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.

Google the phrase “Trump supporters threatened with Civil War.” All that pops up is a bunch of wishful thinking mainstream media articles from 2019 pushing false claims that Trump had threatened to start a civil war if he was impeached.

These stand alongside more recent articles where leftist outlets have gone to the fringe of American society, in search of the wackiest Trump supporting American with a gun they can find, in order to slap on them the tag “Trump supporter prepares for civil war.”

With the media’s Spidey senses fine-tuned to this alleged Trump induced threat of Civil War, there’s a very noticeable absence from major news organizations about reports that Trump supporters have received letters actually threatening them with civil war, should Trump lose the upcoming U.S. election, and refuse to leave the White House.

At least three people are known to have received the anonymous letter, which states:

“You have been identified by our group as being a Trump supporter. Your address has been added to our database as a target when we attack should Trump not concede the election.”

Outspoken celebrity, James Woods posted a scanned copy of the letter onto Twitter captioning it “This is being sent al over the country to American citizens who have dared put Trump campaign signs in their yards.”

According to WMUR police are investigating the origin of the anonymous letters, saying that these are felony level criminal threats because they contain threats to “burn homes down and cause injury, but it could also be with the postal inspectors, something on the federal level.”

Silence from most in the mainstream media is another example of the national media, yet again, playing defense for the opposition.

They remain uninterested in news of serious, compromising material found on Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop, and they continue to shuck, and jive, when it comes to asking Joe Biden questions about his knowledge, and reported connection to the material.

Had these letters threatening civil war been sent to Biden supporters, or Hunter Biden been Donald Trump Jnr. it’s a given that mainstream media, and their gatekeepers on social media, would be dedicating wall-to-wall airtime to it. Complete with experts, and panels examining the evidence, speculating on how this impacts the Biden/Harris ticket.

This is proven by  The Washington Post, and CNN’s response to emails allegedly sent by Proud Boys to Democrat voters.

Proud Boys’ chief, Enrique Tarrio denied that they were being behind the emails, saying,

“No, it wasn’t us. The people [who sent the emails] used a spoofing email that pretended to be us. Whoever did this should be in prison for a long time.”      

Even though Proud Boys have denounced the threats and are said to be working with the FBI, The Washington Post’s article claiming Proud Boys association to the emails hasn’t been corrected.


First published on Caldron Pool, 23rd October 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Kemi Badenoch, Conservative MP from the U.K just puts words to what many think privately, yet feel powerless to say publicly.

The first-generation immigrant, and MP for Saffron Walden’s 8 minute speech reasoned out the Johnson Government’s “unequivocal no” to Critical Race Theory, and the Black Lives Matter Marxist movement.

Responding in parliament during ‘general debate’ relating to the United Kingdom’s annual, month long celebration of Black history, Badenoch described CRT as an “an ideology that sees blackness as victimhood and whiteness as oppression.”

Adding, “what we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they are accepted facts…we do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt. And let me be clear: any school which teaches these elements of Critical Race Theory as fact, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.”

Badenoch’s “no” to the Black Lives Matter Marxist movement, its poorly informed supporters, and wide-ranging run of the mill sycophants was just as sharp.

As quoted by The Blaze, Badenoch asserted,

“”Black lives do matter, of course they do, but we know that the Black Lives Matter movement — capital B.L.M. — is political. I know this, because at the height of the protests, I have been told of white Black Lives Matter protesters calling — and I’m afraid … I apologize for saying this word — calling a black armed police officer guarding downing street a ‘pet n*****.

“That is why we do not endorse that movement on this side of the House,” Badenoch reiterated. “It is a political movement, and what would be nice, would be for members on the opposite side to condemn many of the actions that we see this political movement, instead of pretending that it is completely wholesome anti-racist organization, that there is a lot of pernicious stuff that is being pushed and we stand against that.”

As a mother, and Equalities Minister for the current UK government, Badenoch said,

why does this issue mean so much to me? It is not just because I’m a first-generation immigrant, it is because my daughter came home from school this month and said ‘we’re learning Black History Month because every other month is about white history.’

“This is wrong and this is not what our children should be picking up,” she concluded. “These are not the values I have taught her.”

Badenoch also pushed back against attempts to conflate American history with the UK, saying,

“our history of race is not America’s history of race most black British people who have come to our shores were not brought here in chains but came voluntarily due to their connections to the UK and in search of a better life.”

With many learning the facts about Critical Race Theory, and coming to grips with what Black Lives Matter stands for, not just what they stand against, Badenoch’s speech is certain to go viral.

Her 2017 maiden speech to parliament is also worth checking out.


First published on Caldron Pool, 21st October 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

For all the broad, and vague claims from the left about “white systemic racism”, many on the left have long exhibited an intrenched entitlement to ownership and control over the black community.

Evidence of this abounds.

Just take Democrat Presidential candidate, Joe Biden’s statement comparing diversity within the black and Latino communities, or his remark that “if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Another example is Biden’s repeated falsehoods about Trump and racism, tripped by Trump banning dodgy Critical Race Theory training.

This is also largely seen by how, during every election, Democrats turn on white vs. black conditioning, triggering reflexes in the community that have been pre-programmed through propaganda to stimulate action without thought.

Action from within the black community which deviates from the reflex programming of the Leftist “us vs. them” therefore “vote my way or else you’re a …!”, is condemned.

Mostly with blanket criticism from the Left, which is usually racist in nature, and mostly because the individual or group has broken free from the chains of the predominate reflex.

For example, last week Rap icon, O’Shea Jackson (aka Ice Cube) was berated for approaching Trump to go into bat for impoverished black American communities.

Cube was accused of “siding with Trump”, “endorsing Trump” and “joining forces with evil.” In response he rolled out a series of Tweets countering the narrative.

Cube’s crime? Trump stepped up to the negotiation table, where the Dems shuffled some papers, and said ‘wait until after the election.’

Ice Cube’s a smart guy. He knows the bureaucratic arrogance of power in the DC swamp, the power of the “everything is racist” industry, and the power games of its many political cabals/insiders.

Using Twitter to push back Cube wrote,

 “A lot of energy being spent on telling me to stay in my lane. Zero energy spent on telling Biden/Harris they need to do way more for Black people to sure up the vote. Smh” (Oct. 18)

Responding to a Politico headline Cube denied the claims of collaboration with Trump:

“Joined forces? Stop pushing these bull&*t headlines.” (Oct. 17)

Implying the same, The Washington Post called the news, “a bewildering revelation, oddly fitting for 2020”.

Cube’s comments to TMZ appear to have gone unnoticed:

‘his sole focus was getting the administration to adopt elements of his Contract with Black America … in order to improve Black lives. He insists he is NOT attempting to sway Black votes toward either candidate.’ (TMZ)

This is also despite the brilliant (widely publicized) summary of his argument and defense on the 15th: 

‘Every side is the Darkside for us here in America. They’re all the same until something changes for us. They all lie and they all cheat but we can’t afford not to negotiate with whoever is in power or our condition in this country will never change. Our justice is bipartisan.’ (Oct. 15)

Ice Cube isn’t the only voice from the Rap community deviating from the well-honed pro-Democrat, or else, reflex.   

R ‘n B rap legend Curtis James Jackson III (aka 50 Cent; Fif) just backed Trump, in response to news about the Biden/Harris tax plan.  

The rapper threw in his cincuenta’s centavos’ worth on Instagram, and Twitter writing ‘Vote for Trump. I’m out…’

50 Cent responded to reports, such as CNBC’s, which stated that Biden’s plan could hit Californians & New Yorkers with 62.6% in ‘federal and state’ tax rates for ‘anyone earning over $400,000 a year’, with proposed tax-cuts for those earning under that amount.’ CNBC added, high income ‘earners would be taxed the highest in more than 30 years, and well above the rates under the Obama administration.’

Backlash and criticism of 50 Cent’s endorsement was almost immediate.

Though not completely representative of the Hip Hop community, Hip Hop industry content provider, HNHH, called 50 Cent’s post a “shocking endorsement for Trump.”

Spouting Critical Race Theory conspiracy theories about America as a whole, and false claims about Donald Trump refusing to condemn “white supremacy,” HNHH all but denounced 50 Cent.

Referencing followers of the asinine Intersectionality belief that “all white people are racist, white privileged, homophobic bigots,” HNHH  accused the rapper of greed.

Claiming: ‘obviously, [Fif’s] money is more important to him than climate change, systemic racism, and other issues that Trump does not prioritize.’

Suffice to say, HNHH’s criticisms of 50 Cent aligns with The Washington Post’s sloppy criticism of Ice Cube, and they each come from the same sordid place.

A place of entitlement to, and ownership of the black community. Illustrated best by the potential head Democrat in charge, Joe Biden: “if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”


First published on Caldron Pool, 20th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Mike Pence’s gentlemen’s applause for Kamala Harris’ selection as Joe Biden’s number two takes into account the fact that Harris would be the first female Vice-President, and potentially the first female President, in U.S. history.

There are three recent events, however, which highlight why Harris may not be the best choice for such an “historic” and “unprecedented” win.

The Shifty Cross-Examination of ACB:

Kamala Harris’s cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Supreme Court Judge nominee, during the Senate Judiciary Committees hearings on Barrett’s suitability for the lifelong role raised a red flag.

Following a list of Democrat led bizarre lines of questioning, Harris committed the fallacy of equivocation. Harris covertly tried to connect Barrett’s position on facts about Covid-19 and lung-cancer, with hotly contested conjecture about “apocalyptic Climate Change.”

As The Daily Wire’s, Andrew Klavan reported, Harris was trying to pin on Barrett the label “climate denier” in order to discredit her in the same way, anyone versed in broadly noted, historical fact, a holocaust denier. Harris didn’t succeed, and ACB caught the trap, and pushed back, before Harris could push her into it.

The Infamous Fly on Pence’s Head:

When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked Harris if she’d noticed the fly on Pence’s head, Harris responded in the affirmative. When Maddow asked Harris if she was tempted to move the fly on, Harris smiled, feigned laugh, then cracked a joke (pun) about ‘flying away’ from the subject.

If Harris knew there was a fly on Pence’s head, and Pence didn’t, why didn’t Harris do something about it? Even if the fly was only there for 2 minutes.

Why didn’t those in charge, such as the producers, boom operators, camera controllers etc. act on it in between shots?

It’s not a big issue, and I’ll be the first to admit, the borderline pettiness of even raising the point, but professionals knowing, and doing nothing about such as small event for a V.I.P raises as many questions about their professionalism, and opinion of Pence, as it does Kamala Harris’ character.

The Iran Deal:

In 2018, Harris issued a statement claiming that Trump pulling American out of the Obama administration’s 2015 “Iran nuclear deal”[i]  had violated the deal, jeopardizing U.S national security and isolating the Americans from their closest allies.”

Harris said, that this ‘nuclear deal is not perfect, but it is certainly the best existing tool we have to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East.’

While being truthful about the “not perfect” part, Harris was not completely honest about the Obama deal being the only way to stop Iran gaining a nuclear weapon.

The Iran deal only restricted Iran from enriching uranium for a short period of time.

As reported by Aljazeera in May of 2019, ‘the restrictions on Iran’s centrifuges would be lifted after the eighth year, and 15 years onwards, restrictions on its uranium enrichment and stockpile size would expire. Some critics believe it would be possible for Iran to go back on the nuclear path around the mid-2020s. Iran also negotiated the eventual lifting of an embargo on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles…’

This was also highlighted in part by Trump’s rebus sic stantibus reasonings for pulling out of Obama’s six nation contract with Iran.

The U.S. President sought to renegotiate restrictions, including ‘more intrusive weapons inspections and, what would effectively, be a permanent ban on ‘Iran enriching uranium.’ Trump, according to Aljazeera was open to a new deal, saying “‘the Iran deal must either be renegotiated or terminated.”

Trump called the deal “one-sided”, “poorly negotiated” and an “embarrassment.”

He cited Israel intelligence documents showing that Iran already had a long history of pursuing Nuclear weapons, saying ‘this disastrous deal gave this regime – and it’s a regime of great terror – many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash – a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States. A constructive deal could easily have been struck at the time, but it wasn’t. At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.’

Not that Trump’s haters noted it with any fanfare, but the President’s May 2018 announcement included the promise to “stand with the long-suffering Iranian people” and that his administration would “work with allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Trump’s speech concluded with criticism of the Islamist Iranian regime, and the acknowledgement that “the future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land, and they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history and glory to God.”

While Harris berated Trump for questioning the deal, she’s also on record admitting that the Iran deal “isn’t prefect”, but has proudly stated that if she were elected President she’d rejoin Americans to the flawed contract.

To add, during the Pence/Harris debate, Harris inadvertently admitted just how precarious the original deal was. Saying that Trump “walking away” from the flawed contract put the United States “in a position where it was less safe, because they [Iran] are building up what might end up being a significant nuclear arsenal.” (Transcript)

Trump pulled the United States out in May, 2018 for these very reasons. If Iran are building a significant nuclear arsenal, as Harris surmises (in an attempt to discredit the current administration) it’s not a stretch to say that Iran has been doing it long before 2018.

The Iran Nuclear deal was a costly band-aid misapplied, in the spirit of appeasement, to the wrong kind of wound.

It wasn’t going to stop Iran’s Regime from pursuing what they’ve been pursuing for decades: the ability to “wipe Israel off the map, and erase all enemies of Allah.”

There’s also the fact that Iran’s Islamist leaders are under no obligation to remain true to the agreement.

Under the guidance of the Quranic ‘taqiyya’, lying to the infidel is an acceptable practice if it ‘advances Islam. In some cases, by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.’ For example: Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…”  (ROP)

Harris’ use of equivocation in her cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett. Harris’ falsehoods, and discourteous inaction on Pence’s behalf during the debate, and the stereotypical mean-girl responses to it. Along with her shaky, flip-flop – it’s good, but also bad – naïve positioning on the Iran deal, give good reasons to question whether Harris is the better choice, over-against Mike Pence, for the potential role of President of the United States.


References:

[i] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) originally signed by China, France, Russia, the UK, the United States and Germany.

First published on Caldron Pool, 18th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Truth Exchange’s (TruthXchange) layman-friendly, academic discussion between its director, Dr. Peter Jones, and Australia’s Dr. Stephen Chavura is a worthwhile look at the surreptitious cognitive devices, and distortions, being used to undermine healthy tradition in Western societies.

The hour-long podcast, entitled ‘The Great Awokening: Being Woke in a Post-secular society’, is a “Wokeness 101” crash course. Discussing the jargon, and ideological foundations of Leftist constructs such as “white fragility”, “systemic racism”, who are the Frankfurt school, John Dewey’s possible connection to that Marxist movement, and its progeny: Cultural Marxism.

Jones outlined how the absence of well-defined terms automatically negate terms like ‘systemic racism’ because its founded on subjective ambiguity.

This “vagueness” was bolstered by “questionable examples” which are also used to prop up generalizations.

In order to prove the existence of systemic racism – the belief that “all institutions are solely programmed to benefit white people” – advocates have to use melanin as a measuring stick in order to give their argument the appearance of credibility.

This vagueness necessitates the art of embellishment, and the overlooking of irony.

Jones argued that “being called systemic racism based on white melanin is extremely simplistic” because skin colour is “crazy criterion.” Define whiteness.

Without a proper definition for systemic, there can be no intellectually honest justification for labelling a person, place or thing, as being proof of the existence of “white systemic racism.” Using melanin to judge an entire group of people as evil, for instance, is by definition racist.

For example, ‘white systemic racism’ asserts that racism is a sin condition that only plagues those born with white melanin.

Jones (rightly in my opinion) labelled this a product of “post-modern hermeneutics.” There is “no such thing as truth” means that destructive untruths can be given free reign. Evidence can be manufactured and made to look a certain way, as long as those with the power have control of the language and/or narrative.

Such as the abuse of language which calls abortion “healthcare”, and the once celebrated [violent] intellectual practice of revisionism (deconstructing, and remaking history, people, places and things in our own image, through a preferred subjective ideological lens).

For Jones this is the applied “theory of language as a use of power.”

Linking in Cultural Marxism, Chavura stated that Cultural Marxism, though it’s dismissed by critics as a “term invented by the Right”, “was an undeniable school of thought taking Marxist categories of oppressed and oppressor beyond the economic realm and applying to it other forms of oppression: gender, race, sexuality.”

Chavura added that we shouldn’t use the term Cultural Marxism without qualification and caution, but “anyone who says that C.M isn’t a thing, doesn’t really understand that this particular mindset, was, and is, very common in universities. Particularly from the 1960s onwards.”

The fruit of which we’re witnessing at work in society today with domestic attempts at overturning, and undermining Biblical Christianity and Western Civilization.

Disagreeing with Jones’ comment about a detachment of Cultural Marxism from Marxism proper, Chavura noted that it’s important not to “downplay the relationship. Cultural Marxism”, he affirmed, “comes out of Marxism.

This relationship is clearly present in Black Lives Matter’s hatred for capitalism. The economic dichotomy of Marx lives on in “Woke Theory” and the BLM movement, “promoting victimization” along with the noticeable “absence of forgiveness” and mercy.

In general, I found little to dislike or with which to disagree.

I wasn’t aware of the connection Jones makes between John Dewey, Marxism, and the Frankfurt movement.

In addition, I don’t share Stephen’s current pessimism about America. Underestimating the ability, capacity and faith of the American people, goes hand in hand with the historical caveats against invading Russia from the West during winter.

However, Chavura’s cautious optimism (self-described “pessimistic optimism”) does raise important critical questions. While he ‘believes in the resolve of Americans’ and (correctly) holds the view that the current contemporary context is, or is birthing a “Kairos Moment” for the Christian Church, he’s also a realist. Aware that ‘sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.’

I would add onto this discussion the crisis of Critical Race Theory. As well as the culture of suspicion spread by the Intersectionality rubric, which forces onto society an us vs. them ‘cognitive distortion.’ (Jonathon Haidt)

The: “you are what they say you are. You will do, think, speak, as they tell you to, or else!”

If, as Chavura has said, ‘the Middle-Class is being weaponized’, I don’t think it’ll be a weapon of mass destruction.  

I don’t think the Middle-Class are fully capable of being turned into one.

If the Middle-Class is weaponized, it’ll be the weaponization of Middle-Class youth. Whose parents have long abdicated responsibility for what their children are learning.

If Cultural Marxism continues to march, recruit, and mobilize jackboots without challenge, the Middle Class are in for a great culture shock, as their youth seek to act out their indoctrination. Triggered into action by reflexes long conditioned through exposure to carefully positioned Marxists, manipulative propaganda, and the mass distortion of political education.


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th October 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Australia Council for the Arts has rescinded public funding for Melbourne Artist, Casey Jenkins, after it was revealed that Jenkins planned to use the funding for a ‘performance art project where Jenkins would inseminate (impregnate) herself with donated semen live on social media.’

The Sydney Morning Herald said a legal review of Jenkin’s planned performance was carried out by the council, after Sky News presenter, Peta Credlin voiced a general concern about the potential abuse of Australian tax payer funds.

Credlin singled out Jenkins’ self-insemination for its blatant lack of any real contribution or relevance to the Australian tax paying public, Credlin also said that the Jenkins example “was the tip of the ice burg in the sheer abuse of tax payer grants for obscure projects.”

On her August 18th show [37:28-42:04 timestamp] talking with the IPA’s Bella d’Abrera, Credlin said that she “wasn’t opposed to funding the arts”, but that the live art industry is struggling, and posited: “surely, there other organizations, far more deserving of our support?”

Citing data from an audit carried out by  d’Abrera of publicly funded “art” projects, Credlin stated that funding vague projects carried out under the banner of art, seemed to be an unethical misuse of taxes. Arguing, that under the shadow of the Covid-19 recession, “the last thing we need is good money being thrown after bad!”

Bella d’Abrera told Credlin that the newish National Interest criteria applied to publicly funded art projects is failing. Mentioning that the Jenkins “Immaculate” performance “art” project was also “offensive to tax paying Catholics, who, in essence, would be paying for Jenkins to insult them.”

In a piece for the IPA, d’Abrera listed five examples of where the Government’s Covid ‘Resilience Fund’ for the arts was being ‘siphoned off to pay for an array of nonsensical – risible projects’:

  1. $10,000 to Sydney-based artist Julie Vulcan for ‘performance instillations’ called ‘DarkBody’, to connect her audience to the ‘daily activities of an intricate ecology; the essence of ‘on-goingness within a multi-species world.’
  2. $2000 to ‘another Sydney based artist, Giselle Stanborough, to create multi-platform artwork to raise questions ‘about the colonisation of our social activities by large corporations and the way social media and dating apps are changing our intimate relationships.’
  3. $10,000 to ‘Mudgee -based feminist weaver, Kelly Leonard to makes giants scarves and stitched texts which she places in various bush locations to ‘deliver messages’ about coal mining and climate change.’
  4. $10,000 to artist, Claire Bridge, whose ‘work responds to issues of ancestral transmissions, gendered violence, intergenerational trauma and the confluence of these concerns with the environment and queer ecologies.’
  5. $10,000 to Tasmanian artist Willoh S. Weiland, whose concern is for ‘creating epic ideas and destroying the white male patriarchy’.

