked Russian collusion.

With YouTube’s capitulation, Big Tech appears to be moving further towards a system of indoctrination which resembles the one used by the Chinese Communist Party, who, through the inherent Marxist culture of suspicion, with the power of mass surveillance and its Golden Shield firewall, controls how Chinese people use the internet; what citizens see, search, hear, read, or learn.

YouTube’s decision to censure the expression of dissent, analysis and information further reveals the hypocrisy and bias already entrenched in the Technocrat’s billion dollar playground.

They wanted to stop interference in the election, but played election interference for the Democrats.

They were quick to censure President Trump and block reasoned, commentary on COVID-19 treatments, but allowed the CCP’s Lijian Zhao to keep up a tweet falsely depicting an Australian soldier slicing the throat of an Afghan child.

If this image isn’t punishable under Big Tech’s Eula regarding “misleading information” or “hate speech” what is?

Zhao’s false, offensive tweet was posted in November, 30th. It’s still active, hasn’t been fact checked, or tagged. Neither has the account been suspended, and reports to Twitter about it have gone unanswered.

The lack of action taken against Lijian’s false and misleading tweet, strongly indicates that Big Tech globalists are in bed with the CCP.

And like the CCP, they’re now blocking and censuring any content which questions the ideological paradigm.

It would appear that the insidiously wealthy Technocrats of Silicon Valley don’t want you to disagree or question the narrative.

Blocking questions, analysis and opinion about the U.S election is equal to them participating in a cover-up.

It’s worth pondering:

Why would technocrats silence dissent, analysis, free and open debate, if the alleged Democrat “win” was legal?


First published on Caldron Pool, 11th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

The Australian Christian Lobby released a statement today criticising the Victorian Liberal Party for appearing to want to ‘avoid voting on the Andrews government’s [LGBTQAAI+] ‘change and suppression’ bill which undermines free speech and parents’ rights in unprecedented ways.’

The ACL accused the Classical Liberal Conservative opposition of being ‘too scared to stand against the grossest attack against freedom-based values in Australia’s history.’

ACL’s managing director Martin Iles said, ‘one must ask what has become of the party of Sir Robert Menzies.’

Iles reminded politicians and bureaucrats on both sides that Government had

‘no business whatsoever deciding what people can pray for, or how they pray; Government has no business whatsoever getting minors onto irreversible hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers without parental consent.’

Both the ACL and Caldron Pool have pointed out why the bill’s proposals are problematic, and how they promote harm rather than any alleged good.

According to the ACL,

“The bill would make a parent into a criminal and a domestic abuser, at risk of 10 years in prison, purely because they don’t want their young gender questioning child to undergo irreversible hormone replacement therapy. This bill [also] specifically names prayer as a criminal offence, also punishable by up to 10 years in prison.”

These facts are backed by Mark Powell and Murray Campbell’s insightful independent analysis, which outlined a ‘plethora of problems’ that will have a wide-ranging impact on Christians and many others not aligned with the “agree with the LGBT, or else!” jackboot juggernaut.

To allow such a downgrade of civil liberties under the faux banner of civil rights is blatantly totalitarian.

Caldron Pool firmly stands with the Australian Christian Lobby, concerned Church leaders, community groups, and civil liberties advocates in urging the Victorian Liberal Party and crossbench to reject this bill.


First published on Caldron Pool, 8th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Two Drag Queens are demanding that former ACL director, turned author and social commentator, Lyle Shelton hand over $20,000, an apology and agree to (or potentially have imposed on him by the courts), a permanent gag order prohibiting him from participating in open and free public debate about LGBTQAII+ ideology, specifically drag queen’s reading, preforming and teaching Children in public libraries.

According to a list of grievances filed by the complainants, Shelton allegedly made a serious of insulting slurs that “inferred” falsehoods,  “incited hate,” and “implied” misrepresentations of the individuals involved.

Shelton’s accusers referred back to examples from his blog and the Dave Pellowe show highlighting statements such as, “Drag queens are not for kids”, “Drag queens , and what they represent are not for kids”, and the truism (ironically exhibited by the belligerent, highly subjective Valkyrie and Hill lawsuit against Lyle) that “LGBTQAA+ activists are hell bent on trashing the purity and innocence of the next generation.”

In sum, under the guise of “incitement to hatred” and discrimination, Shelton has basically been accused of hurting the feelings of Johnny Valkyrie, Dwayne Hill, and therefore to entire the LGBTQAAI+ community, simply for expressing a well-reasoned opinion.

Author, and Caldron Pool contributor, Bill Muehlenberg argued that Lyle’s lawsuit is one case in a growing sea of litigation rising up against anyone who questions LGBTQAAI+ ideology and the ‘pink fascism’ behind it.

Stating,

‘This will not stop any time soon. Indeed, it will simply get worse. The more wins the activists get, the more emboldened they are to go after others. This will NOT stop until all opposition, all resistance and all criticism is finally silenced.

Their endgame has always been about the total muzzling of any and all opponents to their agenda. They will never be content until every last individual, organisation and church is forever shut down or banned from speaking out. That is always what they have been aiming for.’

Muehlenberg said that no one is safe from the ‘unrelenting homosexual juggernaut which seeks to crush everything in its path’; the downgrade of marriage, and legal execution that asserts minority rights over against hard won and fought for freedoms and individual responsibilities connected to those freedoms. Such as ‘freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience would all be under threat.’

Today, Shelton responded to a pro-free speech article discussing his case in the Sunday Mail, saying that ‘the freedom of every Australian is on trial. I will not be granting their demands. For to do so would surrender the freedom of speech of all Australians.’

Citing the recent High Court ruling in the U.K, which unwaveringly scolded prescribing puberty-blocking drugs to children under 16, he added,

‘at stake is the freedom of parents to critique and debate the demands for influence on their children coming from an aggressive rainbow political movement. I have done none nothing wrong. You and I should be allowed to think and speak about the issues that arise from placing LGBTIQA+ gender-fluid and adult entertainer role models in front of children in public libraries.’

One needs only to recall how popular lobotomies once was, and the victims left in its wake, to see how right both Lyle and Bill have been so far with their fair warnings about the irreversible damage done to society, families, and Classical Liberal freedoms through the weaponization of “rights,” and the emotional manipulation inherent in the false doctrine “love is love.”

This LGBTQAAI+ open season on Christians, and subsequent lawfare from activists with an easy buck fixed in their eyes, is another example from the Left of fascism proper.

It’s corporate sponsored imposition of new cultural laws, demands for blind allegiance, and thievery of freedoms are a destabilizing force that proves a “no” to SSM was (and still is) a “yes” to freedom, not a denial of it.


First published on Caldron Pool, 7th December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Egypt is being petitioned to release Coptic activist Ramy Kamel who was arrested in late November, 2019, by Egyptian security forces.

At the time, Middle East Monitor reported that Kamel’s arrest was part of the Egyptian government’s ‘crackdown on members of the opposition.’

MEM said that Kamel, a ‘founding member of Maspero’s Youth Union’ was arrested ‘without a warrant early in the morning by seven plain clothes police officers.’

The officers ‘confiscated his mobile phone, laptop and camera; and refused to allow him his asthma inhaler.’ (some reports included blood pressure medicine.)

Kamel was accused of ‘joining a terror group, receiving foreign funding and broadcasting false information.’ Then interrogated for over 10 hours.

It’s believed that Kamel’s arrest was related to his outspoken opposition to the widespread persecution, and systemic discrimination of Egyptian Christians.

Maspero Youth Union, a Coptic human rights and religious freedom advocate group, was ‘established after a church on the outskirts of Cairo was torched in October 2011’, when the Egyptian army, at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood, killed 30 protestors.

This week, The Hill reported a ‘bipartisan push’ within Washington, petitioning Egyptian authorities to ‘take action’ and see that Kamel received a ‘fair trial, or dropped charges and an immediate release.’