D’Abera called the funding abuse ‘both wrong and immoral.’ Arguing that ‘small businesses are suffering, 1 million Australians are unemployed, and approximately 1.7 million jobs are at risk of being lost over the next three months due to the lockdown restrictions which remain in place across Australia.’ Noting also that some of the artists receiving funding ‘weren’t even in Australia.’

Not without irony, Casey Jenkins’ responded to the council’s decision calling it a ‘saga, weird and not making any sense.’ (SMH)

Taking aim at Scott Morrison, Jenkins alleged that ‘in follow-up discussions about the funding, a senior Australia Council member’ laid the blame on Australia having a ‘very conservative Prime Minister.’

Jenkins accused the council of kowtowing to ethical concerns about how children are conceived. Stating that the council was ‘projecting into this a dystopian future where there is a child who’s going to have the power to sue their parents because they don’t like how they were conceived.’ Saying “it’s bizarre on so many levels. I’m in a mind-boggling, weird zone.”

The Australia Council said that ‘it had no record’ of a senior member blaming Morrison’s conservative views, and that their ‘decision was “based on potential legal risk, rather than ethical considerations”. (ibid)

This doesn’t dismiss the social engineering, ‘Truman Show’ artistic and ethical questions Jenkins’ project raises.

Chief among them is whether a woman impregnating herself live on social media is to be legitimately considered art, or rightly rejected as dehumanizing, voyeuristic, man-hating exhibitionism.

Does public funding now, mean public funding should Jenkins’ decide that her next project is to livestream the abortion of the child she conceived in public?

American Humanities Professor Gene Veith’s criterion for the best art is,

 ‘Art that addresses the entire mind, thereby engaging the faculty of intelligence. Fine art deserves close attention.’’

The best art isn’t joyless.

It’s not a soul sucking extension of an empty existential abyss staring back at us.

The best artists engage in wonder, and invites us to wonder with them.

The best art forces us to reflect on what exists within and without. The seen, the unseen and the hidden. It points us to the transcendent – that which exists outside of, and beyond ourselves; inspires, picks up and carries forward.

Entertainment is a secondary aim. Protest only a third, and exhibitionism, if it has any place in art at all, is always and forever last.

Much of what we’re sold as art is – as Veith calls it – anti-art. The same goes for much of the “art” that Credlin and d’Abrera say tax payers are being forced to fund.

In addition, female criticism of a female artist cannot be projected onto the patriarchy, Scott Morrison or Church-going “iconoclastic fanatics”, as though any rescinding of funds for anti-art was the “shadow banning of art” by a “tyrannical” conservative Government.

What’s important to note here is that Jenkins wasn’t cancelled, the abuse of tax payer funds was.

References:

[i] Veith, G.E. 1991. State of The Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe, Crossway

First published on Caldron Pool, 12th October 2020

Photo by Anna Kolosyuk on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020

William Barr has hit out at the collective mindset, and organized myths which permeate what the mainstream media now call journalism.

Commenting on filtered coverage concerning the Black Lives Matter™ protests, and riots in Kenosha, Seattle and Portland, Barr criticized the MSM for co-operating together in passing down to the public a coordinated narrative.

In exclusive comments made to Townhall.com Barr said,

“I think there are a handful of reporters in the mainstream media that still have journalistic integrity, and there are some, but the overwhelming majority don’t have it anymore…The national mainstream media – has dropped any pretense of professional objectivity and are political actors, highly partisan who try to shape what they’re reporting to achieve a political purpose and support a political narrative that has nothing to do with the truth.”

This was preceded by Barr calling the largely Leftist run and operated media a “collection of liars.”

“They’re basically a collection of liars. Most of the mainstream media. They’re a collection of liars and they know exactly what they’re doing. A perfect example of that were the riots. Right on the street it was clear as day what was going on, anyone observing it, reporters observing it, it could not have escaped their attention that this was orchestrated violence by a hardened group of street fighting radicals…”

Exhibit (B) was the orchestrated narrative echoed by major news organizations claiming that riots in all three cities were “peaceful protests” vs. the high casualty rate among police officers.

Exhibit (A) was the (now infamous) chyron (worded graphic) CNN used in front of footage of a burning building, stating that the protests were ‘fiery but mostly peaceful.’

Barr, who is the current Attorney General; head of the DOJ (America’s Department of Justice), said, that the mainstream media [“national media”] are ‘not really interested so much in what really happened but in pursuing a preformed narrative that suits some kind of ideological agenda. That’s what it’s all become.”

This is Barr’s strongest condemnation of the media to date. His remarks coincide with the DOJ’s official investigation into the rioting, governing bodies, and financial backers.

Townhall stated that ‘the organizing behind the rioting in cities across the country is under investigation and federal law enforcement agencies are working to identify the individuals behind the chaos.’

The chief provoketors, Barr said, were likely to be ‘Antifa and Antifa like groups.’

Barr is without a doubt one of THE unsung heroes of the Trump Presidency. He’s no novice.

Last year he refused to issue un-redacted version of the much-hyped Mueller report for the sake of objective reasoning. Expressing concern for how the report might be mishandled, if placed in the wrong hands, such as activists posing as journalists, and concern for the legality of internal spying carried out by the previous administration on the current one.

It’s no wonder that news about Barr continues to go under-reported.


First published on Caldron Pool, 30th September 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Hillsong Church has been hit with a barrage of criticism after an employee “accidently” used the official Hillsong Twitter account to ridicule Donald Trump’s performance in the first Presidential debate of the 2020 US election.

According to the Herald Sun an ‘unnamed staffer allegedly logged into the official Hillsong Twitter account, rather than their own personal one.’ The Tweet read: ‘Can’t someone just mute Trump’s microphone!! He is coming across as such a bully. No respect for him sorry.’

The “gaffe” was quickly deleted, with Hillsong posting an apology soon after, saying, “Earlier today a staff member accidentally posted on this account personal comments about the US presidential debate, that were meant for a personal account. Hillsong does not comment on partisan politics & apologizes. These comments do not represent the views of Hillsong Church.”

ChristianPost listed a series of criticisms for the original post, starting with Greg Locke, Pastor at Global Vision Bible Church in Tennessee. Who said, ‘Dear @Hillsong, that was deleted very quickly. Careful. I sat beside @brianhoustontv at the RNC acceptance speech at the White House. Your boss secretly likes Trump.’

The Post also highlighted how problematic the “gaffe” could be for Hillsong. Brian Houston has visited the White House, applauded Trump’s initiatives regarding the preservation of religious freedom, and is part of a group of Christian leaders active in lending Donald Trump prayer support.

Criticisms of the “gaffe” was met with a similar amount of fiery criticism for the apology. Candace Cameron Bure (Hallmark/Full House/Fuller House) simply remarked, “Oooof”.  While a list of other Twitter users took the apology as an opportunity to throw more anti-Christian abuse Hillsong’s way.

The loudest condemnation came from those attempting to conflate Houston with Hillsong. They labelled the apology hypocritical. Pointing out that Houston’s support for Scott Morrison, and Donald Trump negated the Churches’ claim to distance itself from political dichotomies by “not commenting on partisan politics.”

This is despite the “gaffe, mistake, accident” – whatever – suggesting that Houston’s personal views don’t necessarily represent the views of Hillsong as a whole. The false equivalence seems to have blocked the obvious irony.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the high visibility of the Church, sins of some of its leaders, and the massive success of its music arm in recent years has brought Hillsong under a microscope.

The consequence of such close quarters’ scrutiny is that any unintentional faux pas by, or connected to the “mega-Church”, are rapidly churned out for maximum attention in order to either undermine, discredit or cancel them. And not just Hillsong, but Christianity in general.

It’s Hillsong. Just like Trump. They’re influential, but not exactly THE authority when it comes to Christian theological truths, or the conduit by which all Christians make their decisions.

It’s also almost guaranteed that most of the people acting all dismayed at the recent US election Presidential debate were just as equally entertained by it. Such is our spectator culture.

Perhaps the problem with leaders is a problem closer to home?


In this sense the debate and reactions to it are a mirror. What we condemn in others, we must first address within ourselves. For instance, eye-to-eye respect will always trump plankeye, and eye-for-an-eye relationships.

As atheist, author and ex-Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali quipped: “Everyone is talking about and asking about last night’s debate. I don’t want to make light of this because it is not funny. But where in the world do people in their seventies behave like stick-your-tongue-out preschoolers on national TV while vying for the highest office?”

The election debate highlighted the fact that the future of America, and by default her allies, will be decided by the choice between a career politician and a citizen President.

Trump doesn’t need the Presidency, Biden does. Trump’s income doesn’t ride on him being President, Biden’s does. Which of these is more likely to be the public servant Americans need? All the evidence shows that it isn’t Joe Biden.

If anything positive can be drawn from the debate moderator’s obvious favoritism, it’s that Trump was inadvertently painted as the underdog.

If the plan was to save Biden midway through, or gang up on Trump, and bait him for soundbites, it’s backfired spectacularly.


First published on Caldron Pool, 1st October 2020 

©Rod Lampard, 2020

The Little Hoover Commission’s yearlong enquiry into forest management of Sierra Nevada presented to the Californian Democrat government in 2018 gave a list of 9 recommendations.

These included recommendations for improved collaboration between, individual, local, tribal, state, and federal governments on better forestry management; as well as better cooperation between the logging and environmentalist industries.

The report also recommended that fuel load reductions be carried out on what it called ‘long-neglected forests.’ Arguing that ‘dead-wood’ materials be ‘recycled into chipboard or biofuel (biomass electricity).’

Noting that ‘California’s forests were shaped by fire’ the report advocated ‘moving from fire suppression to using fire as a tool.’

Adding that the expansion of property development ‘in or near forests, meant that prescribed fire could not be returned everywhere, but wherever possible, prescribed fire [back-burning] should be used to treat forests…[effectively] removing the buildup of forest fuels, [and therefore] further decreasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.’    

The LHC report named bad policy, drought, and the ‘pervasive Bark Beetle’ as key factors that drove California towards devastation.

Stating that the devastation was arrived at ‘through the interplay of forest management policies that created overgrown and overcrowded forests, a historic drought and bark beetles pervasive in the state’s forests.’

It then warned that if appropriate action wasn’t taken soon, ‘the problem will only worsen. [Consequently], Californians risk losing the priceless benefits provided by forests.’

The report did cite “climate change” as a factor to be considered in the overall dryness of forests, arguing that it’s 9 recommendations would help fight “climate change” by reducing the high concentration of carbon released by seasonal [sometimes] catastrophic wildfires. (Catalyst, 2020)

The 2017-2018 report noted that improvements have been made such as the establishment of the Obama era ‘Good Neighbor Authority’ (Est. 2014), which provided a ‘mechanism for states to perform work of Federal land.’ However, it concluded that more needed to be done.

Northern California’s ‘The Mercury News’ reported in August this year that the 2020 wildfires, which began in late August, are met by the Trump administration’s ‘Great American Outdoors Act’ where extra funding could be used to help pay for the ‘thinning costs associated with improved forest management.’

Trump also approved funds for disaster relief – but did so with the strong assertion that general, non-disaster relief, federal funding will be stopped if the Californian Democrat Government’s (read environmental red tape isn’t cut ) and forest management policies aren’t significantly reformed. (USA Today & The Mercury, 2020)

60% of California’s forest land is owned by State and Federal governments, with the majority owned by the Federal tier. 40% is owned by landholders (including Native Americans).

While the 2017-2018 LHC report’s recommendations give solid reasoning for Trump’s assertions, the responsibility for forest management is often put back on Washington bureaucrats.

Under an expansion of collaboration, the Obama era Good Neighbor Bill, and Trump’s Great American Outdoors act, blame for mismanagement will be harder to shift.

Looking beyond the political tit-for-tat, the LHC concluded that the sheer size of the task was the biggest issue standing against any application of its recommendations.

But as Jon Miltimore, quipped in the Catalyst, perhaps the biggest problem with equipping landowners with responsible legislation that will allow them to use fire as a tool for better forestry management, and wildfire prevention, is getting bureaucrats ‘to relinquish control. Something politicians have a hard time doing, especially in the Golden State.’

This is backed up by former California legislator, Chuck DeVore’s in Forbes who stated that,

‘some 61% of California lawmakers were government staffers, community or labor union organizers…about 10% of California’s working age population works for federal, state or local government but 56% of majority Democrats are professional politicians, former political staffers, or bureaucrats. Only 10% of Democrats representing the people of California in the legislature were business owners, doctors, or farmers before being elected. With their life experience tilted towards big government, it’s no wonder California lawmakers’ default to making sweeping claims about problems, proposing larger government as the solution, while ignoring proven common-sense measures that truly address real problems such as wildfires.’ (2018)

On a quick comparison between Republican run Texas, and Democrat run California there’s a few noteworthy distinctions.

First, Texas is not a bureaucratic behemoth. Second, according to DeVore, where ‘61% of California’s lawmakers are career politicians, 75% of Texas lawmakers come from business, medicine or farming.’ Third, ‘95% of Texas’ land mass is privately owned with a high value placed on land stewardship.’ (NRI) Fourth, Texas has 62.4 million acres of forest, California, 33 million. Fifth, Texas gets hit by wildfires. Nothing to the extremes seen in California.

Miltimore seems to be in agreement with DeVore, who concluded that

‘As California burns, California’s lawmakers are proposing laws to criminalize the distribution of plastic straws, raise taxes, re-regulate the internet, and generally make it difficult to run a business while their legislative counterparts in Texas simply labor to make the state a better place to live. California’s legislative approach fosters fires while Texas’ fosters freedom.’

The LHC’s 2018 report compiling 9 recommendations asserts that decades of forest mismanagement in California is the leading contributor to catastrophic wildfires. This report, its prescriptions and its warnings were handed down to the Democrat run Government in 2018. Using the 2020 wildfires as a political tool to push for bigger government and fear of “apocalyptic climate change” is disingenuous.

To restate Miltimore, ‘the wildfires are a reminder of an unpleasant reality: governments are poor stewards of the environment.’

It’s ironic, and a little bit too convenient, that any government screaming at us to “believe the science” re: “apocalyptic climate change”, would largely ignore warnings from a scientific enquiry. Then do its best to shift blame onto someone else or “apocalyptic climate change”, when a preventable catastrophe occurs.

The lesson? The state who provides more individual freedom and responsibility to its citizens, manages its resources better than the state whose management of its resources pushes out the citizen in favor of increasing red tape, and bigger government run programs.

Sometimes the Government just needs to get out of the way of the governed.

 


First published on Caldron Pool 8th October 2020.

Photo by Michael Held on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

LGBTQAAI+ activists have attempted to decimate a twenty-three-year-old’s animation business, after Emily Arunt, a Regent University student, declined to ‘compromise two commissioned pieces with a transgender flag, and promotion for the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement.

As a result, Arunt was blacklisted following activists, and those within the animation community falsely accusing her of harboring “transphobic and homophobic” views.

Twitter’s typical juvenile drivel used Arunt’s Twitter and YouTube handles, ‘Lupus Vulpes’, to incite a hate pile-on trend under the hashtag #lupisvulpes, with users stealing designs. Then taking to social media with reworked images mocking her artwork with symbolic LGBTQAAI+ propaganda icons attached to it.

One Twitter user called for the “#lupisvulpes community to be petty…”, with another arguing “if you continue to support transphobic and homophobic artist just because their art is good, YOU are part of the problem.”

CBN news reported that the celebrated artist saw the ‘Animation community quickly turn on her with what’s known as an “official callout” which ‘led to a six-page online document complete with links to screenshots and social media posts detailing her so-called crimes.’

In late August, refusing to “people-please”, Arunt refuted the claims, stood on the Gospel, and answered her false accusers in a five-minute YouTube video stating,

‘”I love each and every one of you,” she said, “even those that hate me and viciously attack me now. I don’t hold it against you, because I know those who attack likely have suffered attacks in the past and must be hurting deeply inside to be doing this to me. I’m also praying for you, because I want you to find joy in your life… If I need to apologize for anything,” Arunt continued, “it’s that I’m sorry I didn’t share more openly with you how much God cares about you.” (Decision Magazine)

Writing on her Facebook page, Chapter Two Creations, Arunt also thanked those who’ve supported her, saying that she was ‘completely blown away by the overwhelming kindness, encouragement and words of wisdom.’

Arunt’s work which has so far paid for her way through college, is now in doubt.

According to Decision Magazine, though Arunt believes that her reputation is tarnished in the animation community and her business is “destroyed,” she also believes that God brought her to this, and that He will bring her through it.

Those injected with the venomous doctrine of intersectionality may have struck again, but Arunt’s response, though costly, encourages another sober-minded, Christian way forward for those faced with cancellation, or the denial of trade. Simply because they refused to plead fealty via an ersatz Hitler oath or take the mark.


First published on Caldron Pool, 14th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020

It’s stating the obvious to say that the persecution of Christians isn’t taken seriously by elites, and the general public in the West.

The persecution of Christians worldwide, is taken about as seriously as the Egyptian authorities take the abductions, abuse and trafficking of Coptic Christian women.

Such abuses are either quietly acknowledged, well hidden, or don’t exist.

In a #metoo Western world, human rights abuses against Egyptian Coptic Christian women should be front page news. It’s not.

The #metoo movement melt into spectators whenever news reaches Western shores. Suggesting the ineffectiveness of a hashtag, and the docility of a complacent, selective activism.

A movement which appears more concerned with placating the “approved” image of Islam for the Muslim majority, than it is in ‘raising the visibility of violence against Coptic women in Egypt.’(CS)

2011-2013 (the infamous Arab Spring) saw some of the worst persecution of Egyptian Coptic Christians in decades. Religious freedom radically declined under the Muslim Brotherhood. Churches were burned, or bombed. Priests were gunned down, and monasteries were attacked.

In 2012 a United States Congressional Hearing into human rights violations in Egypt also heard of

‘…the disappearance, forced marriages and forced conversions

of Coptic women. [Noting that] the vulnerability and abduction of Coptic Christians is not new. Going back to the 1970s, there were many accounts of Coptic women and girls being abducted by Muslims, forcibly conducted and forcibly married.’

This was before the June 30 2013 revolution, tripped by mass protests calling for the ousting of President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Accompanying this was the outlawing of the Muslim Brotherhood, who had been quietly backed by the then Obama/Biden/Clinton administration’s foreign policies. (By comparison the Trump administration has expressed interest in following Egypt’s lead in designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation, but is yet to act in any meaningful way on behalf of Egypt’s Coptic Christians).

Suspension, then reform of the 2012 Muslim Brotherhood’s Egyptian (Shari’a influenced) constitution followed. However, much of the law was retained.

As cited by Coptic Solidarity in their 2020 report, ‘while no apostasy law exists per say. The 2nd article of the Egyptian Constitution, states that Islam is the religion of the state and the principles of Islamic Shari’a are the main source of legislation.’

According to the report, the Egyptian government’s tactic is to ‘deny the extant of trafficking.’ Their official response is that the women freely chose to leave Christian families and convert to Islam.

The 2012, United States Senate Congressional hearing uncovered some legitimate cases where this had occurred, but even in those cases ‘legal hurdles made it extremely difficult for a woman to escape the marriage and convert back to Christianity.’

Despite government denial. Evidence, and testimonies collected by Coptic Solidarity from a range of reliable sources over many years, contradict the official Egyptian government party-line.

For instance, evidence provided by Christian Solidarity International to the 2012 Congressional hearing comes from ‘Egyptian lawyers, real life cases, family members, and police reports.’

Despite government denial. Evidence, and testimonies collected by Coptic Solidarity from a range of reliable sources over many years, contradict the official Egyptian government party-line.

For instance, evidence provided by Christian Solidarity International to the 2012 Congressional hearing comes from ‘Egyptian lawyers, real life cases, family members, and police reports.’

In addition, ‘attorneys, social workers and members of the clergy interviewed for this and the previous report all attested to organized and systematic planning in the cases of missing Coptic women.’

The 2012 Congressional hearing heard of how the human trafficking of Coptic Christian women occurred.

‘Many [Coptic women] were lured into false relationships through fraudulent means or forcible abductions. These women were coerced into converting to Islam and married to their abductors against their wills.’

The few Coptic Christian women who are found testify that they’d ‘been drugged and kidnapped or kidnapped with violence. Reporting forced conversion, rape, forced marriages, beatings and domestic servitude.’

According to Christian Solidarity International, ‘abductors target vulnerable women and girls, and girls in vulnerable and unprotected moments.’

‘Captors sever contact between victims and their families. The first task of the captor is to come between a young woman and members of her family. They can do this by force, by taking away her phone, by denying her any contact with her relatives. They lock her up. They deny her mobility. They threaten her by telling her that her family would disown her. Conversion is the ultimate goal of captivity.’