According to The Hill, ‘Sens. Thom Tills (Republican) and Chris Coons (Democrat), co-chairs of the Senate Human Rights Caucus, sent a letter to the Egyptian embassy in Washington, D.C.’ requesting,

“the Egyptian government, as a steadfast partner of the United States and supporter of religious liberty, to take action commensurate with the values professed in the Egyptian Constitution and compatible with American values regarding human rights. Mr. Kamel has been held under the unclear charges of defamation, funding a terrorist organization, and the misuse of social media. We urge the Egyptian government to honor Mr. Kamel’s right to a fair trial or to release him entirely of the charges held against him.” 

The Hill curiously noted that Kamel was arrested the same month he was to appear before the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, to ‘testify on minority issues’ such as the systemic persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt by Islamists.

In September, Caldron Pool posted an exposition called ‘Jihad of the Womb: The Rampant Islamist Abductions of Egyptian Coptic Christian Women’ where we unpacked the 2012 congressional hearing, and the 2020 Coptic Solidarity report on the ongoing persecution of 12 million Christians in Egypt.

This included a  long list of trafficking victims, damning testimonials of widespread corruption, of law enforcement turning a blind eye, a culture of shame, silence, and powerlessness which enables Islamist people traffickers to carry out abductions with almost 100% impunity.

It’s probable that Kamel is a victim of this corruption.

As recent authoritarian laws which squash freedom in favor of arbitrary LGBTQAAI+ rights in Victoria, prove, religious freedom isn’t solely a point of concern for Egyptians.  

Just as government regulated speech is not freedom of speech [i], faith regulated by the State, is not freedom of religion.

The questionable arrest, and year-long imprisonment of Kamel shows how easy it is for a person to be held without charge – without respect for due process – when governments, who are swept up in an ideological movement, enforce, protect and chain themselves to that ideology, by way of undefined buzzwords like “misusing social media”, “spreading hate”, “extremist” and “terrorist group.”

As many on the Left have chided lawmaking critics of Islam since 9/11, anti-terror laws can be used as a weapon of terror in, and of themselves.

It’s a shame that many on the Left refuse to apply their own criticisms to the downgrade of freedoms caused by the exaltation of arbitrary rights, or open their eyes to how relevant a case like Kamel’s is to the dangers inherent in the Left’s support for authoritarian, arbitrary laws here in the West.

#freeRamyKamel


References:

[i] Babones, S. 2018. The New Authoritarianism, Polity Press

First published on Caldron Pool, 4th December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Australians have united in bipartisan condemnation of CCP propaganda after one of its “wolf warrior” diplomats posted anti-Australian propaganda to China’s Foreign Ministry Twitter account.

Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the CCP captioned the post, “Shocked by the murder of Afghan civilians and prisoners by Australian soldiers. We strongly condemn such acts and call for holding them accountable.”

The propaganda image depicting an Australian soldier holding a bloodied knife to an Afghan child’s throat, was China riding the leftist media’s giddy, feeding frenzy over the Brereton inquiry report into war crimes allegedly committed by a minority within the SAS, while serving in Afghanistan.

Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese have condemned the post.

Anthony Albanese spoke briefly in Parliament saying, ‘he joined with the Prime Minister in his condemnation  of the tweet’, adding that ‘Australia’s condemnation of this image is above politics, and we all stand as a nation in condemning it.’

In an official address, Scott Morrison condemned the Tweet, requested its removal from Twitter, and asked for an apology from the Chinese Communist Party.

Like Anthony Albanese, he condemned the Tweet, not the CCP for tweeting it.

This, along with almost every other speech this year, cements the impression that Scott and Anthony seem to only function as CEOs of their party. Not as statesman who are of, for, and by the people.

It’s not unfair to expect a stronger, less administrative, bureaucratic speech from the P.M.

The CCP are targeting the morale of the ADF, encouraged to do so by their sycophants in “Our” ABC, and others within the Australian legacy media.

As highlighted by Caldron Pool’s editor-in-chief, Ben Davis,

‘What’s also amazing is how the ABC’s report can fuel this sort of thing. A taxpayer funded news outlet! We’re paying the government to publish propaganda against our own nation.’

Such an attack requires an equally forceful, restrained response. Not a slap on the wrist.

Morrison’s condemnation started out strong. Then stalled. It ended up being a weak, and long winded, verbose lecture.

Morrison came across as an aloof high school principle, who, knowing full well where his salary comes from, does his best to appease forces, and avoid diplomatic conflict, because he’s surrendered himself to the idea that those forces are too powerful to unite his people against.

(See James Morrow’s apt conclusion: ‘Morrison’s statement that China should be “totally ashamed” will get him nowhere with a communist dictatorship that is entirely shameless.’)

Not every politician was a run of the mill. The LNP’s George Christensen – one of Australia’s few straight-talking politicians – took direct aim at the CCP’s tactless hypocrisy, writing,

‘Disgusting and baseless stuff from an outfit that regularly murders Catholics, Christians, Buddhists, Falun Dafa practitioners, political dissidents, democracy activists, Tibetans and Uighurs.’

Likewise, Andrew Hastie (LNP), called it ‘repugnant; offensive to all Australians and a slur on the men and women of the ADF. ‘

The strongest condemnation of all came from One Nation’s, Pauline Hanson.

Hanson told Sky News Australians need to start boycotting Chinese products. Advocating that Australians have to “take a strong stance” against the Communist Party’s belligerent bullying in order to “send a clear message to the CCP,” and pro-China businesses in Australia.

The One Nation senator reminded viewers that “this all started because Australia questioned the CCP over the origins of COVID-19…They don’t like being questioned.”

Emilio Garcia, ATA’s Comms director backed the call,  

‘the Liberal Party offers vapid condemnations of their favorite trading partner. Pauline Hanson calls for a boycott of Chinese Products. We need more Hansons in Canberra.’

The Sydney Morning Herald’s, Peter Hartcher (who couldn’t help using the opportunity to take a shot at Donald Trump) rightly called the CCP post, ‘juvenile propaganda’, and labelled the decision to use the fake image ‘ISIS level stuff.’

The Daily Telegraph’s Opinion editor, and Outsiders co-host, James Morrow argued that the fake image was a Twitter trap. Then called the CCP out on its long, atrocious human rights abuse record.

He added that the ‘sheer ballsiness’ of the fake image was a deliberate attempt to stoke what he called a ‘wedge between the Australian electorate’ pushing voters ‘into two camps.’

On the ‘one side the China hawks, mostly on the right, who think we should keep going hard in our dealings with the CCP and give them no quarter.’ On the other side, ‘commentators on the Left’ whose function resembles that of a Communist sycophant.

This comes complete with Cold War era tactical red herrings, which distract from the Communist Party’s blatant “utopian” failures. Including human rights abuses, foreign policy stuff-ups, and its liability over COVID-19. By which attention is also diverted away from the CCP’s belligerent threat to Australia’s sovereignty, Taiwan and the Pacific.

The CCP attack on the morale of the ADF is a byproduct of appeasement and soft diplomacy.

Morrison needs to rally Australians, recalling statesmen like Robert Menzies, Bob Hawk, and the faith of the ANZACs, who pushed back against the dark shroud of totalitarianism that sought to enslave the 20th Century.

As I said at the start of the COVID-19 crisis, we need war time leadership and that means war time speeches; more “fight” and a little less “give.”


First published on Caldron Pool, 1st December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

NOTE: As of 11:47am, 2nd December, 2020, Twitter still hadn’t pulled down, blocked, fact checked, or suspended Lijian Zhao for posting this fake image to his official CCP Twitter account.

Andrew Hastie, 38-year-old SAS officer turned member of parliament, has weighed in on the alleged findings of the Brereton inquiry into the alleged killing of innocent civilians by the Australian SAS in Afghanistan.

Hastie, who’s backing the report, said he was ‘grieved and troubled’ by it.

Reflecting on his own service in Afghanistan, he offered five reflections on why such breaches of the ADF’s high code of conduct may have occurred, writing, ‘we’ve forgotten basic truths about human nature that previous generations of Australians better understood.’