This includes married women, and married women with children. One significant reason for this is that under 2012 Egyptian law, if a woman converts to Islam, her children, by law would be considered Muslim.

Coptic Solidarity’s apt term for this is ‘jihad of the womb.

The Christian Post published the report’s long list of trafficking victims, which included damning testimonials of widespread corruption, with law enforcement turning a blind eye, creating a culture of shame, silence, and powerlessness which enables Islamist people traffickers to carry out abductions with almost 100% impunity (p.8).

For instance, ‘if an adult married woman converts to Islam, courts immediately annul her existing marriage (unless the husband agrees to convert likewise) and the woman becomes free to marry a Muslim man.’ This law doesn’t apply if the married woman was a Muslim looking to marry a Christian man (p.7)

This isn’t just an issue for Egypt or the Egyptian Coptic Christian community.

In January, Ben Davis wrote of how British police have been accused of ‘turning a blind eye to the grooming of 57 young female children for sexual exploitation by a coordinated group of Muslim men.’ According to ‘former GMP detective Maggie Oliver, “girls were lost in the wind’ due to what the Daily Mail reported as being a concern from law enforcement that ‘arresting the perpetrators would result in the “incitement of racial hatred.”

The blasé response from the West has shown how naïve we’ve become. Like Chinese Communists, if the Egyptian government’s official party-line states that “no human rights abuse crisis exists”, then it must be true.

Any crimes committed under the banner of Islam is candy-coated for a gullible public, made numb by a decades long misinformation campaign that portrays Islam simultaneously as a “race” and a “religion of peace.”

It’s no wonder that widespread testimony, and any evidence that contradicts the well-built facade is easily dismissed as the fairy tales of racists, bigots and Islamophobes.

Crimes against humanity are hidden behind the gaslighting of the global community.

This is on par with what the 2020 Coptic Solidarity report – summarised here by Christian Headlines contributor, John Paluska – called the Egyptian Government’s ‘victim blaming’ (p.3).

Impunity for Islamists matches the free ride given to Communists by Western academics, some politicians and most of the mainstream media.

Tragically, like the Uyghur ethnic minority in China, this means that on the world stage, up to 12 million of Egypt’s approx. 80+ million people are essentially voiceless.

12 million people, who no matter how hard advocates scream in order to waken a docile, manipulated world, to their suffering, are left behind by the Western part of that world, because it’s paralysed by fear through the navel gazing of intersectionality (CRT) theory, and a toxic obsession with political correctness.

There’s now no plausible excuse for ignorance or inaction.

Coptic Solidarity’s 2020 report on the ‘Trafficking of Coptic Women & Girls in Egypt’ requires a response.

Related material:

https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c4666101/user-clip-kio


First published on Caldron Pool, 24th September 2020.

Image credit: Vatican & Reuters.

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Here’s my two cents worth on the over-extension of economic lockdowns and bizarre justifications for totalitarian Covid-counter measures.

It’s one thing to agree that COVID-19 is a serious crisis. It’s another to follow along blindly, as if that crisis was not being exaggerated by politicians who see a bit of easy power grabbing in it.

The either/or logical fallacy assumes there’s no alternative. In the COVID-19 case, we’re now being told by the WHO, in a significant backflip from their previous up, and down prescriptions, that there is.

1 Corinthians 2:15: ‘The spiritual person judges all things…’

1 Peter 5:8-9: ‘Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.’

2 Timothy 1:7: ‘…for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.’

Romans 8:15: ‘For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”

Proverbs 4:23: ‘Guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.’

 


Photo by marianne bos on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020

One of the first rules about giving is not parading it for all the world to see.

There’s a difference between me sharing with someone that my family and I have financially supported Compassion Australia for nearly two decades, and me boasting about how much money we’ve given to them.

Unless those asking are the tax office, it should be enough to simply state the fact about our giving, without having to prove it with subtotal, decimal, and dollar sign.

For the sake acknowledging it. The exceptions here are small businesses and corporations. Transparency exists for tax purposes. Accountability on giving to charity from a corporate income is as much for shareholders as it is for tax payers, re: the appropriate governing bodies.

Giving from personal income operates by a similar accountability structure, but has a different set of rules when it comes to freedom of information. Anonymity is to be applauded and protected. It’s none of anyone else’s business how much an individual gives from their own personal income.

There’s also a difference between a foundation, set up in a person’s name, giving to charities, and donating money to charities from that person’s own finances.

Businesses never refer to a product, or cash given out to meet a charitable need, as having been given out by the CEO, or his family. They correctly state that the business donated them.

The foundation has to be transparent; the individual doesn’t. He, or she, can remain anonymous.

As Jesus emphasized twice in His criticism of hypocrites posturing righteousness in public for all to see: ‘when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others…when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.’ (Matthew 6:3-4, ESV)

This criterion makes the morbid quest to squeeze Trump’s wallet for information that could discredit his presidency, all the more lopsided and vindictive.

As The New Yorker’s, John Cassidy made more than clear in his 2016 piece on ‘Trump & the Truth: His Charitable Giving.’ Cassidy’s piece reached hard for the fraud card, up to criticizing Trump for where, when, and how much, Trump was donating of his own money to charity.

Forbes, in a convoluted attempt at the same game, insinuated that then Presidential candidate – whom they estimated to be worth ‘$3.5 billion’ – put revenue before helping ‘kids with cancer.’

Forbes accused Trump of having ‘paid their businesses with charity money.’ Speculating that money changing hands, ‘had more in common with a drug cartel’s money-laundering operation than a charity’s best-practices textbook.’

In short, Forbes acknowledges that the Trump family gives to charity, but isn’t happy about the amount they give, where, or how they do it.

Outlining how Trump’s charities allegedly paid Trump organizations for services rendered. Forbes questions the legal and ethical aspects of Trump Charity organizations, but ultimately feeds into the now far too common dissonance of “hate Trump, because love trumps hate”.

Worth noting. Forbes lists this article as one of their “best pieces of the decade.”

Most recently, Phillip Hackeney penned a piece published by NBCNEWS, responding to news about a Nov. 2019 court ruling by Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the N.Y. Supreme Court, ordering that Trump to pay $2 million in restitution for alleged misuse of Trump foundation funds.

The ruling was based on arguments presented by N.Y. Attorney General Barbara Underwood (who’d boasted about the ruling on Twitter), alleging that the Trump family ‘”illegally” used Trump foundation to further Trump’s political interests.’

The Trump’s responded by noting that all the funds collected were eventually donated to the designated charities – something Judge Scarpulla acknowledged (NBC).

Nevertheless, the Trump family were ordered to pay the $2 million to three charities, presumably pre-chosen by the prosecuting Attorney General.

It was a political win against the President, not an ethical one.

Facebook’s “independent” fact-checkers are doing the same. Flagging posts about Trump’s giving as “missing context” isn’t out of a concern for ethics, or even charities, it’s about partisan political gain.

Snopes rated the above facts as “unproven”, even though they have video of Trump stating: “well, I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they’re doing is amazing. And we’ll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.”

USA Today claims they’re false, and the NY Times (predictably) doubts it.

My criticism isn’t about the attempt to keep Trump accountable for claims he makes about charitable giving. It’s the motive behind the “fact checking”.

By tone, it’s easy enough to discern how the real motivation isn’t to help charitable organizations. The motivation is to sink Trump.

Should said “fact checking” take down someone they don’t like, and win them a Pulitzer in the process? Well, hey, “it’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.”

It’s rich for any journalist to accuse a family of being ‘vainglorious’. Only to then go looking for glory in a financial shake down of the Trump family’s charitable works.

Had Trump not been running for President, and had there been no potential personal benefit involved, it’s unlikely many in the Leftist dominated mainstream media would even care.

Have the New York Attorney General and others, chased how the $2 million ripped from the Trumps was spent by court designated charities, with the same vigor? 

Have they looked into George Soros’ or the Clinton Foundation’s financial reach in the world of politics with the same scrutiny?

If I were in a diplomatic mood, I’d roll out the uber-understanding-wagon, layer on some sugar-coating, then dismiss the morbid quest to turn Trump into Scrooge, as a true-hearted selfless act of benevolence.

The truth is it isn’t. 2016 was an election year. As is 2020.

These are never-Trump self-serving gestures. Fueled by self-aggrandizement, and tinged with the flare of agitation propaganda, written for a rabid, radicalized mob who’s view of the Trump presidency only comes from the lens that’s been prescribed for them.

I doubt that even if Trump were to give away his entire fortune, those dragging him down, in order to raise themselves up, would find any benevolence in it.

Outbidding wars have their place in charitable auctions.

Outbidding wars over who is the greatest of givers has no place in politics.

For ‘each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor.9:6-7, ESV).


First published on Caldron Pool, 22nd September 2020.

Photo by Photoholgic on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Here’s the YouTube link to our CP review of the Chosen TV series via This Is Straya. I enjoyed being part of this. Grateful for the opportunity.

Facebook:

YouTube:


 

Darrell B. Harrison and Virgil Walker’s new freestyle podcast is #lit and then some.

The ‘Just Thinking…For Myself’ tag team hit home hard truths about the unbiblical roots of Black Lives Matter, providing reasons for why the BLM movement is a pseudo-church, packed with false doctrines, false priests, and an eschatological (end-of-days messianic utopian) “melanin Messiah”; an alternative Christ, which promises far more than they can deliver.

Takeaway points include:

              • Darrell’s well-read dive into facts about slavery
              • the pagan roots underpinning Black Lives Matter Inc.,
              • their slogans, and hashtags.
              • why genuflecting to BLM is idolatry.

Of special interest is the pagan ritualism associated with “say his name/say her name” invocations that form part of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Don’t let the podcast’s 2hr length deter you.

Walker and Harrison are podcasting veterans, with over 100 in-depth episodes, providing well-researched discussions on social, political and theological issues.

Some of the most noteworthy are black liberation theology, social justice warriorism, white guilt, the African-American context, George Floyd, and why “race” is a myth.

We recommend JT for anyone outside the black American community, who is looking to verse themselves on the all the issues, from all angles, from a trustworthy, primary source within the black American community.

Episode 103 exemplifies this.

Worth a listen on a long commute, or while kicking back in the afternoon.

(Darrell is also a blogger, and Caldron Pool contributor, whose articles can be found here)

LISTEN:


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th September, 2020.

Nine news political editor, Chris Uhlmann has launched an MSM broadside into the self-sabotaged, and slowly sinking, Victorian government.

Uhlmann took aim at the Victorian Premier, labelling the Andrews’ government’s oppressive COVID-19 response as ‘panic-stricken.’

In the piece published by the Sydney Morning Herald, Uhlmann accused Daniel Andrews of ‘destroying the village in order to save it,’ writing

‘nowhere in [Australia’s] often-opaque democracy has a less transparent court system, bureaucracy, police force or government than Victoria.’

Adding,

‘The people there have been badly served, even as some revelled in the servitude. Its systems of power have combined to deliver the wanton destruction of its vibrant society. Its government has condemned its people to a poorer future, to higher unemployment, more poverty and less opportunity.’

He reasoned that since most deaths have occurred in nursing homes, nursing homes should be better protected: ‘If you are going to throw a ring of steel around anything it should be around aged care homes, not Melbourne.’

Uhlmann also predicted a ‘global reckoning of governments,’ arguing that COVID-19 countermeasures were ‘doing more damage than the disease.’

He explained that ‘economic destruction imposed by governments will deliver millions into poverty, driving internal and external conflicts.’

Subsequently, poverty-stricken states ‘turning inward’ will push the world towards ‘more division, anger and polarization.’

Also worthy of note was Uhlmann’s damning, critical assessment of modern Australians,

While the ‘disease has revealed the character of our leaders’, it has ‘hammered home some uncomfortable truths about us as a people. As a nation we seem comfortable with authoritarianism and too many relish the role of prefect.’

Caldron Pool’s editor-in-chief, Ben Davis, applauded Uhlmann, stating,

“The whole situation highlights, not only just how dangerously deaf we can be if the narrative frightens us enough, but how willing we are to part with our freedoms and rights in exchange for the promise of safety, whatever devastating impacts may follow.”

Davis added,

“While it’s great that people are slowly beginning to ask the same questions Caldron Pool’s writers were asking six months ago, the real questions at this point are, how much damage has been inflicted and to what extent can we actually recover? Questions we might not have had to ask if the MSM had the foresight of our writers, and our warnings had been taken seriously.”

Uhlmann’s Sydney Morning Herald piece is a criticism of the bureaucratic caste’s COVID-19 disregard for civil liberties.

It vindicates the concerns of discerning citizens who, from the start of the lockdown craze, raised awareness about the lack of assurances from politicians concerning the preservation of civil liberties.

Caldron Pool have been asking these same questions, and positing the same warnings about the consequences of dubious anti-CV-19 authoritarian measures since March. We were behind the eight-ball from day one, while “fact-checkers,” and Leftists dismissed us as right-wing conspiracy theorists spreading misinformation.

As we’ve said from the beginning, there’s two sides to the coronavirus. The actual crisis, and the crisis manufactured by bureaucrats for the cameras.

Andrews’ COVID-19 response emulates Sisyphus.

The Victorian Premier is determined to keep going in one direction, applying the same damaging, flawed methods over and over again, despite (as Uhlmann pointed out) there being other options, and more information about the virus available than there was in March.

There is also a thin line between governments waging a war against the crisis, and governments waging a war against people caught up in that crisis.

Uhlmann is right. Andrews and other ‘will-to-power premiers’ have crossed that line, and the majority of Australians let them do it.

#Democracydiesindarkness


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th September, 2020.

Image: ABC Australia.

Background image: Photo by Roman Kraft on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Humanitarian hero of the Rwandan genocide, Paul Rusesabagina’s arrest on the charges of terrorism continues to raise questions.

Rusesabagina, portrayed by Don Cheedle in Hollywood’s ‘Hotel Rwanda’, is an outspoken critic of the current Rwandan Government, making his arrest look more and more like it was politically motivated.

As noted by an anonymous blogger, Rusesabagina is an ‘opposition party president, and [apparently] a member of Rwandan Movement For Democratic Change (MRCD), ’ founded in 2018. It’s argued that the MRCD has sought to ‘topple the current Rwandan Government’ after ‘founding documents were [apparently] leaked’ which indicated that the MRCD had planned a militant lead coup de tat.

While the anonymous blogger condemned Paul Kagame’s (former Tutsi rebel leader) government for a history of abuses of power, acknowledging that Kagame’s rule has ‘caused havoc, pain and suffering.’ The author also accused Ruseabagina of naïveté, and of being too close to the MRCD’s militant wing, which, the article said, ‘has caused its own fair share of bloodshed.’

It appears that Rusesabagina’s association with the MRCD, and pro-Democracy movements in Rwanda, may be the primary reason for why the Kagame government labelling the humanitarian a domestic terrorist.

From what can be pieced together across the news spectrum, it’s likely that Rusesabagina is being set-up as the face of the militant branch of MRCD.

The New York Times said that no evidence has been presented to back the charges, stating that Rwandan authorities have ‘accused Mr. Rusesabagina of helping to carry out attacks in 2018 “against unarmed, innocent Rwandan civilians on Rwandan territory.” They’ve also claimed that Rusesabagina went to Rwanda on his own.

This is despite Rusesabagina having ‘left Rwanda in 1996 for political asylum’ in Belgium. He now lives in Brussels, holds Belgium citizenship, and an American green card. (NYT)

In 2016, he put his name up for President in the Rwandan elections, calling the Kagame Government a ‘dictatorship.’

The BBC, quoting Rusesabagina’s adopted daughter, Carine Kanimba, said that his family “didn’t know how he got to Rwanda, when he was just in Dubai for meetings.” Claiming that Rusesabagina would “never have done that on his own free will because he knows that in Rwanda they [authorities] want him dead.”

As things go with the complex (and far too often corrupt) world of African politics, not all is as it seems.

Hence the fog of concern surrounding Rusesabagina’s mysterious, sudden disappearance from Dubai, and reappearance in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali. Where photos were published of him handcuffed and flanked by police.

Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame has a history of threatening, arresting and intimidating political opponents. Even downplaying Rusesabagina’s role in saving ‘1,200 people from the country’s 1994 ethnic genocide’ (Fox News). Depicted in the 2004 film ‘Hotel Rwanda’, starring Don Cheedle.

It’s seemingly well within the scope of Kagame’s pattern of governance to arbitrarily arrest opponents on dubious charges. Pro-Democracy, Rusesabagina is a big target, and if these questionable charges stick, a huge propaganda win.

This is why it’s probable Rusesabagina is now a political prisoner, kidnapped by a government, doing its best to legitimize suppression of any, and all political opponents.

Ultimately, it’s the fact that the Kagame government’s accusations don’t add up. They’re are out of character for Rusesabagina. Who once told Baptist run Good Faith Media (EthicsDaily) that ‘The best road to reconciliation is through dialogue…I believe in the power of words.’

Rusesabagina, who displayed the heart of a Pastor during the ’94 ethnic genocide, has had ministry and theology training, but describes himself as a ‘failed pastor’; writing that he felt as though God had left Rwanda in 1994, leaving himself and the nation, to face the brutality of ethnic genocide alone.

Rusesabagina struggles with the silence of Christians in Rwanda before and during the bloodshed. Especially the silence of Church leaders, who, as he tells it, either participated in the killing, or were too timid with the Gospel to call out, and counter the rising tide of ethno-political hatred, intolerance and violence.

This silence, and compliance, according to Rusesabagina, was one of the biggest contributors to the Hutu massacre of Tutsis.

Had he become a pastor, Rusesabagina says, he would have ended up with the wounded or dead who sort refuge in Churches (An Autobiography, p.173).

As a side note, the Rwandan Genocide exists as a case study in ethnic division, and racial tension, for both sides of the metaphorical Western political bird.

Rusesabagina’s description of Rwanda’s ‘racial divide’ (ibid, p.40) crushes, “only white people are racist” critical race theory assumptions, that underscore the entirety of the Black Lives Matter sentiment, and fuels the Marxist party that shares its name.

The lessons this “race” war teaches nations hasn’t clearly been heard.

Neither, I would say, has Rusesabagina.

Rwandan victims’ voices appear to have been pushed aside by the hubris of Western privilege.

The deaths of Africans are regarded as an African norm. The continuing bloodshed is ignored, as lessons are quietly dismissed as though we were more mature; placed to one side because we’ve learned all we need to from the horrors of the Jewish holocaust, and therefore, “it could never happen again.”

However, when the torch of ethno-supremacism is raised over against others, whether black or white, there’s a form of blind conformity to political narratives, and the dehumanization of opponents that reflects pre-1994 Rwanda.

From this the abyss could operate a menacing orgy of violence, devouring everything and everyone in its path. As it marches from house to house, city to city, separating the “naughty from the nice”, life from those deemed unworthy of life under another nightmarish manifestation of prideful ideological fanaticism.

And that’s exactly what we see slowly happening in the West.

Angry intersectionality inquisitors march, parading Black vs. White – us vs. them – from largely Leftist echo chambers, filled with red-faced, white leftists whose monologues of hate, are a projection of pre-programed self-hatred.

Many appearing to advocate no real peaceful way forward; advocating nothing more than a violent attempt to derail, and replace, multi-ethnic eye-to-eye relationships, with and eye-for-an-eye one.

We see the former being attacked by proponents of the latter.

The radical left attacking, or trying to destroy the relationship between the white and black community, who instead of entertaining ethnic division, or obsessing over melanin, live out an eye-to-eye dialogue of reconciliation. A dialogue that blooms beyond warring factions, shades of melanin, and the self-interest of opportunistic, eye-for-an-eye race-baiting politicians.

Rusesabagina’s arrest reminds the West of the tragedy of Rwanda, 1994.

Yet there’s silence about massacres in Nigera of Christians at the hands of Islamists. Silence about mass corruption in South Africa, causing huge social, and economic problems.

This conspicuous, selective silence is why we should note well the absence of Black Lives Matter black squares for Rusesabagina, or for Africa in general.

When it comes to good character, whether it be movement, government or individual, consistency matters.


References:

[i] Rusesabagina, P. 2006. An Ordinary Man: An Autobiography

First published on Caldron Pool, 10th September, 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Society doesn’t need to ingest poison to know that poison kills.

It’s established fact. This knowledge is tested, true; and disaster is unavoidable for anyone, who, in defiance of these truths, ingests said poison, while confidently proclaiming: “there is no such thing as an absolute truth, so ingest the poison anyway!”

The same goes for allowing children to play on a freeway, or allowing them to provoke venomous reptiles and insects.

As does exposing, or introducing children to material which solely benefits the voyeuristic entertainment of adults, and the lustful appetite of an “anything goes” unhinged, eros obsessed zeitgeist.

Society should be disgusted by it. Not just disgusted by the standard of compromise involved, nor the #metoo double standard it exposes, but also the defense masking applause for it.

Discounting concerns about actual child abuse protects offenders. Thoughtless defenders become enablers, creating a culture of silence that silences child abuse victims.

All this is painstakingly well known, with many organizations (including most churches) implementing strict child protection procedures, checks and balances.

Yet, as was witnessed last week, given the “approved” context by the current “love is love” ideological paradigm, child abuse must be tolerated, not called out.

Netflix’s foray into the area of ersatz child porn is now the most prominent example of this “truth is relative” era of arbitrarily guided “tolerance and inclusion”. The Marxist “Safe Schools” program being implemented through “anti-bullying” channels in Australia, is another.

Variety reported Netflix’s watery defense of the film, saying it went along the lines of ‘Cuties’ is great because it challenges the patriarchy, by ‘making a statement about pressures young girls face in conforming to societal role models of female sexuality.’

As Forbes tells it, Netflix has called the film a ‘social commentary against the sexualization of children.’ Quoting Director, Maïmouna Doucouré as arguing that once critics watch the film, “they’ll see that we have the same fight and we are all together about that issue of hyper-sexualization of our children and protect our children.”

Acknowledging the ‘tricky line between marketing and exploitation’ The Telegraph ran its defense of the film under the headline: ‘Cuties, Netflix review: a provocative powder-keg for an age terrified of child sexuality.’

Defending ‘Cuties’, The Telegraph told its audience to ‘forget the [right wing] moral panic’, ‘Cuties’ is disturbing and risqué, [but that’s okay] because that’s what it’s supposed to be.’

One would have to be tone deaf to the cultural milieu ‘Cuties’ has popped up in, not to hear those defending ‘Cuties’ as saying that “child abuse is okay, as long as it’s done in the name of fighting child abuse.’

I wonder if these defenders would allow their own daughter to ‘twerk’, on camera, or at a party for adult entertainment. Claiming it’s just a bit of innocent fun?

I wonder if their “innocent fun” because “sex education” defense works to explain my late-father bathing with my sister and I, as children, while playing what he called “submarines”, as he got an erection. Or that one-time game of strip poker, my mother walked in on, and shutdown.

It’s doesn’t. Neither does it justify being put in compromising situations with strangers. Being exposed to material as children, I’d never let my kids watch now; or the polished exterior of my dysfunctional childhood family home.

I wonder if their “innocent defense” explains my father chasing my sister and I around, scarring the daylights out of us, with a witch’s mask on, for a bit of “educational fun.”

I wonder if their defense works to explain the abuse he’d experienced as a child; watching people act like spectators outside the dysfunctional mess he was raised in. His motherlessness. The complex relationship with his seven siblings, step-mother and father.

Just like Netflix, I’m sure he had his rationalizing and self-justifications too.

Where adults abdicate responsibility tolerance and freedom becomes child abuse.

There’s a distinct line between educating children and indoctrinating them. There’s also a distinct line between helping children, and harming them.

It’s obvious that Netflix and other video streaming services know this, yet that persist on defending the indefensible. Why? because sex sells, and identity politics is a hot commodity in the fickle, confused, and disorienting realm of “wokeness”.

Poison cannot be called by any other name. Peeling back the label and renaming it doesn’t change its toxicity.

There is, and never will be, anything cute about child abuse.


First published on Caldron Pool, 14th September 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020

Joe Rogan’s $100 million dollar switch from YouTube to Spotify, has been met with controversy over concerns Spotify have censored the ‘Joe Rogan Experience podcast.

According to PodNews there are ‘46 episodes missing’.

Variety Magazine stated that most are ‘[“]far-right[”]  commentators’ such as Stefan Molyneux. Others include personalities such as Tommy Chong (Cheech & Chong fame), Alex Jones (Info Wars) and Mikhailia Peterson (daughter of Jordan Peterson) – among others.

Variety’s overall report was smug. Todd Spangler pointed out that YouTube and Twitter had ‘kicked Stefan Molyneux for alleged hate-speech violations.’ Then passive aggressively accused Rogan, and Spotify of being a ‘willing platform for the far-right fringe.’

(It’s no surprise ‘Spotify and Rogan didn’t respond to requests from Variety to comment.’)’

Variety did, however, clarify that ‘Spotify will become the exclusive distributor of “JRE,” Rogan will maintain full creative control over the show under the agreement. [Additionally,] some content won’t be available until later in the year’

Mikhailia Peterson voiced her own concerns about potential censorship, in a Twitter thread that challenged Spotify to explain why it hadn’t released the full catalogue, when that was what had been advertised.

Cancel Culture, and its new Spanish Inquisitors running off (toxic) Intersectionality rubrics, give good reason for the concern.

Does Spotify not releasing the full catalogue, imply future censorship?

The Rogan Experience isn’t for everyone, but as Bari Weiss wrote in May (before her protest resignation from the NYT), Rogan is filling a gap left by the skittish mainstream media.

A media too scared to tell the truth, unless it supports an organize myth, is safe-space friendly, and blue check verified.

A media which demonizes masculinity, equates melanin (particularly the lighter shades) with sin, hates Israel, kowtows to cancel culture – often surrenders truth to falsehood; and chains life to false doctrines, that promote double standards, division, blame, bitterness and unforgiveness.

False doctrines which sit at the core of new cultural laws, pushed onto Western society by the radical left.

New cultural laws that are enforced by the silencing of any opposing viewpoints that may function as a correction in the struggle to replace lies with the truth, and half-truths with the facts.

As Bari Weiss noted, Rogan likes Bernie Sanders, sees the legalization of Marijuana, evolutionary theory, and faith as open questions. Yet he’s refused to interview Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren.

Rogan isn’t afraid to question the narrative – or more to the point – he isn’t afraid to ask questions of those who are questioning the narrative.

To quote Weiss:

‘while GQ puts Pharrell gowned in a yellow sleeping bag on the cover of its “new masculinity” issue, Joe Rogan swings kettlebells and bow-hunts elk…The prestige press has become too delicate, worried about backlash on Twitter and thus is shying away from an ever-increasing number of perceived third rails.’

Think of Tara Reade. Anyone with eyes could see that her accusation against Joe Biden was treated differently by the press than the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh…You can rely on Rogan to talk about that double standard. Indeed, you can rely on Rogan to talk about just about anything at all.’

With the eventual ‘exclusive’ move from YouTube to Spotify, and the censorship concerns, Rogan has denied that he’s sold out, or that the deal would limit his ability to maintain the show’s straight-talking, raw, free exchange of ideas.

While mocking Alex Jones, and expressing contempt for Stefan Molyneux, Forbes, senior contributor, Dani Di Placido criticized Rogan for associating with ‘pseudoscience and bigotry.’ Claiming that Rogan was ‘amplifying destructive voices’, then lecturing him on how allowing those voices a platform ‘isn’t the same as platforming quirky outsiders.’

Placido, joined some leftists in all but applauding the idea of censoring Rogan, saying that it ‘made sense’, and that this new deal might be Rogan ‘moving away from the baggage of his past.’

Answering the controversy over censorship, Rogan said that, “[Spotify] want me to just continue doing it the way I’m doing it right now,” It’s just a licensing deal, so Spotify won’t have any creative control over the show. It will be the exact same show.” (Forbes)

While cancel culture’s vultures circle the deal, posturing elation at the thought of converting Rogan through fear of cancelation, and/or muzzling yet another alternative media personality, the biggest concern for Rogan could be distribution.

BNN Bloomberg said that being exclusive to Spotify, ‘Rogan was taking a risk. There’s a chance he will lose the majority of his audience, since Apple accounts for more than 60 per cent of listeners for most podcasts.’

From Peterson’s caution about censorship to Placido’s jubilation at the prospect, there’s general agreement across the board.

It remains to be seen whether the formidable, freedom-loving Rogan can stop cancel culture from getting its cold, boney death grip around the Joe Rogan Experience, and ripping its heart out on altars built by our would-be leftist overlords, in worship to their prevailing anti-liberty ideological hegemony.

I’m not a huge fan, but I’m optimistic. The reason why is worked out in what is, in my opinion, one of Rogan’s best anti-cancel culture discussions on the net: #1006: Jordan Peterson & Brett Weinstein.

The other side of this is that Rogan didn’t just arrive on Spotify. His unique podcast, and hard work got him there.

Cancel culture vultures won’t be feeding on their prey anytime soon.


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

Photo by Austin Distel on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

At a recent meet and greet with Democrat Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, Kenosha resident, Porsche Bennett, refused to read from a script, opting instead to speak what was on her heart.

Bennett told Biden and others present at the Kenosha, Grace Lutheran Church, “I’m just going to be honest, Mr. Biden. I was told to go off this paper, but I can’t.”

Her five-minute testimonial, published by C-SPAN, voiced the need for people to recognize the difference between “peaceful protests” and “violent rioters”.

Bennett addressing Biden, called for less words, more action.

Speaking to the Leftist riots which hurt the black community in Kenosha, she upheld the important distinction between protesting injustice, and unjust mayhem.

“We are heavily angry. There is a difference between a protester and a rioter. Blacks are tired of what’s going on. We came together to help get this community together.”

Her repeated calls for “action”, inadvertently condemn decades long weak Democrat governance, and keep-the-status-quo career politician Republicans. Such as failing – dead horse – programs and poor government policies, in Democrat cities and states where (controversially named) black-on-black crime is high (see Chicago and Detroit).

As Bennett said,

“We have heard so many people say, we will give you this and we will give you that. We have yet to see action.”

She noted the high presence of law enforcement in black communities, but failed to make any connection between police force presence and higher crime rates, asking,

“Why are there more police officers in black neighborhoods? Why are we more targeted than anyone else? We want action. We want to be treated just like everyone else. This didn’t start with Jacob [Blake].”

Bennett then hit out a point which, in context, lands squarely at the feet of Democrats, and the bureaucratic caste, declaring:

“For so many decades we have been shown we don’t matter.”

Racism was the implied cause, but not specifically mentioned.

Bennett’s decision not to read, verbatim, a list of demands written for her by ‘Black Lives Activists Kenosha’, appears to have been a refusal to blame her community’s problems solely on the us vs. them, white against black, ethnic division, and obsession with melanin, which fuels the momentum of the Marxist BLM party-line.

The takeaway message from Porsche is that discrimination remains a primary concern for the black community. Her refusal to read out BLAK’s list of demands also acknowledges that injustice crosses ethnic lines, and melanin – abuse of power by authorities is a community problem. (Even though some are more impacted by this than others.)

As the issue of corrupt law enforcement officers abusing their powers show.

During his visit, Biden talked up education, social development, and local issues. He followed Donald Trump’s lead in visiting the 100k strong small city that was trammeled by radical leftwing riots, in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

The riots were triggered by online footage of an attempt by police to carry out an arrest warrant on Jacob Blake that went horribly wrong. Blake, who was carrying a knife at the time, was shot multiple times from behind after he resisted arrest, and repeatedly refused requests to stand down. Police administered first aid, and Blake survived the incident, but suffered serious injuries.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel essentially described the key difference between Trump and Biden’s visits to Kenosha was the focus on law and order. ‘Law enforcement was a central presence and theme of Trump’s visit, but not Biden’s.’

Porsche Bennett’s free speech address to a leading Democrat, is a stand against special treatment, as much as it is a stand against treating a community group unfairly because of their shade of melanin.

It’s an indictment on poor governance, specifically, that of Democrats, who are elected time and time again in these states and cities. With the hope that promises made about building the community through empowering individuals with opportunity will be kept.

Injustice in response to injustice, escalates injustice.

The essence of Porsche’s testimony is lost if it’s read solely through the white-oppressing-black, Black Lives Matter (the movement) lens.


First published on Caldron Pool, 4th September 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Democrats in California have reopened salons a day after video of Democrat speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi sucker-punched voters, in lockdown since March.

On Tuesday, Democrat speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi broke with COVID countermeasures, and was seen wearing a mask under her chin, not on her face, while visiting a San Francisco salon to get her hair done.

By Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times was reporting that, ‘County officials had announced an updated reopening plan, keeping shopping malls shuttered while allowing barbershops, and hair salons to operate indoors again under certain restrictions.’

Defenders of Pelosi argued that ‘she did not realize she was breaking her home city’s rules’ (The BBC). Nancy Pelosi took “responsibility for her actions”, but did so by trying to throw Salon owner, and single mum, Erica Kious under the bus, with Pelosi accusing Kious of “setting her up”.

Kious told Tucker Colson that Pelosi’s visit was planned well in advance, “cameras have been installed for five years”, and that she wasn’t looking to make a political statement by releasing the footage.

Kious said that she only did so because she was taken aback by ‘Pelosi’s cavalier appearance’ which Kious told Colson was

 ‘more hurtful. She’s been coming in there … it’s the fact that she actually came in, didn’t have a mask on, and I just thought about my staff and people not being able to work and make money and provide for their families, and if she is in there comfortably without a mask and feeling safe, then why are we shut down? Why am I not able to have clients come in?” (ibid)

Outrage over Pelosi’s blazon hypocrisy also stems from her mandate back in July, making it compulsory for all lawmakers in D.C to wear masks. (WaPo)

The Democrat speaker of the house has also repeatedly berated Donald Trump for not wearing a mask, and criticized Republicans for ‘not listening to the science’, up to and including calling the Wuhan Coranavirus, “The Trump Virus.”

Pelosi exhibited the Covid double standard. With politicians reserving one code of conduct for themselves, and demanding another from those they are elected to represent.

Just to show how tone-deaf Pelosi appears to be about the disconnect between what she preaches, and what she does, the Democrat speaker of the house tweeted yesterday,

‘Just when frontline workers nationwide most need Washington to work for them, Republicans are still refusing to accept the gravity of this [COVID-19] crisis. The White House and Republican Senate need to get serious and work with Democrats to #FundTheFrontLines.’

Nancy can flout rules, which she herself puts in place. Then throw small businesses under the bus to save political face, but it’s Republicans who are refusing to help workers, and accept the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis.

Paul Murray summed it up well, “Again, it’s this jedi mind trick! I keep saying this. That these lefties think you can’t see what you just saw.”

Recall an article of mine from March. There are two sides to the Coronavirus crisis: the actual crisis, and the one manufactured by bureaucrats for the cameras.

File under: one rule for those who wish to rule us, another for those they wish to rule.

 


First published on Caldron Pool, 5th September, 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020. 

In reference to Kyle Rittenhouse, The Australian reported that ‘Joe Biden accused Donald Trump of letting his supporters act as an armed militia.’

The Democrat presidential hopeful laid the blame for leftist violence in Democrat run cities on Trump saying that ‘the President is deliberately fanning flames of deadly violence on the streets of American cities.’

Biden, following a loss in polling numbers, switched from the Democrat party line of supporting violent rioters under the guise of “peaceful protests” to now condemning violence, which he, and others like the New York times are trying to paint as “right-wing” activism.

The Australian’s editor-at-large, Paul Kelly (not a fan of Donald Trump) described the current American political milieu as ‘tribalism’, and warned that it revealed a ‘deeper crisis, where opponents are seen as enemies, with the entitlement to break norms to vanquish them’ attached.

Despite this, Kelly backed ex-New York Magazine contributor, Andrew Sullivan’s remarks which demonized Trump, chief among them all being the assumption that the current President won’t concede if he loses the November election.

Indirectly legitimizing the new Democrat party line which shifts the blame onto Donald Trump for Democrat mismanagement, and Leftist violence in Democrat cities, Kelly cites Sullivan as saying “Trump will use street gangs and propaganda outfits to campaign against a Biden presidency.”

Sullivan, oddly adds that the “only chance for the centre to hold is for Joe Biden (both Kelly and Sullivan admit that Biden is not a strong leader, has surrendered to the radical left, and has ‘legions of progressives behind him seeking radical change’) to win.”

Kelly doesn’t clarify how a Biden win, which hands the keys to the Nuclear weapon’s cabinet to a potential Democrat President controlled by the far-left faction, would preserve the centre. Or anyone in the centre who hasn’t already been cancelled, or threatened to be cancelled by the Left, because they haven’t complied with the Leftist ideological hegemony, and the vice grip of its – proven to be – tyrannical new cultural laws.

Neither did Kelly mention Joe Biden’s Vice President hopeful, Kamala Harris’ statements made to Stephen Colbert, that these “protests won’t stop, nor should they.” Nor did Kelly point out that it was Biden, not Donald Trump, who effectively issued a veiled threat stating, “vote for me, or else!”

The Daily Wire noted this yesterday, quoting a Biden tweet, which ‘insinuated that if he is elected, the current violence around the country will stop, but if President Trump is elected it will continue.’

Paul Kelly’s description of the election being a ‘civil war over what constitutes virtue,’ (stated with clear favoritism towards Biden), misses the mark.

I’m not ready to call what we’re seeing in the United States a civil war. It’s far too complex, resembling more a religio-cultural conflict marked by an increasing weaponization of legislation, intolerance, and violence, to enforce new cultural norms, chiefly designed by and pushed by radical left agitators.

For many leftists, as exhibited by Black Lives Matter Marxists, and Antifa this is an intifada; a new jihad, waged against all who these groups, and their backers label infidels.

Recent political conventions held by both parties in the United States attest to this.

The tone between the Democrat and the Republican conventions couldn’t have been any more different.

The Democrats attempted to mobilise people through hopelessness, blame, bitterness, fear and hate. While Republicans rallied people towards hope, grace, discipline and opportunity.

As was aptly noted by Matt Walsh.

With the rhetoric from team Biden/Harris and the accompanying Pro-Biden thug violence on the streets – should he lose – it’s not Trump who’ll be the one having trouble conceding defeat in November.  The simple fact is, unlike many career politicians, Trump doesn’t need the top job in the White House to stay on top.

The one’s who’ll have trouble conceding defeat at the next election will be the violent leftist horde who’ve already shown their unwillingness to reason and dialogue. They are a mob who’ve been encouraged by many leading Democrats since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to “take Trump down.”

This isn’t hyperbole, or right-wing nonsense, it’s  well-documented fact.

In addition, the Biden/Harris team, as Paul Kelly also highlighted, claims to want to ‘restore the soul of America from the darkness of inequality and racism.’

This is the very same team who has failed to step up and maintain order in cities they run, so as to protect the soul of communities, lives and livelihoods against Antifa/BLM looting and riots. The very same party who is endorsed by, and wholeheartedly endorses Planned Parenthood.

Which is an industry that reduces a baby in the womb to the equivalent of a sexually transmitted disease. An industry which then demands public funds to violently interfere with, and end that life in the womb (up to birth).

The killing of black baby in the womb through a systematic purge of his or her life, by an institution that profits from the systemic indoctrination of the community with lies such as “abortion is healthcare”, reveals a dissonance that derails the Biden/Harris (“safe for centrists”) platform.

Violence appears to be a way of life for those on the Left who don’t get what they want. This isn’t civil war, at least not yet. It’s more akin to a jihad that demands you either convert, pay a tax or die.

All the evidence and testimonies presented to the public through a wide range of media indicates that the appearance of Trumps so-called ‘chaotic governance’, runs rings around the incoherent, blood-thirsty and inconsistent alternative.

The conclusion for a lot of people is that the November election isn’t Trump vs. Biden. It’s liberty vs. chains.

 

Restraint shouldn’t be confused with apathy, or an excuse for indifference.

In 1775, Abigale Adams wrote, ‘Even the “devils believe and tremble,” and I really believe they are more afraid of the Americans’ prayers than of their swords.’

We need to extinguish the fire by remembering that ‘we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.’ (Ephesians 6:12)

Trump was right to call for restraint, telling Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, ‘I want [my supporters] to leave [radical leftist violence] to law enforcement.”

Non-leftists have to be careful not to shoot themselves in the foot with the loaded gun leftists’ hand them on a daily basis.

Until restraint is no longer an option, we can avoid appeasing the jihadists by not giving the radical left the war they seem to want to trigger. Be the better alternative.

As edgy author, and senior editor of Stream.org, John Zmirak recently wrote:

‘Which ever party threatens you that its thugs will burn your cities if you don’t hand it the nuclear briefcase … vote for the other party.’

First published on Caldron Pool, 2nd September 2020.

Photo by Hasan Almasi on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

I recently took some time out to chat with Mick Bridge about politics in the United States and how they affect Australians. Along with a quick discussion about the importance of father’s, and Fathers Day.

Great show. Good atmosphere.

Grateful for the opportunity.

The entire episode is available below, on the This Is Straya Facebook page, and on YouTube.

 

 


 

Aaron Jay Danielson’s murder, at the hands of an as yet unknown assailant, in Portland on the weekend was met with suspicion, not sympathy from the Left and mainstream media.

The “they don’t fit the narrative” reaction follows the same indifference shown to murder victims, David Dorn retired black police chief, 5 year old Cannon Hinnant, and Bernell Trammell, a 59-year-old black Trump supporter executed in broad daylight, at his business in July.

Details about Danielson’s death were widely misreported on social media. Some of it spawned by the one-tone conduit of the Left’s pro-anything-that-attacks-Donald-Trump, online echo chambers.