He added, ‘we live in a bent world. We all carry man’s smudge: people do bad things. Christians call it sin in a fallen world. Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant called it the ‘crooked timber’ of humanity. Whatever name we give our condition, we should always guard against the reality of people doing bad things when they are left unaccountable.’

Hastie then spoke of complacent, sanitized bureaucratic perceptions of war, the need to fix broken parliamentary scrutiny of Defence, and the neo-pagan god-like ‘warrior culture’ that’s replacing the Biblical Christian theory of restrained violence, known as Just War.

Hastie also lamented how, the public record will never know about (let alone remember) ‘the good deeds of the many, the way it will the battlefield criminality of a few.’

A chronological outline provided by the Australian Parliament acknowledges that the majority of claims against the SAS come from ‘reports published in the Australian media since 2006.’

These sit alongside ADF operational reports which provide, in debrief form, a summary of combat action received, and combat action taken.

Reported allegations of atrocities involved Reuters, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Herald Sun, and the ABC. With the ABC being the loudest.

The four-year Brereton inquiry, was headed by NSW Court of Appeal Justice, Paul Brereton.

The purpose was to confirm the legitimacy of those allegations. Concluding that ‘there was credible evidence of 23 incidents [involving 39 alleged murders] in which one or more non-combatants – or individuals who had been captured or injured – were unlawfully killed by special forces soldiers, or at least at their direction.’ (The Age)

If the allegations prove true, it’ll be a bitter pill to swallow. Not just for the ADF community, but for most Australians. Many who, being estranged from the faith of the ANZACs, now put their faith in the ANZACs.

Criminal convictions of our decorated protectors in the ADF will strike at the heart of pagan ancestral worship that’s being slowly adopted by Australians.

Largely because of an expert class ejecting Jesus Christ, and Biblical Christian objective morality from the center of the cenotaph, Australian life, society, and Government.

For instance, during ANZAC services I’ve heard people yell “this is about the ANZACs, not God.” I’ve also seen public school teachers encourage their students to drown out the memorial message with slow, monotonous claps.

Another real moral issue here is the low integrity of the free press legacy media, who seem to be drooling with glee, leaping before they look, in order to sell more disaster porn; not caring about who they destroy in the process.

The focal point for them has been the media’s “guilty-until-proven-innocent,” Cardinal George Pell like, witch hunt of Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith.

Like Pell, Roberts-Smith has repeatedly denied the allegations, but found himself being tried by a largely leftist media, who seem to have no patience or affection for the basic civil right of due process.

In a statement, denying the allegations, brought to light by 60 Minutes, Roberts-Smith was right to be ‘concerned that [the program airing] the story, and the previous publications by the SMH/Age are an attempt to improperly influence the outcome of the (Inspector-General of the Defence Force) inquiry.”

If Andrew Hastie’s reflection is to be believed, Roberts-Smith is no saint, but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of war crimes.

Should Roberts-Smith be summons to defend himself, let him have his day in court without interference from an activist media, and the self-righteous, Leftist expert class.

As David, an army veteran, wrote,

‘I feel that the Australian community and the media have turned against veterans. I have received a dozen messages from upset veterans already today. All we have are allegations, nothing more. Australia needs to calm down. Due process needs to be followed.’

In addition, ADF chief, Angus Campbell’s decision to revoke meritorious recognition ‘for all special forces task groups who served in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2013’, is as bizarre, and as reckless, as Julia Gillard’s 2011, blanket ban of beef exports, which shut down an entire industry, affecting lives, and livelihoods, all based on media coverage, and outrage online.

Stripping the ’99.3% [of medals] for the actions of the 0.7%’ is to commit an injustice that will further demoralize our valuable veterans. A large portion of them suffer in silence, because of the ignorance of an indifferent public, a hostile media, and now, self-centered public “servants” looking for a quick P.R. fix, without concern for who they’re throwing under the bus.

Liberal member for Hughes, Craig Kelly’s response to the ADF’s decision – which will punish the brave actions of the many for the sins of a few – hit a home run, saying,

‘Oh, no they won’t. But if we do, then we’ve set a precedent, so next is that we must also strip away every award and retirement benefit from every politician due to [the corrupt] conduct of [politicians] the likes of Orkopoulos* Obeid & Maguire?’

Prime Minister, Scott Morrison in acknowledging the seriousness of the claims, has also publicly backed the ADF, stating

“I wouldn’t want any Defence Force member, serving men or women, or veterans to feel that anyone is looking at them differently, I’m certainly not … we’re incredibly proud of them.” (Sky News)

If the Prime Minister is sincere about this, he needs to advise the Governor-General against stripping good soldiers of their medals, under the callus justification of ‘collective guilt.’

Aussie soldiers being hunted by radical leftist jihadists today, means open season on the people those soldiers step up to protect and serve.

For example, the largely Leftist, Australian Broadcasting Commission, giddy-at-the-prospect of having soldiers in their sights, provided detailed analysis on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

Not one to miss out on celebrating the demonization of Western Civilization, and its Biblical Christian foundations, Victoria’s Socialist Alliance, despite COVID-19 rules, has even organized an anti-ADF protest.

I agree with Hastie. We need reform and accountability. We also need to recognize why war crimes occur. All this should involve improving how we as a society look after, show appreciation for, and serve our military, and its veterans.

This process shouldn’t involve hurting our veterans in order to help them.

Of course, high and lowbrow contempt for Diggers, with the poor going to die for the smug elite, and entitled intellectuals, isn’t new.

It’s a societal fact immortalized by Rudyard Kipling,

“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please; An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!”

You can show your support for Australian soldiers by visiting Voiceofaveteran.org and signing the petition to help stop this persecution of the majority who served with honour.

To rephrase Hastie:

The battlefield criminality of a few, does not justify stripping meritorious recognition earned by the good deeds of ‘the many.’

#istandwiththeADF


First published on Caldron Pool, 27th November, 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

If Joe Biden wins, and it’s still an if, he’ll have won on shaky grounds. Not on merit.

Assuming the navel gazing, head-in-the-sand, legacy media are right, and no electoral fraud played a part in the 2020 election, Biden’s win will be because the Democrat party were successful in their false, and reckless labelling of Republicans as racists, Trump as Hitler, and Make America Great Again supporters as fascists.

Lindsey Graham is right. If Trump does concede, I doubt we’ll ever see a Republican president ever again. Not just because of mail-in-ballots, and ballot harvesting.

Democrats now have a tight-knit strategy to win every election in all tiers of government.

The formula? Threaten, gaslight, cheat, lie, scam, bully, connive, hate, divide, and manipulate.

Accompanied by the 2020, Covid-19 reflex, and the Democrat fear formula. Should Trump lose, the Democrat “vote for us, or face certain death at the hands of Covid, Nazis, and racists” will go down as one of the most successful mass manipulations of a populace in history.

The Republicans may enjoy a level of voter support, but once the status quo fence-sitters are back in office, as most assuredly they will be under Biden, it’s back to Globalist or bust, imperialism, business as usual.

I also think the gains made by Republicans this year – which are huge – will be lost. As a consequence, it’s not a stretch to say that under the “hate everything, and everyone who doesn’t agree with us”, Democrats, one party rule in the United States could become a reality.

I know some of you are probably happy about a Democrat president, but as I said yesterday to a friend on the Left – better four more years of President Trump, than decades of Democrat dominance, because they were able to manipulate an election with four years of constant lies, hoaxes, hate, division, violence, fear, and threats of violence.

I’d serve under Trump, over the Left’s tyrannical authoritarianism, any day.

If four years of evidence (available through a quick search in the Caldron Pool archives) doesn’t sway you, consider the bullying of an impartial female government director to further condition people into believing the “Joe Biden, President-elect” illusion.

Emily Murphy is the head of the General Services Administration. GSA is the non-partisan Government logistics caretaker, who ‘holds the [actual building] keys, transition funds and tools’ for incoming Presidents. (USA Today)

Murphy’s job isn’t to decide election results, but to get the wheels of change moving, in order to keep government functional.

In a formal letter to Joe Biden informing him of the imminent release of transition funds, Murphy explained how she had received no pressure from the Trump administration to delay the decision, but had done so based on the unprecedented circumstances.

Murphy, now confident in fulfilling her formal duties, also formally acknowledged that Democrats (and add to this pressure from the largely Leftist legacy media), had been bullying her. Stating that she’d ‘received threats online, by phone, and by mail directed at her safety.’

Threats which were also directed at her ‘family, staff, and even her pets in an effort to coerce her into making this determination prematurely.’

Posting his gratitude to Twitter, President Trump supported the decision, and applauded Murphy saying,

I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country. She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA. Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.’

Ignoring the President’s tweet, people on both sides falsely read into Murphy’s decision, saying that it was a definite sign that President Trump was moving towards conceding the election.

Two major points were dismissed.

a). This is only a formality. This is not Trump conceding (yet).

b). This looks worse for Democrats than it does Trump. For example, let the record show that the “tolerant” Left bullied a female director of an impartial government service provider, and then some.

A Government employee being threatened, and intimidated by Democrats, isn’t the best start for any potential Biden administration.

The bullying of Murphy shows that some Democrats are confident their formular of fear is a winning strategy.

It also legitimizes (by way of actual non-partisan proof) further suspicion over potential interference in the election by “we’ll do anything it takes to win” Leftists.

As Candace Owens stated,

‘Common sense 101: You don’t destroy ballots, refuse audits and have big tech censor your citizens because you acted honestly. The American election was clearly rigged. The bigger question is whether or not this was the 1st time. The next 2 weeks are going to be interesting.’


©Rod Lampard, 2020

Donald Trump’s Legal Team has issued a press release signaling that lawyer, Sidney Powell, was ‘not part of Donald Trump’s’ contingent of lawyers questioning legacy media’s coronation of Joe Biden as President-elect.

The official announcement from Trumps’ personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, blew a chill through the Trump camp online, like a long-lasting Artic blast does to advocates of Apocalyptic Global Warming.

Many were left speechless. Some were even bewildered by the news. Dinesh D’Souza, responded, stating ‘he didn’t know what to make of it.’

Others such as General Flynn, whose own case against fraud was won by Sidney Powell, said that Powell ‘understands the WH press release & agrees with it. She is staying the course to prove the massive deliberate election fraud that robbed #WeThePeople of our votes for President Trump & other Republican candidates.’

Politco called the press release an ‘abrupt shake-up’ stating that it ‘appears as though President Donald Trump has cut ties’ with the lawyer.

Citing Giuliani’s statements, Powell’s repeated “unsupported” ‘claims of voter fraud,’ and her use of the phrase “Release the Kraken”, Politico painted Powell as a Conservative nutcase.

They then plied that with concerns from fence sitting Republican Pro-D.C. status-quo apologists, to back its own speculation on why the press release was issued.

Providing some clarification on what Powell means by ‘Release the Kraken’, author, and Popular Twitter user, Praying Medic explained that election fraud has been around for decades. Trump’s win in 2016, and now his fight to question the bizarre spike on election night in support of Joe Biden, has given victims, and witnesses of electoral fraud, the courage to speak out.

Medic added, ‘I may be wrong, but I suspect that when Sidney Powell says she’s going to “release the Kraken,” she’s referring to an avalanche of first-hand, eyewitness testimony from hundreds of patriots around the country–evidence that cannot be disputed by anyone.’

Sidney Powell not being on the Trump legal team isn’t all that surprising.

Powell will be even more potent if what she says she has in the way of evidence is true.

It means she’s an impartial figure in the investigation. I.e.: not being played by the Trump team.

(Of course, there is a chance she’s playing the Trump team, or trying to do so.)

Regardless of whether Politico is right, and Trump has distanced himself from Powell, her independent role will make for a stronger stance against corruption, should her claims turn out to be exactly as advertised.

Releasing, ‘Release the Kraken’ Sidney Powell, could be the game changer many of us concerned about preserving Constitutional Democracy from an authoritarian Bureaucratic caste, have been hoping to see.

Turn the spotlight away from Powell for a minute onto the Democrats, and their many supporters within legacy media. It’s worth considering why there’s such an obvious absence of “go right ahead, we have nothing to hide” from Democrats, and a booming silence from Dominion’s creators when it comes to criticism of its voter software.

Most companies would be jumping over themselves to defend their product.

A lot of what we’re being told is just speculation.

As an Alexander Deme, a well-read friend of mine pointed out online, the Trump cases which have been dismissed are small.

Could the so many cases in itself be evidence of fraud?

He thinks it’s quite possible; possibly the ‘perfect crime.’

For ‘to be above the law, fraudsters combine multiple such smaller frauds to create a winning margin which the courts cannot overturn, unless all frauds are proven before the very short protest deadline! Fraudsters sit back and gloat that the courts reject all smaller fraud appeals so there is “zero court evidence” of voter fraud!’

This is why it’s important to let due process run its course.

Let every legal vote can be counted, every shady mail-in ballot dump, and computer “glitch” be investigated.

I’m still not convinced that the hate Trump, love trumps hate, “we’ll remove “Trump is Hitler” by any means” Democrats are above committing massive voter fraud so as to overturn the embarrassment of Hillary Clinton’s massive election loss in 2016.

Instead of feeding legacy media’s speculative kingmaking narrative, pray that the truth burns through to be seen.


First published on Caldron Pool, 24th November 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

The New York Times has accused commentators expressing their concerns about ‘The Great Reset’, of ‘spreading misinformation.’

Appearing to contradict both the World Economic Forum and TIME magazine, The NYT called ‘The Great Reset’, a ‘baseless conspiracy theory.’

The click bait headline, ‘The baseless ‘Great Reset’ conspiracy theory rises againis evidence of the legacy media’s collaborative effort to impose an agenda akin to Global Communism – once the dream of Lenin and Mao.

The New York Times headline was misleading. It’s myopic content, not much better.

By dismissing genuine concerns, the NYT was able to twist facts around in order to attack Conservatives, and their allies so as to paint them as tin-foil hat basement dwellers, distorting the intent and purpose of the forum.

From there the NYT spun ‘The Great Reset’ into something we should all be celebrating. Conditioning people to embrace anti-COVID totalitarianism as a great liberator, in much the same way many are being conditioned to embrace the not-yet President-elect, Joe Biden.

Is this fascism proper?

I think it is.

The woke masses are bots conditioned to act without thinking. Programmed to coerce, bully and gaslight the rest of us, under mandates which demand that we all fall in, line up, salute, and goose-step in unison, or else!

A far better option is a return to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, embracing God’s restart, not man’s reset!

As Bill Muehlenberg said in his recent Caldron Pool rundown of ‘The Great Reset’, ‘we have been warned […] this coercive utopianism is tied in with coronavirus and global warming. It has become the perfect excuse to bring about this new world order.’


First published on Caldron Pool 19th November, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Earlier this month Leftists provided another example of how the COVID-19 reflex has empowered would-be totalitarians to abuse power in the name of protecting feelings from facts.

In an ironic move, State Library of WA organizers of the Disrupted Festival of Ideas cancelled a livestream panel discussion on cancel culture, because of heterophobic influenced concerns about Augusto Zimmermann’s presentation.

Zimmermann, a Professor, writer, former Western Australian Law Commissioner, and occasional Caldron Pool contributor et.al, said the ‘event was supposedly about the free exchange of ideas and challenging the status quo and the establishment.’

Instead, it became an example of how ‘privileged individuals’ use cancel culture ‘to suppress dissenting ideas [in order] to prohibit opposing voices that challenge their hegemonic discourse in our democratic society.’

According to The Age, ‘ a SLWA spokesman said the livestream of the cancel culture discussion, held on Saturday, had been cancelled due to one of the panellists not giving permission for it to air ahead of the event. The spokesman said the panellist was concerned the discussion could upset some of his followers on social media.’

The event was tabled as an open discussion on whether Cancel Culture exists, and if so, what defined it. Or whether Cancel Culture was an ‘“alt-right” and “boomer” term used to crush the dissent of militant millennials?”