As Andy Ngo outlined on his Twitter feed, Antifa activists and Leftist journalists initially tried to claim the shooting victim was black, and the assailant a “fascist.” This social media narrative soon switched to “white supremacism” after Danielson was linked to Libertarian, pro-Trump, pro-America, counter-anarchist group, Patriot prayer.

Mainstream media headlines shift between “white supremacist”, “far-right” or “right-wing”, most leaning on an increasingly apparent mythos that Danielson was a supporter of a “white supremacist” organization, and by association, therefore a “white supremacist.”

Headlines, and most media content, failed to mention Leftist (Antifa-BLM) mob violence which harassed the Pro-Trump “caravan” (read: car parade) that had moved through Portland that day. Neither did they report on Antifa’s history of violent harassment of Patriot Prayer supporters.

Though Patriot Prayer is not listed as a “hate group” by the well-funded far-Left activist organization,  Southern Poverty Law Center, the group is on SPLC’s “hate watch” list. Adding fuel to the white supremacist narrative.

The white supremacist tag also derives from Antifa backed politicians such as Nancy Pelosi who, in 2017, ‘unfairly’ labeled Patriot Prayer’s gathering in support of free speech in San Francisco as a gathering of “Nazis” and “white nationalists.”

Overall, there doesn’t appear to be any real evidence to support Pelosi’s 2017 claims or the current media narrative.

Patriot Prayer began as a counter movement to bad government, and radical Leftism.

According to founder Joey Gibson, the group ‘is about fighting corruption, big government, and tyranny, using God for strength and the power of love, and prayer to fight the corruption both in the government and citizen levels that seek to gain power through division and deception.’ (USA Today)

Oregonlive.com described Patriot Prayer as loosely organized, existing to ‘challenge anarchists, antifascists and [“]social justice[”] protesters. Gibson has publicly denounced racism, white supremacy, up to ejecting members who hold to [ethno-nationalist] racist beliefs.’

Additionally, Gibson told KTVU news in August, 2017 that he was Japanese, identifies as a Christian, and says he’s neither a conservative or a progressive.

He also told KTVU that KKK, and neo-Nazis weren’t welcome at Patriot Prayer events, noting, however, that ‘extremists try to show up’ on both sides to rallies.

“There’s a lot of liberals who peacefully protest all the time and it’s awesome, and then you have these anarchists or Antifa who show up and hijack their message and commit violence and burn things down. Those anarchists don’t represent the liberals that are peacefully marching down the street.” (KTVU)

What this all suggests is that the Leftist propaganda apparatus is attempting to use the execution of Aaron Jay Danielson to resurrect images of Charlottesville.

All for the benefit of Leftist Democrats, who, instead of calling out the violent leftist hordes rampaging through both black, and white communities in Democrat run cities, are refocusing the political narrative, so as to shift the blame for the violence onto President Donald Trump.

This steers attention away from the victims of rabid Leftist street violence, and the weakness of Democrat leaders in these cities, who have failed to effectively respond to that violence.

What this also suggests is that smear campaigns of harmless Trump supporting groups and individuals are part of a larger political attack on Donald Trump’s reelection chances. Suggesting that hate is being weaponized by Leftists in order to secure the White House for Democrat Presidential hopeful due, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Context matters.

Democrat leaders refusing to do their jobs by not lawfully utilizing the national guard, in addition to rejecting federal help (for fear that help might make Trump look good), is, as acting Homeland Security director Chad Wolf stated, “fostering an environment of lawlessness and chaos.”

The fact leading Democrats are trying to shift the blame for Portland etc. onto Donald Trump, when they’re on record for inciting the public to violence (since 2016), would have to be the greatest political abdication of responsibility in U.S history.

More heartbreaking still, the contrast in public sympathy, and outrage for the deaths of Danielson, Dorn, Hinnant, Trammell, Justine Damond, and victims of black on black crime, when compared to that of George Floyd, and Jacob Blake, display a hypocritical trend that raises up one tragedy, while it simultaneously diminishes the other because the individual “doesn’t fit the narrative.”

The jaw dropping conclusion from all of this is that Democrat reliance on the white supremacist smear, strongly suggests that far-left Democrats need a white supremacist crisis in order to win the White House.

That was the guilt politics in play in 2012. It’s the one played out over, and over again since 2016, and it’s the one being played out again now.

It’s a ROTE, ad nauseum, manipulative “you are who the Left says you are” sales pitch that should alarm even the most steadfast of Democrat voters.


First published on Caldron Pool, 31st August 2020.

Photo by Amber Kipp on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Mostly “White”, non-local Black Lives Matter supporters allegedly torched a good portion of Kenosha’s black business district in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

The New York Post cited locals saying ‘protesters were destroying the lives of black business owners and families.’

The NYPost added that ‘several black neighbors were seen angrily screaming at some of the rioters who torched a building that collapsed, saying “it ain’t black lives matter” when they destroy the neighborhood, according to a clip recorded by Brendan Gutenschwager.’

The out-of-town rioters were “protesting” an incident between police and Jacob Blake, who, according to Anthony B. Logan and Brandon Tatum, had a criminal history and was known to law enforcement.

Blake refused to comply with stand down requests from the officers, who, Tatum said were there in response to a “domestic violence situation, and may have been acting on a warrant for Blake’s arrest.” Tatum added that “it appears as though Blake was not where he should have been.”

Madison365 obtained audio which confirmed this, stating that ‘someone called police to report that Blake was at her home and wasn’t supposed to be, and that he had taken her keys and was refusing to give them back. A dispatcher relayed this message to patrol officers at about 5:11 pm Sunday.’

Video footage shows that Blake walked back to his car after a tussle with the police officers, then reached into the left side his vehicle, appearing to ignore calls from his family to stop.

Staff writer for the Washington Post, Jaclyn Peiser asserted on Twitter, that Jacob Blake told investigators he had a knife in his possession, and that Officer Rusten Sheskey (now on administrative leave) was the only officer to fire.

Sheskey apparently fired seven shots, hitting the 29-year-old four-five times from behind, after Blake had refused to stand-down, and then refused to stop reaching into his car.

The officers rendered medical assistance, and had Blake airlifted to hospital, where he is said to be in a critical condition, and could end up paralyzed from the waist down.

Quick to post anything that feeds their confirmation bias, social media pundits reposted the event, without all the information, triggering three days of riots, which has seen ‘three shot, two fatally’ (The Post Millennial).

Despite widespread reports of locals protecting business from Black Lives Matter supporter attacks. These latter shootings lit up social media with false claims of racist attacks from white men with guns, firing into protestors.

These claims were quickly refuted by The Blaze’s man-on-the-ground, Elijah Schaffer who disproved the “fake news” after posting video and audio, providing context. Schaffer’s evidence proved that at least one of the shooters (now arrested and charged with murder) was protecting a business, after also offering aid to protesters earlier in the night.

Rebel News reported that the local Mayor and Sheriff called on the Trump administration for additional assistance, which was swiftly offered to the state, but that the offer of help was rejected by Tony Evers, the state’s Democrat governor, who had already ‘reportedly dispatched 250 National Guardsmen’ to assist law enforcement in protecting lives and livelihoods.

Townhall senior writer, Julio Rosas’ twitter thread helped unpacked the event and fallout. Reuters did the same. Adding that Blake’s civil rights lawyer said that his three sons witnessed the clash between Blake and the police, and that Blake was trying to ‘break up a quarrel between two women.’

Blake’s family have condemned the riots, while also expressing frustration and bewilderment at the police departments use of excessive force, telling CNN,

“My family and I are very hurt and quite frankly disgusted, as his mother, please don’t burn up property and cause havoc and tear your own homes down in my son’s name. You shouldn’t do it…[Don’t use] our tragedy to react in that manner is just not acceptable ”

Just Thinking Podcast co-host, and Caldron Pool contributor, Darrell B. Harrison, calling out the selective outrage from BLM supporters responding to LeBron James’ expletive “F*$K THIS MAN!!!! WE DEMAND CHANGE. SICK OF IT” rant on Twitter, saying,

‘notwithstanding his use of profanity in expressing himself, I’m pleased to see that Mr. James is so righteously indignant about the murder of little 8-year old Secoria Turner. Oh, wait. My bad. Secoria Turner’s killer was black. As you were, LeBron.’

As did ex-police officer, Brandon Tatum, stating that these activists and riots, are nowhere to be seen when an innocent black kid is killed by a drive-by shooting in their own community, by members of that community.

He noted that calls for accountability for the police, should be matched with calls for the accountability for those who provoke the police, or put themselves in compromising situations that trigger an individual being shot by authorities, in order to be stopped.

According to updated reports from the Department of Justice, on the shooting of Jacob Blake, he was reaching for a weapon.

Predictably, Democrat presidential hopeful, Joe Biden, decided to ride the wave of anti-police, race baiting violence, adding his two cents on Twitter.

The two times Democrat vice-president sprayed fuel on already burning Democrat cities in an obvious attempt to ply some political leverage from the tragedy, saying in a video posted to Twitter: ‘Once again, a Black man — Jacob Blake — was shot by the police. In front of his children. It makes me sick. Is this the country we want to be? Needless violence won’t heal us. We need to end the violence — and peacefully come together to demand justice.’

Blake’s shooting raises question about excessive force, and furthers the argument for police reform, but in context, it does not justify violence or anti-police retribution killings, especially when that violence targets the black community.

Given the context, the shooting of Blake raises awareness about the need for the community to understand law enforcement procedures, and respond to them accordingly, if officers attend a scene, regardless of their shade of melanin.

As Tatum advised: ‘Do what the cops say. Live to get that lawsuit, cause if I’m arrested for no reason, I’m suing. That’s how you should be playing the cards!’

[Tatum: https://www.facebook.com/BrandonTatum34/videos/315231679921101 ]

If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, then consistency and follow through would address the widespread crime in black communities, broken homes, and internationally, this would involve the urgency to support rescue from, and protest against the mass injustices and suffering which occurs in parts of the African continent on a regular basis.


First published on Caldron Pool, 27th August 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Legitimate alternative media is formed by a gathering of discerning citizens who understand that the fight we fight is about truth vs. falsehood. It isn’t about left vs. right, black vs. white, us vs. them.

In many ways, alt-media has a responsibility to be a counter-weight correction to what Jacques Ellul, in his book Propaganda (1965), called “organized myth.”

Fake news is a form of organized myth.

It ‘takes hold of us and invades every area of our consciousness, stimulating a feeling of exclusiveness [& euphoria, if we conform], producing a biased attitude’ along with it.

Ellul explained that education institutions play a huge role in this process. Marxist indoctrination, for example, from Lenin to Moa, utilizes organized myth (fake news).

Propaganda infused with half-truths are designed to condition people to accept, tolerate and align with the goals, and ideas of power brokers.

Much like the proverbial frog boiled alive in a slowly heated pot.

The emergence of fake news in the West was first properly identified by ex-Guardian writer, Melanie Phillips in her book ‘The World Turned Upside Down.’

Phillips argued that the war in Iraq birthed a coordinated narrative, when many on the Left employed manipulative propaganda through the repetition of “we went to war on a lie”, and manufactured an enemy they called “neo-cons” for political purposes.

Her argument is tightknit. Testimonies and timelines refute the slogan, and expose how major media organizations worked together to orchestrate a half-truth party line, which benefited Democrats in the voting booths, and propelled more and more leftists into positions of power, reach and wealth.

Throughout the Obama era, they rode on the back of the “we went to war on a lie”, and “neo-cons” organized myths, that handed the Left a blank cheque of power, signed by a gullible public.

Monologues and echo chambers perpetuated bandwagon fallacies. Scare campaigns were used to protect falsehoods from facts. Stakeholders on the Left generated an environment of tribalism, fear, conformity, denial and hostility.

Fear of losing this power and domination is what drove the Left’s 2016, reaction to Hilary Clinton’s election loss.

The same power, reach and wealth has been evidenced most recently during the Brexit campaign, the Russian collusion hoax, and now the internal inconsistency of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The #blacklivesmatter movement fails the legitimacy test, when its “claims, cause and concerns” are confronted by the lack of outrage about mass injustices, and suffering that occurs in parts of the African continent.

Consistency matters.

If only black lives in the United States matter, then the Black Lives Matter movement is a farce; proving that it is itself an insidious anti-American product of self-serving fake news, and a propagator of organized myth.

Either all black lives matter, or ‘black lives don’t matter to Black Lives Matter.’ (‘Black Lives Matter?’, Darrell Harrison; Virgil Walker)

The only antidote to organized myth is dialogue, and the freedom of speech this implies is defended by a public, who – thanks to the democratization of the media via the internet – are now not so easily sold on the self-serving fiction Leftists force feed them through the I.V drip of mainstream media.

This is why alternative media is important. It will go where the general populace has been told to tow the line, and it will question what the general populace has been told not to question.

Alternative media has an opportunity to bring the counter-weight correction.

The challenge for alternative media isn’t just found in building the better alternative, it has to be the better alternative, in word, deed and attitude.

Ego kills talent. Therefore, being the better alternative will mean fostering intellectual rigor, and a team spirit within an arena of healthy competition. Facing challenges within, and without head-on.

Being the better alternative will mean loving your enemy, answering them with a firm, gracious “yes” or “no”; speaking truth in love, and wherever possible being above reproach.

Being the better alternative will involve avoiding proverbial land mines. Being careful to not shoot off a foot with the loaded gun the radical Left hands to many on a daily basis.

Building the better alternative will involve not taking the bait, so as to avoid self-sabotage.

In sum, alternative media (for want of a better word) is truth media.

Faith seeks understanding.

Caldron Pool, The Good Sauce and others like Prager U, and The Daily Wire, are an effective multi-ethnic, classical liberal nationalist, Biblical antidote to Leftism, ethno-nationalist, and ethnocentric extremes.

Alternative media questions herd mentality by challenging, exposing and correcting the narrative.

We may not always get it right, but we will strive to live out the Christ-centered ethos of ‘speaking truth in love…having nothing to do with the deeds of darkness, but rather exposing them.’ (Ephesians 14:11; 5:11.)

These thoughts are part of a recent online discussion about fighting fake news, and media bias I had with the Liberal National Party’s George Christensen, and The Good Sauce’s Dave Pellowe.

You can view that entire discussion here:


First published on Caldron Pool, 25th August 2020.

Audio: The George Christensen Podcast  

Conservative One: The Good Sauce

Photo by Gilles Lambert on Unsplash 

©Rod Lampard, 2020

“Conversion therapy” hasn’t been practiced for decades, yet it’s a front-line concern for LGBT groups.

With how irrelevant anti-conversion therapy laws are, the implication is that the LGBTQAAI+ religion is seeking to outlaw anyone from leaving the LGBT lifestyle.

It’s highly probable then, that these laws are a Trojan horse for even more laws.

Laws that would consider it a criminal offence for anyone to help a person move beyond a lifestyle that encourages people to centre their entire identity on PRIDE, sameness, segregation, sexual preference, and sometimes a clearly discernible misogyny or misandry.

As Caldron Pool’s editor, Ben Davis pointed out earlier this week, ‘the ultimate push is to prohibit parents, pastors and religious leaders from calling people to repentance from “sexual immorality” as defined by the Bible. In their view, moral judgments, particularly as they relate to sexuality, should now be determined and imposed by the State, not God.’

These new cultural laws appear to lock individuals into a way of life, by locking other people out.

If so, it’s misleading to defend these laws as truly inclusive, liberating or even empowering.

With its negative implications for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion, anti-“conversion laws” are potentially as oppressive for the LGBT community as they are for the 97% heterosexual majority.

According to The Australian Christian Lobby’s legal analysis of the latest bill proposed for ACT:

1. ‘A parent counselling their male 5-year-old child that he is a boy, when he wants to be a girl, could be subject to criminal proceedings.
2. A faith-based school that teaches there are two genders could end up before the Human Rights Commission.
3. A pastor who teaches a Biblical view of sexuality could face the same fate.’ [i]

This isn’t an exaggeration of the LGBTQAII+ lobbyists’ position.

In February, Switzerland ‘voted in favour of new laws that would make “homophobia” a criminal offense punishable by fines and up to three years imprisonment.’

It’s the same all across the West.

Under the “Pride” movement’s corrosive hegemonic power, laws are being pushed through parliaments which will legally force society to lie to children about their own biology, as well as who their biological parents and siblings are.

The surreptitious nature of these laws is also established by how they exclude transgender conversion “therapy”.

Since “conversion therapy” has been established as harmful. Shouldn’t anti-conversion therapy laws include a ban on LGBTQAAI+ lobby groups encouraging children to irreversibly mutilate their bodies with surgery and chemicals, without parental guidance, and accountability?

If not, why not?

Commenting on Queensland’s “solution looking for a problem” anti-‘conversion laws’ in February, C.P’s Evelyn Rae noted:

It would be rightly considered child abuse if society, groups or individuals affirmed a teenager’s self-harm, negative self-image and/or eating disorder.

Yet, here groups are actively pushing arbitrary laws which lock individuals into a belief, identity, pattern of behaviour and lifestyle.

Outlawing outdated, non-existent practices in a contemporary context is a pretext for laws that will cancel anyone not in agreement with the ideology behind them.

Ten years ago Melanie Phillips documented this well, ‘in Britain, left-wing totalitarianism wears the pained smile of “good conscience” as it sends in the police to enforce “hate crime” laws, drags children from their grandparents to place them for adoption with gay couples, or sacks a Christian nurse for offering to pray for her patient.’ (2010, p.253)

Utopianism demands total allegiance. State terror cannot solve the problems of a society that has detached itself from objective morality. The consequential soul crushing void cannot be answered by inherently flawed ideological movements, that parade themselves as political messiahs.

As Phillips wrote, ‘from the Committee of Public Safety to Iran’s morals police, from Stalin’s purges of dissidents to British and American “hate crime” laws, utopians instigate coercive or tyrannical regimes to save the world by ridding it of its perceived corruption.’ (2010, p.257)

Unnecessary, arbitrary anti-“conversion laws” open the door for anti-discrimination laws to transition from being a shield into being a weapon.

Ambiguous, subjective, whim of the moment laws, are the lifeblood of tyranny.

Governments should be cautious, if not entirely free from legislating arbitrary laws that will ultimately punish free citizens from refusing to align with Leftist, LGBT ideology, or punish people for apostatising from the LGBT religion.


References (not otherwise linked):

[i] ACL, ‘We Can No Longer be Silent & Comfortable’, News of the week, 19th August, 2020

[ii] Phillips, M. 2010. The World Turned Upside Down, Encounter Books

First published on Caldron Pool, 19th August, 2020.

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Cartoon: Artist unknown

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

The murder of Cannon Hinnant exposed systemic bias in the mainstream media. The majority of news outlets not reporting the execution style murder of a five-year-old white boy at the hands of a black neighbor, wasn’t a glitch.

WaPo dismissed concerns about media bias, claiming conservatives were politicizing Hinnant’s death, because Hinnant’s family don’t believe “race was a motivating factor in the killing.”

An assertion which went against WaPo’s acknowledgement that investigating authorities have not yet established, or released a motive for why Hinnant was executed.

Though, the “Democracy dies in darkness” news organization begrudgingly took a moment to shine a light on the tragedy. Half of it was a criticism of conservative media, employed as part of a justification for the silence of, or half-hearted reporting from, most leftist news organizations.

The article then rationalized the lack of reporting (read: justification for a lack of concern) strongly suggesting that reporting the execution of five-year-old Cannon in front of his sisters, would contradict the “white privilege” and “systemic racism” narrative being pushed by these organizations.

The apparent apathy, and moral rationalizing, for what amounts to a relative media ‘black-out’ when compared to George Floyd’s horrific death, further suggests that these mainstream media organizations are complicit in protecting the us vs. them, black vs. white, and Left vs. Right propaganda that’s been circulating since Hilary Clinton’s election loss in 2016.

The WaPo article overlooked – rather omitted – that the chief concern over the lack of reporting about Hinnant’s death, was the double standard within Leftist media organizations, not “race.”

Had Cannon been a black five-year-old child, executed by a white male, the largely leftist mainstream media would be lined up for days fueling division, supporting riots, and filling panels with “expert” upon “expert”, fresh off-the-conveyor-belt conformity of Leftist dominated academic ivory towers.

The double standard is as clear as day. The value of Hinnant’s life was weighed, and measured according to the colour of his skin by so-called “anti-racists.” The mainstream media’s concern for how this might impact their image, and that of the Black Lives Matter movement, over against the death of an innocent child proves my point.

The apologetic self-justifications prove it. Media organizations are lying if they say otherwise.

The blunt, simple truth behind the lack of widespread reporting, and public concern, is that young Hinnant was the wrong colour melanin to be of any use to Leftist power-brokers, their groupies, and propaganda machines.

Left-wing media do not consider Hinnant’s execution at the hands of a black man to be newsworthy, because his murder is a strong counter-point to the Marxist Black Lives Matter, us vs. them, fear-based false narrative, which they use ad nauseum, to stigmatize “all white people as racists chasing down black people in order to execute them.”