Graeme Paton, another panellist, defended sexologist and “LGBTQ specialist”, Kai Schweizer’s requests to ban the livestream on the grounds that Augusto’s “position was lacking in nuance.”

Paton argued that in seeking to censor Zimmermann, Schweizer was protecting ‘the vulnerable [Trans] community’ from ‘topics that might have been disturbing.’

Ignoring the unequal treatment shown towards Zimmermann, and the importance of social distancing livestreams under the shadow of COVID-19, Paton claimed that Zimmermann was “exaggerating” what had happened, because he “still got to say his piece; and nobody was against him coming out in a public space.”

Organizers and fellow panellists deploying cancel culture tactics in an event asking whether Cancel Culture is “right-wing” fiction or fact, is peak Leftism.

Like all human self-righteous, self-appointed “paragons of virtue”, they’re oblivious to stench in their own backyards. The Left is, without a doubt, plagued by Plank Eye Syndrome.

The event panellists, and organizers have successfully shown what Cancel Culture is. What defines it, and how it’s weaponized.

Cancelling Zimmermann’s livestream. Pompous mockery in ambiguous appeals to nuance. The asinine refusal to acknowledge the significance of the “COVID SAFE” livestream ban, and the posturing of virtue, as though cancelling Zimmermann was a selfless act, saving lives by protecting the feelings of the vulnerable from facts, is Cancel Culture.

Much the same as abortion, Cancel Culture pivots on a ‘life unworthy of life’ doctrine. True to this, while Schweizer’s concerns were taken seriously, triggering immediate action, Zimmermann’s concerns were dismissed as an exaggeration.

One of the integral foundations of this culture is the arbitrary use of the term “hate speech.”

Under the faux lordship of Cancel Culture, reasoned, verbal disagreement is falsely reduced to an act of physical violence.

Under this, Cancel Culture creates harmful safe spaces, the dismissal/dehumanization of opponents, and the outlawing of ‘honest debate.’

As Martyn Iles wrote:

Rational discussion and mutual respect is ‘a thing of the past. We increasingly live in a culture of power by almost any means…There is an ever-growing strand of left-wing thought which is utterly incapable of understanding anything except by reference to power. It’s the Marxist bilge pumped into kids’ brains all their lives[…]Power is a higher goal than morality[…]That is why they never engage. They just abuse, dox, cancel, and do whatever it takes – ie seize the power.’

I’ve had the privilege of exchanging some one on one correspondence with Augusto over the course of this year. By all counts he’s a good man. Smart, well respected, experienced. Zimmermann knows his stuff. This cancellation nonsense is another sign of the times.

The reality is that hate speech isn’t reasoned, verbal disagreement. The development of good arguments requires engaging with an opposing viewpoint.

Taking into consideration all of the above, “hate speech” is really nothing more than speech truth-haters, hate hearing.


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th November, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

If you’re not familiar with Darrell, you should be. Check out his Podcast, Just Thinking For Myself, which is co-hosted by Virgil Walker.

Related reading: Genuflecting to Black Lives Matter is Straight-Up Idolatry


 

Revelations from late September of Biden campaign electoral fraud have resurfaced online.

The September 30th investigative piece published by C-Vine (a non-profit, online news platform, which advocates for freedom of speech) reported that the ‘Texas political director of the Biden campaign, was formally charged for helping run an illegal ballot harvesting operation.’

According to C-Vine, a former FBI agent, Charles F. Marler and a former police officer, Mark A. Aguirre turned private investigators, testified ‘under oath that they had video evidence, documentation, and witnesses to prove that Biden’s Texas political Director, Dallas Jones was working with others to hoard mail-in and absentee ballots.’

The investigation revealed a ‘ballot harvesting scheme’ where Jones would direct ‘operatives’ to use the ballots illegally in order to swing the Harris county vote towards Biden.

The investigators said that ‘operatives were to illegally fill the ballots out for people. Including the dead, homeless, and nursing home residents.’

Marler stated, ‘Witnesses have shown me and described to me how the ballot harvesters take absentee ballots from the elderly in nursing homes, from the homeless, and from unsuspecting residences’ mailboxes. The ballot harvesters then complete the ballots for their preferred candidate and forge the signature of the “voter”. Two witnesses stated to me that there are two individuals employed at the Harris County Clerk’s Office who are aware of the illegal ballots and help facilitate and mask the processing of the ballots into the legal stream of ballots.”

In addition to his in-depth article, C-Vines’ investigative reporter, Leanard Bacani did some freedom of information digging of his own. Bacani found accusations and evidence from as far back as 2008, 2016 and 2018.

Citing the work of ‘citizen journalist’ Colleen Vera, Bacani presented evidence of electoral interference, including a video ‘appearing to show a campaign worker for Texas State Rep Harold Dutton Jr (Dem) harvesting ballots of 400 elderly voters.’

As well as audio of a ‘Democrat campaign worker admitting to harvesting ballots from a nursing home, and mail-in ballots from Harris County that all have the same handwriting and envelope process.’

National File journalist, Patrick Howley is credited with getting access to Marler and Aguirre testimonies. The main reporting of the September 30th ballot harvesting fraud, was carried by The Texan, Tennessee Star and Newsbreak.

It’s no big surprise, that as of today, there has been no reporting of this news from the legacy media.

C-Vine makes a compelling argument. From 2008 up until now, it’s evident that a pattern of electoral fraud exists, and that there’s compelling evidence that some officials representing the Democrat Party are right in the center of it.

To answer concerns about the date. The September timestamp on this news only makes this news all the more relevant. Jones’ intentions reveal the extent to which Democrats might have been willing to go, in order to win the 2020 election. He just happened to get caught.

As C-Vine’s Leonard Bacani concluded in September, ‘The Democrat claim that fear of Coronavirus constitutes a disability has been only partially successful in Texas.’ Through mail-in ballots ‘nursing homes remain a hotspot for potential fraud.’       

If Democrats can manipulate the outcome of an election through electoral fraud, which is something Bacani’s evidence-based argument concludes that Democrats are capable of, we have to ask how this will impact future elections.

As I said last week, if the Democrats can use fear to win, they’ll use fear to Govern.

The abuse of power always comes with the power to abuse.

The widespread complicity of the legacy media in not reporting on clear cases of ballot harvesting manipulation, also raises questions about collaboration with any potential mass cases of fraud.

There will be no hiding from the enormity of collaborating factors which may well prove that this election outcome was designed, and decided months ago.

With the goal being to legitimatize a phony Biden Presidency, in order to delegitimize the legitimacy of a duly elected President.

Joe Biden assuming the Presidency, and acting as though Trump doesn’t exist effectively means that we have two sitting U.S Presidents. One anointed by the legacy media and the Leftwing elite, another still duly elected by the people, for the people, of the people.

Trump isn’t a threat to Democracy. The phony Biden presidency is. That a Biden presidency only comes into effect on Jan. 20th. (if he wins) makes this whole propping up of Biden as the President, the precipice of civil war.

As they’ve said, if Trump won’t move, they’ll move him.

If they do this before January 20th, that will mean arresting a sitting US President. If so, it could mean war. Something that I suspect, many on the “peace loving”, “unity and healing” Left would love to see happen.

Especially the hate Trump-love trumps hate, hypocritical media.


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th November, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

When the Democrats call themselves the party of “Unity and Healing.” Don’t believe the hype.

Remove the life-affirming veneer and the current line-up of pro-abortion Democrats are the party of bullhorn manipulative propaganda.

Joe Biden’s retirement home handlers using his twitter account to tweet ad nauseum about “A nation united. A nation strengthened. A nation healed,” may appeal to the globalist elite, white bourgeois leftists, and the docile, automated Democrat, but it will struggle to win popularity with the wider public. 70 million of whom voted for President Donald Trump.

Democrats lathering on insincere platitudes about Godliness and grace; as if they’ve been adhering to Godliness and grace for the past four years, is just a smoke screen.