This is the general rule of thumb for Marxists.

Martin McCauley gave the practice sharp relief when he explained in ‘Stalin & Stalinism’ that ‘Stalin deliberately exaggerated the danger from the right [within the Soviet bureaucracy] by accusing them of betraying the working class and the revolution. If anyone refused to fight the right then he too, declared Stalin, was a traitor.’ (1983)

Such thinking might explain why a few “fringe” Black Lives Matter supporters celebrated the execution, here and here.

In addition, if BLM were solely about police brutality, as some claim, then why did they not fight for Justine Damond? Why did they turn her murder at the hands of a black police officer into a defense of that police officer?

It’s reasonable to assume that the Marxist BLM movement and its sycophants could have stopped the police behind George Floyd’s death. If BLM Inc. hadn’t thrown the Justine Damond incident upside down by disregarding the victim, in trying to exonerate the villain because of their obsession with melanin.

Damond’s murder was a warning sign, but BLM never pushed for police reform, never rioted in the streets.

Why? a) Damond wasn’t the right melanin. b) because BLM Inc. are busy selling Marxism like crack on every street corner they can find, to an easily manipulated, gullible public who think they’re buying a cure for the sinful condition of the human heart.

What’s established by the behavior of BLM in the Damond case, is that it’s well within the parameters of Marxist privilege to once again disregard the victim, in an attempt to exonerate the villain.

The privilege on display isn’t white, nor is it black. Our fight isn’t about black vs. white, neither is it left vs. right, it’s about truth vs. falsehood.

There is solidarity in suffering.

But there were no black squares for Cannon, or his sisters. Just convenient silence.

Here’s the straight-up, fact-based bottom line.

If you sent a shout out about George Floyd’s horrific death, but have no clue who Cannon is, or what happened to him, you’re not only a hypocrite, you’re a social media show-pony of the highest order.

Media bias is revealed by its blanket silence.

Cannon Hinnant’s life mattered.

#sayhisname


First published on Caldron Pool, 17th August, 2020.

Photo by Alex Dukhanov on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

The disturbing ease and security from which some anti-conservatives operate on social media often helps reveal cracks in the Left’s masquerade of sinless benevolence.

Overconfident statements, built on the self-righteous belief that they the majority shares their views, often leads to unintended consequences.

Such forthright statements can take the form of confessions showing just how far to the Left, many anti-conservatives have gone.

It’s a form of “Dutch courage.” Where instead of dealing with actions and confessions drawn out by alcoholic inebriation. Actions and confessions are spawned from an intoxicating sense of entitlement to power over others.

This was demonstrated by Philadelphia teacher, author, and columnist, Matthew R. Kay, who tweeted concerns about virtual learning, on the grounds that “conservative” parents might overhear, and therefore interfere with what he was teaching their children.

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh explained that Kay was ‘worried conservative parents would be able to interfere with the “messy work” of indoctrinating children into critical race theory, gender theory, and other left-wing dogmas.’

The apt Dennis Prager asserted, “They know it’s propaganda. A teacher, who teaches, NOT INDOCRTINATES, wants their class recorded. Why wouldn’t they? […] It’s a betrayal of parental trust to indoctrinate rather than teach.”

WBCK, Michigan talk show host, David Renkiewicz posted a series of questions on air about the assumptions behind Kay’s tweets.

‘Why would a teacher who teaches English be teaching “equity and inclusion work”?’

‘Why is he so ashamed at what he said or why keep it hidden from the world?’

‘What exactly are you doing with or to those children that you must hide your thoughts?’

‘Why would a teacher, any teacher be concerned about parents watching their class lesson on-line?’

‘Why would a teacher, any teacher be worried about “what happens here stays here”? ‘

‘We all know that phrase is commonly used as “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”.  When someone says what happens here stays here it is usually someone who is up to no good.’

Renkiewicz shared Walsh’s conclusion.

In essence, Kay telling the world that he wanted to keep parents away from discovering what their kids are being taught in the class room, in particular about sexuality, sounded like a predator, grooming children for sex.

Kay’s “Dutch courage” is a good example of how far to the Left anti-conservatives have gone. His words weren’t a mindless midnight post, later regretted, then deleted. They were a graphic exhibition of the fear, cognitive distortions, hatred and totalitarianism that defines so much of what exists as anti-conservativism today.

With a shared knowledge of 20th Century history, both sides of the political isle should be concerned about this revelation. They’re not. After going viral, conservative media were the only organizations to carry and discuss the implications of Kay’s comments.

Townhall wrote, ‘conservatives have been sounding the alarm about public school indoctrination for years. Kay’s unwitting admission not only shows that these concerns are warranted but demonstrates just how entitled many teachers have become to indoctrinating other people’s children.’

The Nazis epitomized the criminal distortion of a child’s mind through State control, and parentless education.

During the final weeks of the siege of Berlin, war-weary veterans were kept away from the Hitler Youth for fear of “interfering and destabilizing” their fanaticism.

The Nazis wanted to maintain the fanaticism it had created in children raised on SS propaganda, by keeping those children from the truth about how the war was going. [i]

Likewise, Communist Chinese indoctrination of children coincides with learning to read.

The aim, as Jacques Ellul explained,

‘is fixed and precise. The people must become Marxist. Appropriate education for a Marxist is to teach children a Marxist catechism, to give them a Marxist conception of the world in history and science…Child education is completely integrated into propaganda…Little children are conditioned so as to make their subconscious receptive to the verities of Socialism.’ [ii]

Kay’s tweets admit that there are propagandists parading as educators. Such comments echo the dangers of statist control and parentless education.

Homeschool where you can, when you can, if you can.

Education begins in the home.


References:

[i] Best, N. 2012. Five Days That Shocked the World, Osprey Publishing, & Guido Knopp, 2017. Documentary: The Hitler Youth, Amazon

[ii] Ellul, J. 1965 Propaganda

First published on Caldron Pool, 15th August 2020.

Photo by Morning Brew on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Powerful and unique are two of the best ways to quickly describe season one of ‘The Chosen’, a ‘pay-it-forward’ episodic, visual chronicle of the life of Jesus.

The series is free to watch via an app, with the options of paying for the entire season or paying as you go. Meaning that each episode watched has been paid for by someone else, and it’s now up to you to pass that kindness on.

The pay-it-forward option also invites viewer ownership in the continued success, and advancement of the series.

There’s a list of things to like about ‘The Chosen’.

It isn’t Christian kitsch. It’s not bumper sticker theology, nor is it a grind to push through. It’s not cringe-worthy to watch, and it’s careful in handling the events revealed in the New Testament. The pay-it-forward method is ground-breaking, and the expositional bridge brings together a thought-provoking, historically accurate, multi-ethnic retelling of Jesus, as would have been witnessed by the New Testament’s original audience.

The music also deserves a mention. Like a lot of art, music takes words further than words and images can go. This is reflected in the ‘stomp and clap’ theme song ‘Walk on the Water,’ elevated by Ruby Amanfu’s vocals. Even with the theme song’s much brighter tone, it’s overpowering nuance has an engaging impact reminiscent of Fever Ray’s ‘If I had a Heart’ used in the History channel’s Vikings series.

The score for ‘The Chosen’ was penned by composer Matt Nelson and Jars of Clay lead singer, Dan Haseltine. Haseltine said he signed on because he was intrigued by the way in which director, Dallas Jenkins was drawing out the human relevance of the New Testament’s record of the life of Christ.

Haseltine described the creative inspiration behind the music as a fusion of slave spirituals, blues, and middle-eastern music; calling it ‘a combination of three textures, which aims to create a very human sounding musical bed for the show.’

Nelson (rightly) gave a thumbs up to ‘the raw, slightly out-of-tune sound’ saying that it ‘gives the series an authenticity’ that ‘brings out those [raw human] elements in the presentation of the story.’

Dallas Jenkins describes the series as being about a ‘mix of pain and hope. [That in midst of] immense suffering, [there is] also this dignified beauty that came from the hope in this belief that God was actually present and that there was going to be rescue. That’s something that I think was also taking place two thousand years ago.’

Experienced actor, and Christian, Jonathan Roumie plays the role of Jesus, telling Catholic Weekly that his focus for the role was God’s ‘infinite compassion and mercy. Otherwise it’s just a very pale representation of who I understand Him to be.’

The Chosen’ builds on the quality production standards set by the Visual Bible’s 1993 Word-for-Word ‘The Gospel of Matthew’, Dreamwork’s’ ‘Prince of Egypt’, Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’, ‘Risen’, ‘The Nativity Story’, ‘AD: The Bible Continues’, and  ‘The Young Messiah.’

Roumie’s on-screen portrayal of Jesus combines the infectious joy of Bruce Marchiano’s portrayal of Christ in the Visual Bible, with the gravitas of the Passion’s Jim Caviezel.

The team capture Jesus’ soberness, sass and sense of humour, minus the cartoonish caricatures. They bring the Gospels to life, and invite us to participate in that journey with them.

According to the official website,The Chosen’ is ‘the first ever multi-season show’ of its kind. It’s also the ‘number one highest crowd-funded media project of all time at $10 million from over 19,000 people, translated into 50 languages and counting.’

Season one of ‘The Chosen,’ with the option of paying-it-forward, is free to watch via the app in app stores.

Highly recommended.


Image: VIDANGEL Studios

© Rod Lampard, 2020

‘This apparent indifference would once have exasperated me. I think now that it is the mark of a great [flawed] faith [in people, society & Government]; a great, unconscious pride. None of these men could possibly think the Church was in danger, for whatever reason. And of course my confidence is no less than theirs, but probably of another kind. Their sense of security horrifies me.’

‘The Church is not an ideal to be realised, she exists, and [we] are part of her.’

(George Bernanos, 1936. Diary of a Country Priest, p.27)

 


 

It might surprise the self-righteous, Covid-1984 surveillance and speech police, that Australia’s Healthy Minister, Greg Hunt, has been funding research into the “controversial” drug hydroxychloroquine.

According to an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald in early June, ‘the federal government was increasing funding for research into hydroxychloroquine, announcing that it was giving $170,020 [sic] as part of a $66 million dollar investment into a range of research projects to fight COVID-19.’

Contra to many a Soc-Med armchair expert, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute director Professor Doug Hilton ‘defended the research, stating ‘what we’ve learnt is that if you provide hydroxychloroquine to very sick patients, you have to do so carefully. I think there is still a huge amount of scientific debate on the usefulness of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, and I think there is absolutely required to be more clinical trials.’ (SMH)

Professor Hilton doesn’t consider the drug a cure, or a treatment, but said that ‘if you look at the scientific evidence, and if you read the papers rather than simply reading the tweets about hydroxychloroquine, I think the consensus is it could well be an extraordinarily-useful preventative.’ (ibid)

Hunt backed the research despite the WHO halting its own study, as a result of safety concerns, which were raised in a Harvard affiliated study published by The Lancet medical journal, claiming to have ‘conclusively proven’ that hydroxychloroquine was risky and ineffective against COVID-19.

Since publication that ‘study has had its validity’ challenged ‘after [two] corrections were published with the journal taking the unusual step of putting an ‘expression of concern’ on it.’

According to the SMH, ‘Australian scientists poked holes in it, pointing out that the study seemed to include more Australian deaths than have actually occurred. Along with a range of other issues that have now been identified, with almost 200 scientists signing an open letter raising concerns about the study.’

This was supported by the New York Times in mid-June, which added that ‘the experts who wrote The Lancet also criticized the study’s methodology and the authors’ refusal to identify any of the hospitals that contributed patient data, or to name the countries where they were located.’

In a rejection of the scientists concerns of the study’s claims against hydroxychloroquine, as of today, there is, and has been no independent review of its data, methodology and source material.

To add insult to the potentially massive injury the study has done across the globe, it remains live on The Lancet’s website.

The Australian Health Minister has been interested in hydroxychloroquine as a probable treatment or preventative for COVID-19 since March.

9news’ A Current Affair stated in April that Hunt had imported a ‘large supply’ of ‘hydroxychloroquine for doctors to use them with patients who are in hospital.’ Noting that ‘the advice Mr Hunt and the government have received is that experts are “cautiously hopeful” hydroxychloroquine can have an impact.’

Quoting from the same interview, Medical Republic dropped Donald Trump’s endorsement of the drug next to side-affects reported by French political magazine Le Point, and blamed Trump’s endorsement for ‘disastrous off-label use’, while stating in the same article that medical professionals were ‘prescribing hydroxychloroquine for themselves, other doctors, and their families.’

The implication that thousands of highly educated medical professionals are prescribing hydroxychloroquine, based squarely on Donald Trump ‘endorsing the drug’ is ludicrous.

Taking all this into account, it’s not a stretch to say that the politicisation of hydroxychloroquine isn’t the handiwork of Donald Trump, it’s the result of Leftist bureaucrats, and spin-doctors looking to deny Donald Trump a fair go at seeking re-election.

Look at how increasing anecdotal evidence is being suppressed by Silicon Valley as part of Big Tech’s ongoing support of The World Health Organisation.

Note well how Big Tech are supporting the same organisation that cheered on people calling Donald Trump and Scott Morrison’s travel bans on China, “racist”.

This is the same organisation that was more concerned about giving the Chinese virus a politically correct name instead of backing quarantine procedures that would have saved lives and livelihoods.

The same organisation that issued an authoritarian fiat back in February/March, with the justification that naming the virus from its point of origin – as has been tradition across the globe – was now apparently “racist”.

The same organisation that ‘kow-tows’ to the Communist Chinese Party, as Executive Director of UN Watch Hillel Neuer told Sky News in May, by running interference for the CCP in ‘a fight against any attempt to hold the CCP accountable.’

The Australian Government’s early move to supply hydroxychloroquine, and their funding of research into the drug as a weapon against COVID-19 is a condemnation of those suppressing anyone mentioning the word.

Hunt’s backing is justifiable. The sacrifice of medical professionals, patients, and freedom of speech isn’t.

Lives are riding on the research into hydroxychloroquine. The suppression of any data that could help speed up this research betrays a catastrophic contempt for human life.


Additional references:

The BBC: Hydroxychloroquine being ‘discarded prematurely’, say scientists

Note:

This is the third in a series of articles I’ve written on this subject. Social Media Companies have shadow banned each one.

First published on Caldron Pool, 10th August 2020.

Photo by Halacious on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

In his latest fireside chat, Dennis Prager addressed the politicisation of hydroxychloroquine.

The founder of PragerU said he was “disturbed by the mockery of Doctors who believe hydroxychloroquine and zinc can help people in the very earliest stages of covid.” He also stressed the importance of zinc, in its use alongside HCQ, noting a series of interviews with at least one Doctor talking about his experience working with COVID-19 patients.

The opposition to HCQ, “which is overwhelmingly on the Left, is political,” he said. Powered almost entirely by an hysterical hatred of Donald Trump, who recommended it early on.

According to Prager, “we’re going from hysteria to hysteria all based on a lie.”  He pointed to Russian Collusion, which turned out to be a hoax, and the contradiction between the message and practice of apocalyptic climate change advocates, who claim the sky is going to fall if we don’t revert back to stone age existence within twelve years.

Calling the hysteria over HCQ “phony”, he said “I believe this, because I’ve been taking hydroxychloroquine and zinc as a preventative.” He added, that HCQ has been around for fifty years, and there’s people who’ve been taking it for decades. For instance, “when anybody who goes to a place where there’s Malaria. It’s side-affects, such as heart arrhythmia, are rare occurrences.”

Highlighting the irony of the “Left, who hate Big pharmaceutical companies” being in agreement with big pharmaceutical companies over HCQ, Prager illustrated that Left’s position was hypocritical. The hatred for Trump, seems to have trumped the hatred for Big Pharma. Since it’s “big pharma who’s really against HCQ, because it’s unbelievably inexpensive.”

This unholy alliance appears to based on a mutual hatred of the president. Trump has said that Big Pharma ads against him are retribution for lowering the price of drugs, and being the first president to do so. Trump tweeted, “Big Pharma is taking ads against me because I am MASSIVELY lowering your drug prices, which is obviously not good for them; Medicare premiums will also be going down.”

Fox news reported that the PhRMA trade association said it was willing to talk to the Trump administration about lowering the cost of drugs, but refused to sign on to policies that “allowed foreign governments to set drug prices.”

‘This refers to a component of one of the president’s executive orders, known as the “favored nations” policy, which would require Medicare to purchase drugs at the same prices paid by foreign countries, which the president said would prevent the U.S. from continuing to subsidize the cost of research and development for the entire world.’ Fox added.

This supports Prager’s point, not just about the weaponisation of medicine, but also the “corruption of science.” In a bold follow up he stated that the Left’s “hatred of Trump has perverted their ability to see reality. I believe that there is blood on the hands of all the doctors, all the media people, who are keeping people, who are in the early stages of COVID-19 from taking HCQ”

The fireside chat recalled how doctors have been removed from their posts, and had posts removed from social media for advocating a second medical opinion on HCQ. It recounted how those doctors are being ridiculed unprofessionally, by professional colleagues.

Echoing the sentiments of anyone up to date on the HCQ saga, Prager said, “I’m angry. I’m angry because people are dying because of the Left; people are dying because of the New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. People are dying because of doctors who’ve decided to politicise science. I’m not for HCQ becuase Donald Trump recommended it. I’m for it, because it works.”

As for evidence, Prager cited the Times of India, saying “the second largest country in the world in terms of population, more than 5,000 Indian police officers in Mumbai were given a prophylaxis drug meant to prevent COVID-19. They’re giving it to health workers. All the people on the front line in India are being given hydroxychloroquine. India doesn’t care about Donald Trump. India doesn’t care about Left and Right, it cares about saving lives.”

Prager then outlines magazines who’ve been pressured into publishing negative studies of HCQ, and questions the long term affects of precedents involved in using science as a veil to censor anything that challenges Leftist ideology.

His 30 minute fireside chat can be viewed here.

He’s right and he inadvertently backs everything I’ve written on this subject in the past two weeks.

In case you missed those – (and it’s likely you have, because Social Media platforms are shadow banning Caldron Pool’s HCQ content) – here are the links:

1. Big Tech Spin Doctors Ban Viral Video of Real Doctors Offering a Second Opinion on COVID-19

2. Using the COVID-19 Crisis For Political Gain Has Precedent

3. Australia Increases Funding of Research Into ‘Controversial’ Anti-COVID-19 Drug

If November produces a Democrat president, don’t be surprised if COVID-19, the Marxist Black Lives Matter political party rallies, and Antifa thugs showboating for the media – as they tear up Democrat run cites – completely disappear from view.

Lives are riding on the research into hydroxychloroquine. The suppression of any data that could help speed up this research betrays a catastrophic contempt for human life.


© Rod Lampard, 2020

It’s not baseless to suggest that people with vested political interests are using third party operators to suppress information about an alternative treatment to COVID-19 in order to win an election “costs be damned”.

Precedent exists.

At least one leading Democrat is on record for seeking the help of a Communist nation to stop the re-election of a duly elected President of the United States.

Edward Kennedy sought out Soviet intervention in American politics, with the goal of removing Reagan from office and undermining the Carter administration.

Michael Reagan (Ronald Reagan’s adopted son), writes that

‘Former intelligence officer Herbert Romerstein dug through the Soviet archives after the fall of the USSR and uncovered secret documents written by KGB agent Victor Chebrikov. The documents revealed that Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy had sent a friend, former Senator John Tunney of California, to contact the KGB.

Tunney’s mission: undermine then-President Jimmy Carter. On March 5, 1980, as Kennedy was challenging Carter in the primaries, Tunney met with the KGB and urged the Soviets to sabotage Carter’s foreign policy efforts.’

In addition,

‘the closing days of the 1980 presidential campaign, while trailing Ronald Reagan in the polls, Jimmy Carter sent a political ally, industrialist Armand Hammer, to a secret meeting with Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin at the embassy in Washington. Hammer asked the Soviets to help Carter win votes in key states by allowing [persecuted] Jewish “refuseniks” to emigrate to Israel.’

According to Reagan’s son, in 1984, Carter, made a similar move with the hopes of derailing Reagan’s re-election.

To add, Reagan stated that ‘then Speaker of the House Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill privately told Ambassador Dobrynin that it was in everyone’s best interests if the Soviets would help the Democrats keep “that demagogue Reagan” from being re-elected.’

John O’Sullivan (President, Pope & Prime Minister) supports this rundown of events. He describes how the best Reagan’s opponents could do against him was build up support from distorted interpretations of ‘peace through strength.’

The red herring ‘warmonger’ political narrative pinned to Reagan overlooked the back-door diplomacy of the Reagan administration, which was pulling open closed doors, creating a never before seen understanding between the USSR and the United States, along with the subsequent nuclear treaties which followed.

Based on Soviet documents uncovered by Tim Sebastian in 1991,  Kennedy  did approach the Soviets, and did so ‘several times in attempts to advise the Soviets on the best way to outwit Reagan.’