It’s soppy, narcissistic eisegesis designed to cover four years of obstructionism. Four years of the self-righteous demanding total compliance with their new cultural laws through the mob megaphone of cancel culture, screaming at everyone: “Fall in. Line up. Salute. Goose-step in unison, or else!”

Four years of dividing and dehumanizing people by way of whip statements infused with shaming control techniques like the reckless, dishonest labelling of anyone, whom the Left doesn’t like, a “FASCIST, NAZI, HOMOPHOBE, or RACIST!”

Should Biden and company win, all of whom are career politicians, they will rule of the media, for the media, through the media, by the media.

As 2020 testifies, he’ll have Big Tech to back him up. They’ll pimp out legacy media as it whores after falsehoods to shut down any and all opposing viewpoints.

If the use of fear succeeds in winning Democrats the Presidency, they will use fear to govern.

If you’re convinced that “abortion is healthcare,” “love is love,” “all white people are racist,” “Not all women have periods,” “some women have a penis,” or that there’s an actual “white supremacy crisis”, you’re well on your way to believing that “war is peace.”

This is fascism proper, and it’s what 21st century fascism looks like.

The good news is that Democrats lost more than they claim to have won. Despite the legacy media narrative, even their claim to the presidency is still in doubt, and even if they win that, it’ll have been won by a super thin margin.

Meaning the Democrats have no clear mandate from the American people. Anyone with even a small amount of knowledge about politics will tell you this isn’t a good place from which an elected leader can properly govern.

Like him, loathe him or hate him, the fact is, with the gains Republicans have made in the Senate and house, Donald Trump is still better positioned to deliver for the American people than Joe Biden.

No amount of bull-horn propaganda or hypocrisy from the Left will change this fact.

Of course, if the radical leftist base which seems to control the Democrat party doesn’t get a Biden/Harris Presidency, civil unrest is a likely scenario.

A real possibility given the looting, riots and killings cheered on by Democrats in the past six months.

This is another reason to not buy into the Democrat fed hype over “unity and healing.”

If radical leftism stays on its current fascist trajectory, and goes unanswered, the only way it will be defeated, bar God’s intervention, is on the battlefield.

I’m not for war, but it’s worthwhile pointing out that as far as historical precedence goes, conservatives and their allies (some who are on and from the Left) may, in the end, have to fight a war, to end a war, they never wanted.


First published on Caldron Pool 10th November, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Want a good summary of where things are at? Watch this.

Some good points were raised by Andrew Klavan on his show today:

  1. “Biden is diminishing daily” his ‘unity & healing’ rhetoric is seriously undermined by the Leftist rhetoric from AOC, Schumer & company, about “change,” rounding up and punishing 70 million Trump voters et. al.
  2. “We should fight the system in the courts, but let’s be honest, it’s a long shot.”

With Biden being contradicted by members of the Democrat party, with their threats of “burning the Republican party to the ground,” and rounding up 70.6 million Trump voters, creating blacklists via the “Trump Accountability Project” and calling for them to be punished for all sorts of fake crimes, it’s not going to be clear skies, and blue horizons for the potential President.

He’s already a lame duck, and the election outcome hasn’t even been officially declared.

The party preaching “unity and healing” is not a party united behind the “unity and healing” message.

As has been the general run of the mill with Leftists since Hillary Clinton lost and Trump was duly voted into office, this contradiction reveals an internal divide on par with their four years of “hate Trump/Love trumps hate” dissonance.

Dissonance is the only consistency. This has been proven time and time again. While the legacy media bathes in electing itself to the role of King maker, the contradictory messages from with the Democrat party signal a party in disarray, a party not ready to responsibly Govern for the people, of the people, by the people.

If there is any burning, may it be the truth burning through to be seen.


©Rod Lampard, 2020.

The COVID Reflex & the Mechanization of the Masses

Under the shadow of Democrat encouraged civil unrest, and Covid-19, the 2020 election was always going to be a close call.

Temporarily set aside valid concerns about voter fraud. Then consider the climate of fear that has been battering voters non-stop since January.

Leftist politicians and activists went from attacking pro-active, anti-COVID conservative governments with “that’s racist”, to “they knew and didn’t do anything to save lives.”

Go back to the debates. The Biden/Harris campaign maximized COVID-19 for political gain. Biden was propped up as the adult, taking Covid-19 seriously, while Trump was portrayed by the feckless legacy media as irresponsible, and reckless.

Aided by Big Tech, Doctors were silenced, while keyboard warriors asserted themselves as life-saving experts.

Anyone who presented a well-reasoned argument that countered the approved narrative, was censored.

When this was questioned, with the help of leftist funded “fact-checkers” hiding behind the word “Independent” (not to be confused with impartial), Big Tech told us that this censorship was “for the greater good” because it was about “saving lives.”

As has been suggested by others on various platforms, the consequence of this is that people have voted against Trump as though he was a) responsible for COVID-19 and b) was the virus itself.

Since 2016 the Democrats have been playing a zero-sum game. (Found in the murderous ambition of Antifa and BLM.) It wasn’t beyond them to pave Biden’s road to the White House with fear and the bodies of COVID victims.

Covid-19 may not have been designed to remove Donald Trump from the White House, but the Left was quick to weaponize COVID-19 as a means to do so.

As Amanda Prestigiacomo put it,

‘This election is not like anything we’ve seen before, with well over 65 million mail-in ballots cast, relaxed rules. (COVID panic porn vital here.) The chaos is a feature, not a bug. Trump needs to challenge everything. I think he will. His supporters can’t be disenfranchised.’

COVID-19 propaganda porn created a COVID reflex. Disaster porn has been the bedrock of the Democrat platform since Hillary Clinton failed to move into the White House after Barrack Obama, the leftist lord-of-lords and king-of-kings, ended his tenure.

The “vote for us, or face certain death at the hands of COVID and racists” equation appears to have been a winning formula.

This says nothing positive about American voters who appear to have voted in fear, because of falsehoods and fake news, over against facts, faith, and freedom. Victims of a successful, corrupt Democrat scare campaign.

The COVID reflex is the result of propaganda; vicious political maneuvering. It’s what Jacques Ellul called psychological warfare.

To illustrate this, Ellul pointed to the different levels of aid provided by the United States, and the Soviet Union to under-developed countries in the 1960s.

 ‘The United States gave three times as much assistance as did the Soviet Union; but thanks to propaganda, it is the Soviet Union who is regarded as the great helper and benefactor in whom one can put one’s trust.’ (Propaganda, 1965:134)

Ellul warned that the dangers in doubting the power of propaganda led to propagandists manipulating and implanting within the public a conditioned reflex. 

He deduced that ‘the propagandist seeks automatic responses; to induce action without consideration; mass movement without thought.’ (ibid, 300 & 302)

Enemies of this mechanization of the masses were ‘organic groups.’

This is why genuine dictatorships, and totalitarians undermine families, authentic churches, and traditional community assemblies.

The only way for the masses to be manipulated is to replace these groups with ‘new primary groups’; political action groups, parties, unions, where ‘the individual can be trapped and made ready for propaganda.’

This meant automated mechanization (ibid, p. 98). Examples include the Nazis’ strategy in banning Homeschooling, and undermining Sunday School with laws instructing parents to enlist their children in the Hitler Youth. Moa and Lenin’s political re-education mantra ‘each must be a propagandist for all.’ (ibid, p.82)

The point of this, Ellul states, is ‘to make the masses demand of the government what the government has already decided to do.’ (ibid, p.132)

Come back to the U.S. election, and four years of Democrat scare campaigning. The climate of fear successfully established conditions and controls. Covid-19 just gave the political establishment the impetus it needed to deploy hysteria and its subsequent, “vote for us, or face certain death” brain washing, to move the people against its political enemies.

As economics Professor Gary Galles concluded in his article for the Mises Institute,

‘The 2020 election results will be a test of earlier liberal/progressive “investments” in modifying how Americans think about things. But at this point, perhaps more important will be whether, after the fact, people recognize how much they have been manipulated, which is the first step to thinking more accurately, which must precede learning to effectively resist that manipulation.’

This COVID reflex may have given Joe Biden and the Democrats the edge over Trump. Fear is a powerful motivator. Much more so than freedom.

The globalist elite, and their bureaucratic caste friends in Washington D.C know this, and they strip-mined it for every ounce of political gain they could squeeze out of it.

The COVID reflex is a direct product of Leftist propaganda. More concerning than a Biden/Harris Presidency is this mechanization of the masses, and I’m almost convinced that the U.S. election results are proof of it.


First published on Caldron Pool, 7th November, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Pray For America

November 5, 2020 — Leave a comment

Christians come in under the Kingship of Christ. Despite the busy to and fro of politics, He remains Lord; God’s elected One, the same yesterday, today and forever. Rest in that as Christ did, and walk [scroll], calmly past the smugness of the self-satisfied and the mockery of the thief.


Image credit: Ben Davis

©Rod Lampard, 2020

John Piper’s ambiguous words this week missed the point.

The Pastor, author and respected teacher posted a raw shakedown of the U.S Elections, saying both Trump, and Biden are an ill wind that will reap no national good.

Therefore, Piper wrote, vote as you will, but as for me ‘I won’t be endorsing the devastation.’

Piper was right to assert his allegiance to Christ over party, platform and policy. He was right to question the superficial protestations about Christian faith which seem permanently glued to the Trump presidency.

Piper was half-right to assume that for Christians the choice in this election is between Government, and Jesus Christ.

On one side there’s a party as far from Christ on the issues of civil liberties, classical liberal freedoms, life, and livelihood, as any Western political party has ever been this side of Germany in the 1930s.

On the other is an incumbent President, who’s been consistently harassed, attacked, falsely accused, and maligned, by the latter group simply for having the power they want.

Look at the political, and theological trends which accept appeasement as the only strategy to deal with slow toxins poisoning Western societies, of apathy, and of blind tolerance, of redefinition, the language of “resetting”, of administering to the world a false doctrine that considers “niceness” a crucial Christian trait.

Eternity News exemplifies the point. Both their articles, “John piper says character trumps policy when it comes to Trump,” and “Beyond John Piper, More Christian ‘How To’ Votes,” show a heavy lean in favor of Piper’s apparent denouncement of Donald Trump, while giving only a whisper to Piper’s equal response to Joe Biden.

Buoyed by Piper’s comments, and an apparent excitement at possible divisions within the Evangelical camp, Eternity News seems to have been working the “Trump isn’t nice, so don’t vote for him” card, hard.

Niceness is faulty yardstick.

The devil, for example, is prone to make himself look “nice.” As Paul, talking about false Apostles, wrote: ‘for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.’ (2 Cor.11:14)

Good isn’t always nice. “Niceness” is nearly always a trait of malevolence.

An “ethic of niceness” is a false doctrine. It’s what the late feminist and political scientist, Jean Bethke Elshtain meant when she directed cautionary words against reducing the Gospel to universal benevolence:

‘Christianity is not an exalted or mystical form of utilitarianism. Jesus preached no doctrine of universal benevolence. He showed anger and issued condemnations. These dimensions of Christ’s life and words tend to be overlooked nowadays as Christians concentrate on God’s love rather than God’s justice. That love is sometimes reduced to a diffuse benignity that is then enjoined on believers. For Christians living in historic time and before the end of time, the pervasiveness of conflict must be faced. One may aspire to perfection, but living perfectly is not possible. To believe one is without sin is to commit the sin of pride and to become ever more boastful in the conviction that a human being can sustain a perfectionist ethic.’ [i]

Presidents may serve well, but they’ll never be Jesus Christ. If that’s what John is looking for this side of the Parousia, he’s going to be in constant retreat, taking a good portion of the church with him.

Piper is right that ‘bad company corrupts good character’ (1 Cor.15:33), but all-in-all his words are problematic. They encourage Trump’s enemies to read Piper’s concerns about “character” through the lens of this “niceness” false doctrine.

Despite his protests to the contrary, Piper’s “no” to the 2020 election is not just an abandonment of his civic duty. Considering how high the stakes are, his “no” is tantamount to moral abdication.

As Charlie Kirk pointed out in his own flawed brief response, John Piper doesn’t know Donald Trump personally, yet here he is making judgements on him, and those who do know him.

John misses the point. Beyond a flawed citizen President taking on powerful, career politicians, lay the greater conflict of truth vs. falsehood.

In the context of the Church, if we fail to bring a confession of Jesus Christ up against the clear, and present false doctrines woven into the current Democrat platform, we’ve failed, not only in our civic duty, but as Christians.


References:

[i] Elshtain, J. 2008, Just War Against Terror: The Burden Of American Power In A Violent World Basic Books Kindle Ed. (p. 100-101)

First published on Caldron Pool, 1st November 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

‘Entrepreneur, digital marketing guru, and best-selling author’, Scott Galloway, told The Australian this week that an unholy alliance existed between Donald Trump, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter.

Galloway ‘wants the US government to radically overfund regulatory bodies like the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission in America, to rewrite the rule book on anti-trust: moving away from a test around consumer harm and prices back to a test around market power.’

Quoting Galloway, Ticky Fullerton stated, ‘the odds of a possible break-up are three to five times more likely with a well-funded and more thoughtful administration around tech, the Biden/Harris administration.’

This is because ‘Trump has shown just a mix of inconsistency, incompetence and underfunding that transfers advantage to big tech.’ Noting that Big Tech were coming through COVID-19 as big winners.

Galloway’s advice to investors was to move in front of ‘three tsunamis’ which are set to make significant financial gains, as people, and businesses ‘move from commercial to residential, traditional education to online learning, hospitals, and doctors’ offices to home and remote health.’

Galloway makes sense when talking about COVID triggering seismic economic shifts. His absurd claim of an unholy alliance between Trump, and big tech, is way off. 

As ‘Professor of marketing strategy at NYU’, and one-time board member of the New York Times, Galloway’s predictions are probably par for the course.

Support Biden now, be rewarded later. Don’t support Biden now, be punished later.

Meaning that Galloway is assured a place at the power table, where he’ll join the majority of journalists currently playing partisan defense for the opposition in the United States.

The latter having chosen to remain silent on verified facts relating to substantial corruption within the Biden family. Choosing to aid the Biden/Harris camp by not pressuring them to deny categorically, or provide an evidence-based answer.

Here is why Galloway is right that a Biden/Harris administration would be more likely to back the ‘radical overfunding of regulatory bodies.’ It’s also why he’s dead wrong about Trump.

Radicalism is the basis of the Biden/Harris policy platform. Overfunding would require increased taxation, and bigger government. These are areas where the Democrats excel. Taxation and government-will-save-the-day is their default position when offering solutions to problems, whether real, exaggerated, or manufactured.

In addition, big tech hates Trump. They’re private bias against the conservative voice, comes out in their public aid of their preferred candidate. In this case Biden (maybe more so, Harris), in their bid for the White House.

Examples of this include Silicon Valley’s very cosy relationship with Communist China, and their stonewalling of the New York Post over verified claims about the Biden family’s business dealings. The continual suppression and control of speech, and information, through agenda driven “fact-checkers.”

From “believe the science about apocalyptic climate change”, to deny the science “there are more than two genders”, “not all women have periods”, “abortion is healthcare”, down to arbitrary laws which represses freedom of speech and individual responsibility, you can be sure that Big Tech supports the Democrat platform.

If an unholy alliance does exist between government and Silicon Valley, its members don’t include Donald Trump or his supporters.

For Big Tech, it’s not a matter of if Biden wins, it’s a matter of when Trump loses. They want to be on the “right side of history”* when Biden secures (with their help) an “unprecedented” and “historic” 2020 election victory. (*newspeak for: in good with wannabe Leftist overlords).

Big Tech needs accountability. There’s bipartisan agreement on this. We don’t want a centralized conglomerate with a monopoly on information; governed by pompous, dishonest gatekeepers who adjust algorithms, to favour news and information that best serves their bottom line, favourite politician, or activist lobby group, and not the masses.