O’Sullivan discusses how, through the KGB, Yuri Andropov was approached by Kennedy ‘requesting a personal interview with him, on the grounds that it was “in the interest of world peace.”

This is backed by Forbes in an article headlined, ‘Ted Kennedy’s Soviet Gambit’, which states that “Kennedy proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.”

The official defence for Kennedy comes from two contradictory angles. The first is that he was trying to head of the ‘militaristic policies of Reagan,’ (O’Sullivan). The second, that ‘KGB files weren’t to be trusted’ (PJ), so it’s all KGB fiction.

As predicted, self-described, “non-partisan”, Left-wing “fact-checker”, PolitiFact, disregarded the evidence, and flat-out ruled the event “false!”

It’d be a deliberate denial of the events leading into 2020, to say that The WHO (which has proven itself to be happy to serve the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. Trump has opposed both, and pulled back U.S funding) aren’t politically aligned; or that a Leftist led, Democrat-Big Tech-Mainstream media cabal, aren’t actively doing what they can to win back power in the U.S. November election, at-all-costs.

All these groups have clear motive, and all these groups benefit from not allowing people access to a second medical opinion on treatment for COVID-19, by shutting down Doctors and other experts who seek to do so.

Jacques Ellul, writing on the formation of men’s minds, wrote that ‘propaganda justifies [self-centred] rationalisation; it also eliminates anxieties giving man and woman assurances formerly given to them by religion. Everything can be explained, thanks to propaganda. It gives them special glasses through which they can look at present-day history and clearly “understand” what it means. There is no tolerance for its being questioned. The man or woman who justifies themselves and unconsciously plays this farce not only believes it, but also has the need for others to believe it.’ (1965:156-159)

Taking into account the propaganda surrounding the Wuhan Coronavirus, it’s naive to think that the mass silencing of doctors over their assertions about hydroxychloroquine is about “saving lives.”

Observe the way in which those Doctors are being banned, vilified and misconstrued. Look at how anyone who steps in to support those doctors with a well-reasoned argument, are accused of “putting lives in danger”; and are called “deniers of the science”, “conspiracy theorists”, and “fake news”.

These “approved”, pre-scripted labels are an attempt at moral justification – self-centred rationalisation – for dismissing an opposing viewpoint without having to engage in thinking about it rationally.

Such a rejection involves simple slogans, clear put-downs, and demonisation, regardless of how false and far removed from reality those accusations actually are. Questioning the narrative filtered down through authorised channels isn’t tolerated.

Don’t be misled. There’s a pattern of propaganda at play which serves one narrative and the interests of those behind it.

As I wrote last week, denying people the right to a second medical opinion, hurts the medical profession, and harms patients.

The only real reason for doing so has to be political.


References:

[i] O’Sullivan, J. 2006. The President, The Pope & The Prime Minister, Regnery Publishing Ltd.

[ii] Ellul, J. 1965. Propaganda: The Formations of Men’s Attitudes

[iii] Kengor, P. 2006. The Crusader: Ronald Reagan & The Fall of Communism, Harper-Collins

[iv] Letter: Kennedy Offer to USSR

First published on Caldron Pool, 4th August 2020.

Photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

It has to make you wonder who the Big Tech Companies are taking their cues from, when they ban, block and boot professionals for publicly announcing a valid opposing viewpoint to the prevailing theory about how to treat COVID-19.

Most honest professionals encourage a second medical opinion, and most honest doctors welcome it. Find a Doctor willing to use all the available practical data alongside all the available theoretical data, and you’ve found a medical professional who will go above and beyond in his or her fight for you.

This makes the overt silencing of Doctors providing a second opinion on how to treat COVID-19 extreme, immoral and medically irresponsible.

The aggressive, coordinated “no” to any second opinion on the treatment of the novel coronavirus with hydroxychloroquine raises some big red flags.

This was no better expressed than in the mass silencing of a group of Doctors who’d formed a united front in an attempt to dispel fears, and communicate their experience treating COVID-19 patients with the politically controversial malaria drug hydroxychloroquine.

Their video was banned-by-big-tech almost as soon as it was uploaded to social media platforms on Tuesday.

Dr. Simone Gold, one of the group’s lead speakers broke down their shut-down on a recent Twitter thread,

‘We organized a group of practicing physicians, many of whom have personally treated COVID-19 patients, and we spoke directly to the American people about our experience and understanding of the virus and it’s treatment options…
As a result: Facebook removed the livestream of our conference that had 15 million+ views. Twitter forced us to delete video testimonials from our physicians. Our web host removed our website and claimed a “violation of their TOS”. The media smeared us with lies & falsehoods.’

Dr. Gold added,

Why are social media company employees with no medical degree or clinical experience censoring the perspectives of practicing physicians? Why are journalists claiming hydroxychloroquine is ineffective when there are numerous studies showcasing its efficacy against COVID-19?’

In May, The Brisbane Times reported that Queensland’s Labor government have threatened to fine ‘doctors $13,000 if they prescribe hydroxychloroquine, effectively banning clinicians from prescribing the malaria drug to treat COVID-19.’

The Public Health Order was approved by Qld’s Chief Medical Officer, Jeannette Young, and was ‘designed to stop pharmacies and GP clinics from stockpiling the medication.’

The same article acknowledged that while there is “no solid evidence” there is research that indicates hydroxychloroquine is affective against COVID-19. Citing infectious diseases expert Professor David Paterson, the Brisbane Times said that ‘the drugs proved highly effective when first used against the virus in test tubes.’

A Queensland Government information page reads as follows:

This is despite the U.S Library of Medicine stating that ‘Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread’; and a ‘professor of epidemiology at Yale, stating categorically that hydroxychloroquine has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.’

Knowing there’s potential benefits, why haven’t bureaucrats explored this option further?

The short answer is political capital.

In a strange turnaround, after telling the public to listen to the medical professionals, bureaucrats are now telling the public not to listen to medical professionals.

Why? To deny Donald Trump a political victory. He advocated the use of hydroxychloroquine, and if found to be the key weapon in fighting back against the virus, it’s highly likely Trump would be re-elected in an absolute landslide win.

As YouTube contributor, Anthony Logan said, ‘The Ivory Tower elite and mega corporations look like they are joining forces to benefit themselves either financially or politically…it’s clear that the media and the left have an agenda. And it’s a crying shame because people are dying as a result.’

Similarly, Binary director, Kirralee Smith tweeted:

‘Cancel culture is more dangerous than COVID. If these doctors are so wrong, prove it with facts instead of censorship. The term “experts” seem to be applied politically instead medically. Who decides which expert we should listen to? I certainly don’t trust mainstream media!’

Of importance, Dr. Gold and her colleagues never mentioned Donald Trump, or his advocacy of hydroxychloroquine. Yet, take a stroll down many a comment section on people harassing these Doctors, and an anti-Trump theme emerges.

One of Gold’s colleagues was smeared by click bait, tabloid news outlet Dailymail.co.UK who headlined an article on Dr. Stella Immanuel with: ‘homophobic preacher who wrongly says hydroxychloroquine can cure COVID-19.’

When you have people on the Left, including some leading Democrats on record saying Trump “is a threat to national security,” and that he must be beaten at all costs, you’re not dealing with a conspiracy theory, your dealing with a very real, belligerent group of people who’ll do anything to get what they want.

From recent speculation about Trump having to be removed from the Whitehouse by the military if he lost the upcoming election, to Joe Biden welcoming the idea of a violent encounter with Trump, stating in 2018, that if ‘they asked me would I like to debate this gentleman, and I said no. I said, ‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the Hell out of him.”

This rising tide carries with it an odious cloud of wishful thinking.

To restate Tucker Colson, COVID-19 is the Leftists best chance of taking back – as opposed to wining back by policy and merit – the throne the current line-up of Democrats think they’re entitled too.

Let me be clear. I’m not saying that the Democrats created COVID-19 to take down Trump. What I am saying is that the Democrats have hijacked COVID-19, and weaponised the crisis in order to take down Trump.

More and more we see Big Tech social media platforms, becoming less about the free exchange of ideas, and more a propaganda apparatus for would-be partisan totalitarians.

To quote IPA Director, Gideon Rozner,

‘Intellectual freedom and free speech are not antiquated notions. They are ancient and important rights, and “public institutions” that dispense with them are not [for the] public at all.’ (The Australian, 29th July 2020. Parentheses mine.)

Silencing doctors, and denying a patient, the right to a second opinion, does violence to the medical profession. It harms patients, and turns the fight against the virus, into a fight against the people.

Anyone slamming these Doctors for being Trump supporters or media hounds are projecting either their own professional jealousy, or acting dishonestly as part of an organized, well-funded political campaign to keep the actual Covid-19 crisis from being solved until after the November elections in the United States.

As I’ve said for a few months now, there are two side to coronavirus crisis, there’s the actual crisis, and the crisis being manufactured by bureaucrats for the cameras.

If November produces a Democrat president, don’t be surprised if COVID-19, the Marxist Black Lives Matter political party rallies, and Antifa thugs showboating for the media as they tear up Democrat run cites, completely disappear from view.


First published on Caldron Pool, 31st July 2020.

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020

Blaze contributor, Elijah Schaffer filmed Dr. Stella Immanuel, (Pediatrician, and member of America’s Frontline Doctors) being lectured to by an irate activist in Washington D.C.

Sporting a “no religion” bandana, the black clad activist can be seen yelling at Immanuel accusing her of “betraying Black Lives Matter”, saying “You’re not black on the inside, I’m more black than you on the inside…You’re on the wrong side, mam, I promise you.”

Immanuel, an immigrant from Cameroon, was in D.C with a team of Doctors, who went public with their experience using hydroxychloroquine, a politically controversial treatment for Wuhan COVID-19.

Suffice to say, nothing sums up the Marxist Black Lives Matter political party, like a White BLM activist accusing a Black immigrant doctor of betraying Black Lives Matter.


First published on Caldron Pool, 29th July 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

In another major win against fake news, The Washington Post has settled with Covington School boy, Nick Sandmann.

The original lawsuit against WaPo was dismissed last August after a Federal judge ruled that the Washington Post hadn’t slandered Sandmann in its reporting of the infamous, so-called racist “standoff” between himself and Native American, Nathan Phillips on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Sandmann’s win, announced on Twitter yesterday, follows an ‘amendment complaint’ which was put forward in October last year. According to USA Today, upon review ‘out of 33 statements 3 required further review’, allowing ‘a portion of the lawsuit to proceed.’ The primary concern among these was that The Washington Post had jumped to conclusions, smearing Sandmann’s character by ‘conveying’ that he was ‘engaged in racist conduct.’

The settlement leaves no doubt that Sandmann and other Covington students were the victims of malicious mass media harassment. CNN, The Washington Post and other major outlets set the narrative in stone.

Take a quick read of comments left on Sandmann’s Twitter announcement. In amongst the encouragement, it’s easy to find evidence that the MSM’s “you’re a MAGA racist” tag stuck.

One anonymous user commented, ‘Why don’t you split [the] settlement with the tribal elder you disrespected?’ Another claimed, ‘Millions of us also saw exactly what you were doing, kid. Your privileged smirk was unmistakable. You should be ashamed. We saw what we saw.’

These comments were joined by  one person claiming that ‘whenever an employer looks up your name they will see that you’re an awful person. Congrats!’

With another person stating out right, ‘You’re still a white supremacist, no matter how many lawsuits you file.’

The settlements infer guilt. The nefarious, Leftist radioactive mud still being thrown at the Covington Student/s reveal a special degree of Twitter stupidity. Sandmann’s Twitter trolls have missed the fact that two major news publications have come to a settlement with Sandmann because they lied, slandered him, and know they’d lose BIG in court because of it. People still defaming him on social media, based on what the producers of fake news are admitting was fake news, isn’t courage, it’s openly asinine.

They resemble – leaped before they looked – comments from celebrities such as Kathy Griffin, who openly called for the Covington School Boys to be doxed. The MAGA hating “star’s” expletive tweet demanding that the boys be ‘named’ in order to shame them’ is yet to be deleted nor has Griffin issued a public apology.

Add to this list, former CNN host, Reza Aslan’s now deleted post from January 20th 2019, which read: “Honest question. Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?”

If someone were to collate all the slander/libel thrown Sandmann’s way on Twitter. Given his current score, Sandmann would be a trillionaire in no time. This might explain his cryptic ‘Don’t hold your breath, Jack’, tagline to Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey.

As I said in January, this settlement isn’t just a win for Nick. This is a win against the Leftist funded, political and academic establishment. Hope is seeded here. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the most well-known political prisoners the Nazis imprisoned, and executed, once said “the only fight which is lost, is that which we give up.” [i]

Nicholas’ fight is our fight. It isn’t a hill to practice “losing gracefully” on.


References:

[i] Bonhoeffer, D. cited by Bethge, E. 2000. Bonhoeffer: A Biography. Fortress Press, (p.907)

First Published on Caldron Pool, 26th July 2020.

Photo by camilo jimenez on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

Left-leaning, Jewish online news organization, Jerusalem Post reports that Twitter have blocked accounts which feature the Star of David, branding the symbol “hateful imagery.”

The J.P stated that ‘the images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.’

After being bombarded with concerns, Twitter’s Public Policy page went into damage control, back peddling on the branding by stating that they ‘don’t consider the Star of David as a hateful symbol or hateful image.’

The blocking of accounts was a blitz on the ‘Yellow Star or Yellow badge’ associated with the Jewish Holocaust, allegedly being used by hate groups to target Jewish people. Twitter thanked people for bringing the issue to their attention, and restored accounts wrongly targeted.

While Twitter back-tracked on its suppressing of the Star of David, the U.K based CAA (Campaign Against Antisemitism) reported that Twitter refused to ‘act against abusive tweets’ linked to the anti-Jewish hashtag trend #Jewishprivilege.

An article on the CAA website cited examples which show extremists (what the CAA called ‘radical left-wing anti-Semitism and white supremacist anti-Semites’) joining forces. (For CAA the former ‘blames the Jews for being white’, the latter, ‘for not being white enough.’)

CAA noted that Jews and allies ‘co-opted the trend by attacking it’, but when ‘challenged to take action, Twitter refused’ to do so, claiming that the #jewishprivilige trend did not breach their community standards. In response, CAA has accused Twitter’s terms of service as ‘permitting the platform to be used for the dissemination of racist material.’

This led Stephen Silverman, a director with CAA to call for regulation of social media platforms in line with regulation applied to ‘all other mass media.’

He shot back stating,

‘the idea that Jews are a ‘privileged’ group is a slur designed to deny that antisemitism exists and to imply that Jews are a cause of racism towards other minorities… It is horrifying to see that #JewishPrivilege has been one of Twitter’s most popular hashtags of the past 24 hours. Twitter’s refusal to act is not just tone-deaf but brazen.’

CAA and Silverman’s concerns don’t come out of thin air. The problem is that they only mention antisemitism. Silverman’s point certainly carries weight when brought to bear against Twitter’s allowance of anti-white hate, misandry, Antifa, anti-Israel terror group Hamas, pro-LGBTQAII+ bigotry, and Twitter’s almost non-existent policy against pedophilia.

On more than one occasion Twitter has seen trends that mock, smear and demonize Christians, not just Jews. The most prominent was #christianprivilege.

Twitter also allows vile anti-conservative, anti-white organized myths, such as “Trump is Hitler”, “all white people are racist” and “white privilege.”

Twitter does so while its content filters are blocking content and accounts of conservatives. Seemingly based entirely on the yardstick of ideological differences (protecting some, harming others; perhaps even on the basis of melanin).

Such as the increasing censoring of President Donald Trump, the banning of Stefan Molyneux, and Katie Holmes (whose ban came after a “final straw” criticism of Black Lives Matter).

Add to this the social media block ban on Jewish conservative Laura Loomer, and Twitter’s recent block on all QAnon content.

These are stand out examples of Twitter approving some content, while suppressing others, through a selective interpretation of its terms and conditions.

The CAA and Stephen Silverman’s criticisms of Twitter share Donald Trump’s own concerns about the social media platform. In May Trump responded to selective censoring saying, “Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct…”

By omitting these examples, the CAA and the Jerusalem Post are exhibiting a self-defeating short-sightedness. They see enemies, where they have allies, and allies where they should be seeing enemies.

The real perpetrators, and the root cause of the rise in antisemitism are either ignored or hidden from view.

Fiercely, anti-Trump contributor to the Jerusalem Post, Douglas Bloomfield is representative of this tragic myopia.

In an article from May, he defended George Soros, setting the blame for the rise in antisemitism squarely on the Presidency of Donald Trump. (Bloomfield might have momentarily forgotten that Trump’s son-in-law and close advisor, Jared Kushner is Jewish.)

Bloomfield mentions Trump’s Twitter account, yet provides zero evidence to back up his “Trump is Hitler” insinuation, while completely overlooking the connection between the radical left, leftists in Mainstream Media, and the rise of antisemitism.

Bari Weiss, Ben Shapiro, Avi Yemini, and Melanie Phillips are all Jews. All have been labelled “Nazis and racists.” Look even closer at how the Leftist media, including Leftist Churches (who’ve long abandoned Christ for Karl Marx), demonize Israel, simply for existing.

Antisemitism gets a free pass while the real cause is ignored.

This myopic vision occurs because people are trained to only see white people as racists, and conservatives as Nazis.

It’s this kind of manipulative stigmatizing; this kind of organized myth, straw man mechanism that forms a lot of antisemitic rhetoric. The same stigmatizing is applied to Biblical Christians, and today’s conservatives. It places a lot of them in a position of genuine solidarity with Israel, and the Jewish community.

There is common ground. All it takes is someone willing to acknowledge that it exists. This common ground, despite differences, ignites unity, and it’s this unity that will help pull back the veil. Not just to address the real perpetrators of antisemitism, but to identify its roots, and stop it from doing significant harm.

For ‘man has both potentialities within himself; which one is actualised depends on decisions, not on conditions. Our generation is realistic, for we have come to know man as he really is. For after all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord’s Prayer or the Shima Yisrael on his lips.’[i]


References:

[i] Victor Frankl, 1959. Man’s Search for Meaning, Beacon Press. (p.133)

First published on Caldron Pool, 23rd July 2020.

Photo by Kon Karampelas on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

Weiss’ resignation last week raised eyebrows, ruffled feathers, and furthered speculation about the existence of an internal war being waged between the traditional Left and radical Leftists within modern liberalism.

This “civil war” isn’t new.

What has been emerging from a series of high-profile defections and protests over the past decade, is evidence of an unstable hegemonic power purging itself of the rational in order to exalt the radical.

Wiess’s protest exit adds to a growing list of intellectuals walking away from Leftism and its corrosive “convert, pay a tax or else” culture. The late Roger Scruton was exiled for not towing the party line, as was ex-Guardian journalist, Melanie Phillips. The rise of black conservatives, disingenuously called Uncle Toms by Leftists, also find themselves in a similar social position. Add to this the growing number of professionals calling out Apocalyptic Climate Change.

All of which is reminiscent of Jean-Paul Sartre’s disdain (and that of his French Communist intellectual clique) for Albert Camus’ critique of the Soviet Union, epitomized in Camus’, 1950 book ‘The Rebel.’ Cancelling people, they don’t like, or who disagree with them is what the radical left does.

Just as Sartre disowned Camus for questioning the new normal, for being applauded by the Right, and ‘refusing to call himself a Marxist’, Weiss has found herself in her own clash with ‘upstarts of the revolutionary spirit, nouveau riche and Pharisees of justice.’ (Camus)

For example, The New York Times ran a petty article snidely listing an array of Weiss’ “wrong think” misdemeanors. The list included Weiss ‘questioning aspects of [recent] social justice movements’ and expressing concerns about the “believe all women” witch hunt applied to Trump Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.

They made no mention of Weiss’ allegations about being called a “Nazi and a racist” by staff members. No real surprise. Many on the Left genuinely believe those who aren’t ideologically aligned or marked on the forehead in exactly the same way are Nazis’ and racists. It’s also the manipulative fallback for any Leftist not willing to engage in an intelligent debate, or the thought process in an honest way, generally.

As if to prove my point, the NYT gave special attention to Weiss’ comments on Twitter. Specifically, those made about “staff unrest” over James Bennett deciding to run the now infamous opinion piece from Senator Tom Cotton ‘calling for military response’ to extremists hijacking civil protests in response to the killing of George Floyd.

The Left’s response to Wiess has been somewhat more of a laugh it off, arrogant “meh”. They’re both dismissive and indifferent. Despite the restrained tone, the NYT couldn’t hide its contempt for her. They may as well have just said: “Weiss was never really one of us, so don’t take anything she has to say seriously.”

Odd, since Weiss is Jewish, a (lower case) liberal, and is staunchly anti-Trump.

Set the smug NYT piece alongside Wiess’ resignation letter, and it’s pretty clear why the Leftist activists in the NYT, who self-identify as journalists, are happy for her to move on. It’s better for the brand. There’s no effort required in having to remove her, nor defend against the very Nazified image of the New York Times “canceling” a Jewish woman’s livelihood because she wasn’t welcome within the culture, or didn’t fit its ideological mold.