Galloway overlooks the overall mistreatment of the Trump administration, and Donald Trump since his election. Much of it encouraged by Big Tech, who fail to censor speech which breaches their own rules, from the likes of Cathy Griffin, Carl Reiner, Bette Midler et.al. Then shadow bans entities and individuals who aren’t ideologically aligned with the prevailing worldview in Silicon Valley.


References:

Fullerton, T. 2020. Tech Giants ‘lapping up a tsunami of capital’ The Australian, Wednesday 29th October 2020

First published on Caldron Pool, 29th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Ronald Reagan had a unique distaste for career politicians sucking wealth out of D.C.’s tax-payer funded tenure. Most too often more in tune with self-service, than public service. He also had a keen dislike for the faulty, seized-up mechanical inner-workings of Washington.

Reagan was a citizen president. He poked fun at the self-importance of the political class, and wasn’t afraid to include himself in it.

Talking to a gathering of Independent television stations two years after being elected to office, Reagan quipped,

‘”I sometimes think that government is like that definition – that old definition of a baby. It’s an alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

Reagan came to office at the end of a dismal decade. In large part because Reagan was, as John O’Sullivan also wrote of Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, ‘one of the apostles of hope’, when despair, fear, and doom, was the order of the day.

The 70s were turbulent. Global instability was everywhere.

The mid to late 60s were an open wound. Peace in Vietnam War was won, and then lost by diplomatic fumbling. Americans were confronted with deep state political corruption, and suffered through a series of fearmongering, joyless Presidential leaders from Republicans to Democrats.

The biggest issue of them all was the “Energy Crisis.”

Concerns over the “Energy Crisis” – a decline in domestic energy production, coupled with Lyndon Johnson’s environmental restrictions, and an OPEC embargo (a consequence of America’s support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War), resulting in high oil prices – was echoed by both sides of the political aisle, coupled with apocalyptic projections, and big government solutions to them.

Republican, President Richard Nixon’s proposed energy rationing, was later extended by Democrat, President Jimmy Carter, who, in 1979, told Americans that the “energy crisis” was here to stay. Then tabled a policy around big government control, such as mandatory rationing. (The 1970s version of “the new normal.”)

Carter’s panic rode on the back of urgency, caused by a drop in global oil supply, a consequence of the 1979 Islamist, Iranian revolution.

His six-point plan delivered the same year, included an increase in taxes, ‘mandatory conservation, gasoline rationing’, ‘expanding public transportation’, and creating a new government department to oversee energy rationing, and conservation.

Carter’s speech wove the “energy crisis” into a “crisis of confidence,” telling Americans that they were losing their sense of purpose, and needed to act:

“I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security, to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense, I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”

Carter’s blame shifting by way of his infamous “crisis of confidence” gave Reagan an edge.

Who said in return that,

 “it’s true there’s a lack of confidence, an unease with things the way they are, but the confidence we’ve lost is confidence in our Government’s policies…there remains the greatness of our people, our capacity for dreaming up fantastic deeds and bringing them off to the surprise of an unbelieving world.” (NYT, 14th November, 1979)

Six years after the success of Reagan’s ‘supply-side mix’ policies, which reduced ‘intrusive and overburdening taxation, regulatory, and currency policies, delivering an effective resolution to the ‘Energy Crisis’, Reagan told administration supporters,

“I’ve always thought that the common sense and the wisdom of the Government were summed up in a sign they used to have hanging on that gigantic Hoover Dam. It said: “Government Property. Do Not Remove.” (29th June, 1987)

It’s often said that we don’t vote for individuals, we vote for political parties, their politicians, and their current policy platform.

The 2020 choice for Americans gives this axiom resonance. 

The Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris ballot is a ballot between a citizen President, and career politicians.

Similar in many ways to the context of Reagan vs. Carter in ’79.

One side speaks of hope, freedom, individual responsibility, perseverance, ingenuity, and protections for civil liberties.

The other speaks of crisis upon crisis; of doom, and destruction. From which they preach that only the political class, correct alignment with Leftism, and big government can save us.

Such as, Joe Biden’s “dark winter”, the alleged crises of “institutional racism”, “an unbeatable, Covid-19,” “the new normal of wearing masks, enduring lockdowns, and losing livelihoods in economic shutdowns”; unhealthy fear of conservatives in the supreme court, and apocalyptic “climate change.”

Joe Biden is too entrenched in the game to see that he is the D.C. “swamp”, that leftist activists, are part of the establishment, dancing Carter’s “crisis of confidence”, bureaucratic two-step: the art of blaming others, and looking busy while achieving nothing at all.

On this basis, a vote for Biden is a retreat into darkness. It’s a vote for a “crisis of confidence”; a vote for career politicians who are guarded by leftist activists, and guided by the idolatry inherent within their ideological nonsense.

As Ronald Reagan said in 1964,

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.”

“We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” (A Time For Choosing)


References:

[i] Cited by Karl Menninger, 1976. Whatever became of Sin? p.142

[ii] O’Sullivan, J. 2006. The President, The Pope & The Prime Minister, Regnery Publishing

First published on Caldron Pool, 28th October, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Note that the entire (current) Democrat policy platform is simply: “hate Trump, because love trumps hate.”

To Trump’s credit, he’s never come out and said, “if you don’t vote for me, you hate America.”

It’s bewildering to those of us who are constantly interacting with a wide range sources and material, to see and hear people accuse Trump of being dictatorial, when it’s those on the Left actually saying “if you vote for Trump, you hate America.”

Which, in Biden/Harris intersectional speak, means, ‘if you don’t vote for Biden/Harris, you ain’t American!”

It’s a risky gamble for current Democrats to rest on deception, and evasion, as a sure fire way to take political ground from political opponents by falsely claiming those opponents are doing exactly the same thing that Democrat policies, and rhetoric is doing. Such as dividing Americans.

Look at the recent debate.

Joe Biden accused Donald Trump of being a xenophobe and racist; of taking Joe’s words about fracking “out of context”, then Joe rips the context out of Trump’s relationship building attempts with North Korea, Russia, Mexico (through the USMCA deal), and America’s black community, just to orchestrate a false image of Trump. Which Biden then attempted to use as a a way of discredited the President by slapping on him terms from the Left’s usual go to of derogatory slurs, such as racist, and xenophobe.

Notice Biden’s doubletalk.

He made the claim that Americans were all gonna die of Covid-19 if they didn’t vote for him. Then, with his closing remarks, said “we’re going to choose hope over fear.”

Biden also acknowledged that the U.S provides 25% of the global economy, but that that economy essentially needs to be shut down in order to protect against COVID-19.

Another example: while advocating a fair go for small businesses, contradicted what he’d said earlier about those same small businesses having to implement costly COVID-19 protection gear, such as plexiglass.

Then Biden used an attack on Trump’s personal income taxes to dodge answering questions about the scandal involving his son, Hunter Biden.

The shots were a low blow. Trump’s businesses generate tax revenue, while Biden’s wealth, as a career politician, is built on that same revenue.

The character of each political camp can be identified by how the majority of one group is praying for their nation and candidates. While the other group is paying through their noses in order to not only see their candidate win, but to shelter him from all just criticism.

The 2020 election is about a citizen President going in to bat against a career politician. (If we’re thorough, we’d need to also add the plural, politicians, and include activists in that mix).

Trump is flawed, but he’s no fascist.

Many on the Left, and the majority of Democrats on the other hand, exhibit the very same tendencies they claim to see in Donald Trump.

As Stephen Chavura aptly put it:

Re Trump = fascist. Historically fascists take advantage of riots or street violence to declare states of emergency. They use riots to justify aggrandising their power. Trump didn’t do this at all during the riots. Nor did he use a Covid state of emergency to aggrandise his powers. Such accusations are mere projection. Over the last two years it’s not been conservatives who appealed to states of emergency to justify expanding the state’s powers, but the left appealing to “climate emergency” and Dan with his covid “emergency” in Victoria. Trump ain’t no authoritarian or fascist.’


© Rod Lampard, 2020.