In true intersectional inquisition fashion, The Guardian published a bizarre academic rant mocking Weiss. Her allegations were discounted and the author declined to call her a victim of ‘illiberal liberalism.’ According to the Guardian, the culprit wasn’t Leftism, it was “right wingers”. The piece strongly insinuated that Weiss was a ‘professionally cancelled pundit; a genre of primarily center-right contrarian who makes their living by deliberately provoking outrage online.’

The reaction from the Left solidifies Weiss’ her overall claim about experiencing hostility in the workplace simply for having, and voicing a different opinion. The fact the Guardian so easily discounted her accusations, and that NYT seemed happy enough to see the back of someone who thinks for themselves, instead of following herd thinking, speaks volumes.

In line with Weiss’ resignation, Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, resigned from the New York Magazine saying the reasons were “self-evident”.

Sullivan’s support of Weiss seems to have triggered his own departure from a Mainstream media organization dominated by the Leftist cult of modern liberalism.

Sullivan wrote:

“Mainstream Media seems to believe, that any writer not actively committed to critical theory in questions of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity is actively, physically harming co-workers merely by existing in the same virtual space. Actually attacking, and even mocking, critical theory’s ideas and methods, as I have done continually in this space, is therefore out of sync with the values of Vox Media.’

Despite Weiss and Sullivan being staunchly anti-Trump. Weiss won huge support from Conservatives.

Donald Trump Jnr responded to the news on Twitter saying: “NYT editor Bari Weiss resigns in STUNNING fashion & exposes the Times’ rampant attacks on anyone who breaks from the far-left narrative.”

Rita Panahi tweeted: “Bari Weiss isn’t a conservative, far from it, and they still made her life unbearable because she challenged aspects of Leftist orthodoxy. The modern Left is ruled by its fanatics & poses the greatest threat to free expression.”

Miranda Divine added,

“What an indictment of the NY Times. Rational leftie Bari Weiss driven out by the “illiberal environment” governed by trends on Twitter and workplace “bullying.” Appalling what Weiss endured. Kudos to her integrity.”

To be anti-leftist is not the same as being anti-Liberal (big “L” Classical Liberal). An anti-leftist, refuses to join the Leftist cult, an anti-Liberal is someone who tries to cancel those who refuse to join the Leftist cult.

It’s pretty simple math.

Weiss is another reminder that radicals on the Left are taking a form of theocracy; superiority. Where to be “sinless” is to be a Leftist.

I agree with Weiss. The Left has a serious problem.

Those who’ve pandered to the new normal, fanning the flames of cancel culture, shouldn’t wonder at why it’s so pervasive.  They are Frankenstein, and cancel culture is their monster. Literati on the Left shouldn’t be one bit surprised that they cannot control it, nor that they are finding themselves being cancelled by it.

Here, Hannah Arendt’s ‘revolutions devour’ its own, joins Karl Barth’s analysis of revolution: ‘far more than the conservative, the revolutionary is overcome of evil, because with his or her “No” they stand so strangely near to God. This is the tragedy of revolution. Evil is not the true answer to evil… Order and not disorder is the meaning of Divine revolt. The real revolt comes from God, not human revolution.’ (The Epistle to the Romans, XIII)

For Weiss there’s also the impossible-to-overstate irony of her signing an open letter that boldly claims Donald Trump ‘is a powerful ally of illiberalism’; that he’s a ‘threat to democracy,’ yet says nothing about the “illiberal” Leftist dominated Mainstream Media, and it’s repression of ‘the free exchange of information and ideas.’

Which is odd, since Donald Trump supports Classical Liberal freedoms, and is himself hounded by the Mainstream Media, Big Tech and American liberal elites. Some who have openly voiced how much they themselves want to cancel him, if not his Presidency.

Weiss’ resignation is a protest against the increasingly fascist Leftist hegemony. Her negative experiences provide the perfect reason for a Trump 2020 win. They also give reasons for why The Daily Wire, PragerU, and Caldron Pool (among others) are essential grass roots media service providers.


First published on Caldron Pool, 21st July 2020.

Photo by Marco Lenti on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020

We learn a lot from Indigenous Australian history about how good, well-intentioned, government can go wrong (and get it wrong) when said governments go too far by removing the rights of parents, and assume the role of father and mother in the community; more specifically in a child’s life.

Leftist bureaucrats and activists know this history, yet only seem to pull it out when it suits their mood, or when they see some political opportunity to advance their agenda.

The Left’s hypocritical push for more governmental control over families/children in education, should raise alarm bells about the ideology they seek to build their utopian society upon.

Why push for programs they know are harmful?

Why support this push, when we know from our Indigenous Australian brothers and sisters, the complications caused by pride, dismissive contempt and programs of dependency?

Why agree with the Left when they demand similar programs for Australian society today?

For example, under the “Pride” movement’s corrosive hegemonic power, we’re all but legally forced to lie to children about their own biology, as well as who their biological parents and siblings are.

The LGBTQAII+ worldview imposes on everyone around it the demand for complete silence towards the child, with threats of legal action if anyone dares to break with the pseudo-religious, LGBTQAAI+ ideological paradigm.

If a child asks who, or whether they have a father or a mother, and a person answers “yes”, they’ll be tried before the convert, pay a tax or die crowd. Then shouted down as “homophobic” or “transphobic”.

As we’ve seen with Israel Folau, and doctors who raise truths about abortion, all are forced to take the Mark, or face “cancellation” or a denial of trade. The love is love lie must be maintained at all costs.

Likewise, if a doctor innocently asks about a child’s paternal or maternal medical history (as they tend to do), could find themselves slapped with a suspension. The ironic charge? “Psychologically harming a child with heteronormative assumptions”, and/or a law suit because they’ve presented themselves as an “enemy of the LGBT community” for seeking scientific facts.

Doctors who require essential background medical information in order to provide the best available care, may be forced to break their “do no harm” oath by conforming to this big business backed, legally supported culture of silence.

The final solution from Radical Feminists and LGBTQAAI+ “Pride” industry is to remove father and mother altogether. Hence the blueprints for non-gender specific labels such as “parent one and parent two.”

Biological facts, a child’s genetic medical history, a healthy self-identity and the opportunity to function properly in a society, through equally shared male and female parenting roles are not just cancelled, they’re outlawed.

This is part of the radical feminist belief that a gender segregated society, where neither man nor woman meet, is the true feminist – truly tolerant society (via Mary Daly et.al).

Thus, making Mark Latham’s proposed bill to counter curriculum revisions in educational institutions of huge importance.

In talking to Alan Jones about the proposed legislation, Latham cited the helpful role of the “many good teachers out there”, but called the revisions ‘a massive insult to the millions of parents in NSW,” because the revisions basically say to mums and dads, “you’re no longer on the scene, schools have got to do this job. For someone to say that schools should be the main unit of passing on social values and morality in our society, is what my bill wants to address. Parents must have that role and should be [enshrined] in law.”

Should curriculum revisions that impose Leftist, LGBQAAI+ ideology (for example: safe schools, intersectionality, critical theory; Marxism) not be critiqued properly and stopped, “parents will be written out of the education system.”

Latham’s proposed addition to the education act should halt this, and at the same time remind those running the education industrial complex that enrolment in kindergarten doesn’t mean a transferal of parental responsibilities to the state, where kids are handed over to activists to be made in its image.

The bill gives a voice to the majority, who, based on voting trends since 2016, want to see a strong “no” to the creeping bureaucratic takeover of parenting by the state. (Along with strong protections against ideological indoctrination by Leftist dominated institutions, and their now infamous herd thinking.)

As Latham states, “the role of schools is to serve the family, not the other way around…Teaching kids that boys can be girls and girls can be boys is political indoctrination and it’s got to end.”

Education begins in the home. Parenting involves the gift of passing down a life story.

Home is where kids first interact with the world; first interact with story; first encounter what is means to be human.

Children learn that they belong. They learn patience. They learn through experience that human freedom has limitations through anatomy and biology – that humans need to crawl before they walk.

They learn the difference between a loving “no” and a responsible, gracious “yes.”

Denying men and women the right to remember and be remembered, turns children into strangers, parents into aliens, and robs people of their shared stories.

Latham’s bill will hope to set in stone the role of parents in teaching kids ‘values and morality’, by re-emphasising that a child’s ‘social and emotional development’ are the domain of parents, not government funded institutions.

Though the bill doesn’t mention historical mistakes, the very existence of it acknowledges them. When NSW politicians go to vote on it, the lessons available to them from Indigenous Australian history should give good reason for their complete support.

Mark is to be applauded for his stand.


First published on Caldron Pool, 15th July, 2020.

Photo by Karina Halley on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Whether you love him, loathe him, or are indifferent towards him, it was hard to ignore the applause for Trump’s Keystone speech, in South Dakota.

It’s not hard to see why Keystone was so popular either.

Although I had more of an issue with what the leftist Episcopalian denomination does with the Bible, Keystone was a big bounce back from Trump’s admittedly cheesy (if understandably necessary, given the context) photo in front of the damaged-by-“peaceful protesters”, historic St.John’s Church.

Not a highlight of the Trump presidency, but with his hands tied behind his back, who can really blame him? Better to have the Leftist dominated mainstream media wail and gripe about a photo of him holding a Bible, in a visible revolt against chaos and disorder, than have the MSM dominant the political narrative with manufactured stories about the President not leading the country, because he’s “hiding away in a bunker from (so-called) “peaceful protesters.”

Democrats have been absent without leave since the height of the Wuhan COVID-19 crisis, few seemed all too concerned about their lack of leadership, or the equally cringe worthy photo-op where key Democrats, draped in a traditional African kente cloth knelt down in solidarity with the Marxist LGBTQAAI+, Black Lives Matter political party.

The contrast between Trump at Church, and the Democrats on their knees, is that the former refused to surrender and genuflect, whereas the Democrats, seeing some political gain in selling the appearance of virtue, sold themselves into the hands of the Marxist mob. Some may argue that the Dems defused the tension and upheaval, and I’d be willing to give that some credence, if it weren’t for the fact that leaders of the freest nation earth bowing before Marx, gave a green light to cancel culture enthusiasts, and by doing so added fuel to the Leftist mob’s history raping, irrational iconoclasm.

Keystone was no St.John’s. His reference to  ‘Manifest Destiny’ aside, this speech was Trump at his best. He wasn’t on the defensive. He was no longer playing political catch up in the same way he was when the Wuhan COVID-19 crisis was overrun with rioters triggered by the entirely avoidable death of George Floyd, and egged on by Washington’s anti-Trump cabal.

Keystone was Trump standing up to the bureaucratic caste, who have been relentless in their campaign of hate. Career politicians and tenured academics tethered to the teat of neo-pagan secular humanism, seeking to undermine the America people, and Trump’s presidency, in order to maintain the hegemonic power handed to them without question since the late 1960s.

For some politicians, that amounts to decades of cosy deals, cushy offices, and cheesy photo-ops of their own that has done nothing for their constituents, but has done plenty for themselves and their own careers.

Keystone was a speech that spoke for the working class against the contempt of the political class who use them.

Evident in these words:

“Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities…
One of their political weapons is “Cancel Culture” — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees.  This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America.
In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.  If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished.  It’s not going to happen to us.
Make no mistake: this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution.  In so doing, they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress…
The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice.  But in truth, it would demolish both justice and society.  It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance, and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of repression, domination, and exclusion.”
FULL transcript.


© Rod Lampard, 2020

Facebook fact checkers have tagged veteran environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s Forbes article as “partly false.”

The widely shared article, On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare, first published on Forbes, rejected ‘climate alarmism’, and featured Shellenberger apologizing for how ‘badly environmentalists have misled the public’ about the relatively new field of climate science.

Facebook’s Climate Science fact checking “Climate Feedback” evaluated Shellenberger’s article, arguing that he allegedly ‘mixed accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change.’

In the pseudo-peer review Climate Feedback cited ‘six scientists who “analyzed” the article, estimating its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’. Stating that [an ambiguous] majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Cherry-pickingMisleading.

The six “scientists”  were Daniel Swain (UCLA, Climate Scientist), Gerado Ceballos (Autonomous University of Mexico, Ecologist), Jennifer Francis, (Arctic Researcher, Woods Hole Research Center), Ryan Shriver (UOI, Associate Professor), Zeke Hausfather (Climate Scientist, Berkley U, & Director of Climate & Energy, Breakthrough Institute), and  Stefan Doerr (Wildlife Science and Geography researcher, Sawnsea U).

Hausfather and Swain formed the core “reviewers”, with Hausfather’s being the most outspoken. Credentials matter, but prima facie, this isn’t surprising. Hausfather appears to benefit more from Apocalyptic Climate Change hysteria, and therefore has more to lose from Shellenberger’s exposure of any potential climate change fraud than the rest.

The move to quickly slam the credibility door shut on Shellenberger infers that those who are more environmental activist, than scientist, are in damage control. Apparent by the desperate move to counter any loss of ground (funding?), should backers begin to take Shellenberger’s apology for misleading the public on man-made catastrophic Climate Change seriously.

By marking Shellenberger’s article as “partly false”, surely Climate Feedback’s reviewers have inferred that the article is “partly true.” Curiously enough, though, Climate Feedback focused on the “partly false”, and ignored the “partly true.”

Progressive online journal, “Independent Australia” slanderous “fact checking” reaction, called the article a “puff piece” that “attacked Climate Science”. I.A also managed to accuse the ‘Murdoch Press’ of spreading lies, stopping short of calling out Shellenberger as a fake environmentalist and heretic (although strongly implied).

This kind of one-sided, selective fact checking raises its own questions about bias. Are fact-checkers sorting truth from falsehood, or buttressing ‘herd madness’ and it’s shared narrative?

Or as Ian Plimer has posited, are scientists who are in the employ of politicians, Big Tech and the leftist hegemony, ‘crushing opposition to ensure that science serves politics?’ [i] The so-called “facts” simply just follow the money.

Who fact checks the fact checkers? Why are most fact checkers almost certain to be left-leaning activists?

In sum, is Climate Feedback to be trusted as a reliable source?

Author and investigative journalist, Donna Laframbois doesn’t think so. Commenting on an unrelated fact check, Laframboi noted strategic omissions from Climate Feedback reviewers, stating their absolute reliance on the peer-review mechanic to attack credibility instead of holistically evaluating an idea or argument for accuracy, undermined their own credibility.

As Laframbois states, ‘peer review is no guarantee. Not of credibility. And not of accuracy. Fact checkers who say otherwise are [themselves] profoundly misleading the public.’

Ian Plimer seconds this: ‘just because a scientific paper is peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct. The peer-reviewed scientific literature is full of papers that contradict each other so they can’t all be right. Peer review does not stop bad science being published. Scientific theories live or die on evidence, not whether or not they were published in the peer-reviewed literature.’ [ii]

While Shellenberger’s activist “scientist” assassins, didn’t throw down another “sit down and shut up – the science-is-settled, you must “believe” the science” vitriolic, their case against him isn’t airtight.

It comes across as a carefully crafted, neatly packaged denouncement of Shellenberger. One that’s too conveniently aligned with largely leftist dominated Big Tech, and big money, to dismiss any suspicions of bias on behalf of said fact check reviewers.

Some of whom appear to be well positioned, and well-funded members of the fear mongering Gaian priesthood.

To apply the words of Andreas Vou from Spiked-Online, the contempt towards Shellenberger is an example of how ‘terrible of an idea it is to have Big Tech companies act as arbiters of truth.’

To pad the point, Forbes has since suppressed Shellenberger’s article, removing it from his Forbes author page.

Shellenberger isn’t backing down. He’s posted a rebuttal to Climate Feedback and has challenged Facebook’s censorship.

His original article is available on Environmental Progress and a PDF is accessible here.

The explosive piece also kick-started the launch of his book, ‘Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All’.

An excerpt of which has been made available by Shellenberger  for free on Quillette.


References:

[i] Plimer, I. 2011. How to Get Expelled from School: A Guide to Climate Change for Pupils, Parents & Punters, Connor Court Publishing

[ii] Ibid, 2011

First published on Caldron Pool, 13th July, 2020 & The Spectator, 15th July, 2020.

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Australian TR News contributor, Avi Yemini masterfully illustrated how toxic intersectionality is to mental health. If intersectionality can’t find oppression, it’ll apply cognitive distortions to “find” oppression where none existed or exists.

Yemini wrote on Twitter:

“I’m half white. Meaning half of me is responsible for the oppression of the other half. I finally grew the bollocks to confront myself. I demanded an apology from my oppressive half. He refused. Selfish prick.”

Jonathon Haidt explains in ‘The Coddling of the American Mind‘, that the concept of intersectionality follows directly on the heals of Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay, ‘Repressive Tolerance’.  Marcuse, ‘the father of the New Left’, was the main influence behind the traditional Left moving from standing up for worker’s rights to promoting social justice movements.

In applying the Marxist dichotomy of oppressed vs. oppressor to the ‘Left-Right dimension’, Marcuse painted the Right ‘as the party of “hate”, the Left as the party of “humanity.” His hard line polarising set one group against the other, without regard for common ground. The Right were a sinful party of hate vs. the Left a sinless party of humanity; the Right warlike, the Left peace loving.

For example:

‘Even though the Democrats controlled Washington at that time, Marcuse associated the right with the business community, the military, and other vested interests that he saw as wielding power, hoarding wealth, and working to block social change.The left referred to students, intellectuals, and minorities of all kinds. For Marcuse, there was no moral equivalence between the two sides.’ (Haidt, p.69)

The ‘end goal of Marcuse’s revolution is not equality but a reversal of power.’ From the platform of identity politics and critical theory, intersectonality entrenches the sinless side against the sinful other. According to Haidt this is exhibited by the ‘untruth of us vs. them’, and it’s powered by “…identity politics, which amplifies the human proclivity for us-versus-them thinking.’

Consequently, on many University campuses the Marcusian doctrine has ‘prepared students [and their teachers] for battle, not for learning.’ Through Marcusian’s vicious dichotomy the sinless party of humanity self-righteously justifies violence against the sinful party of hate, drawing the West into an inevitable civil war, potentially even a global one. It’s apt that Haidt references back to witch hunts, and the bloody suppression of those deemed unworthy of life during the Communist Cultural Revolution in China during the late 1960s to mid-1970s.

Hadit tracks the birth of intersectionality back to  Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, a one time law professor at UCLA, now professor at Columbia. Her 1989 essay on the subject is considered by Haidt to be ‘important insight’ into why ‘you can’t just look at a few big “main effects” of discrimination; you have to look at interactions, or “intersections.” Citing Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge, he defines intersectionality ‘as an analytic tool that examines the impact of power relations’ between people, groups, cultures, sub-cultures and institutions.

He agrees with the premise of interesectionality because power has a tendency to be abused and ‘cruelly used’. Thus creating ‘disadvantage in ways that are often blind to others.’ The problem is that ‘certain interpreations’ of intersectionality corrupt it through misapplication, and weaponization. As a result, ‘interpretations of intersectionality teach people to see bipolar dimensions of privilege and oppression’ everywhere.

This magnifies a ‘proton pseudos; imagining oppression where none exists. Then exaggerating, or ignoring oppression where it does exist. For instance, black on black crime in the United States is overlooked for the racist cops vs. the black community narrative.

The flaw in Haidt’s affection, as he inadvertently admits, is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intersectionality is an unstable, volatile concept. It’s function may intend to protect and serve the vulnerable against abuses of power, but misused (as we’re seeing examples of exploding to life everywhere), intersectonality is the source of confusion, dysfunction and violence.

Intersectionality is simply a bad idea. It’s primary use is as a weapon, not a shield. By way of instilling in people self-hatred, through guilt, shame, blame and condemnation, intersectionality is the Marcusian weapon of choice in it’s destructive quest for a ‘reversal of power’.

Through Marcuse’s sinless vs. sinful – party of hate vs. party of humanity – divide and conquer dichotomy, intersectionality justifies senseless violence, believing (without question) all kinds of accusations. As long as those accusations come from those deemed oppressed by the privileged vs. oppressed intersectional rubric.

Intersectionality is no liberator, reconciler or redeemer. It does violence to society in large part because it empowers the abuse of language and by default manipulative propaganda. This allows people to ‘label their opponents’ words [or silence] as violence, whereby they give themselves permission to engage in ideologically motivated physical violence.’

Intersectionality is a thought prison that chains people to fear and suspicion. It serves self-righteousness and encourages people to replace evidence based reasoning with emotion; charitable interpretation with a list of cognitive distortions, such as  ‘catastraphising’, ‘mind reading’, ‘dichotomous thinking’, ‘negative filtering’, ‘blame’, and ‘positive discounting’.

This joyless yardstick thinking drives a wedge into communities, families, Churches and Western governments, which explains why warmongering Western Communists are among Marcuse’s greatest admirers.

Conclusively, intersectionality raises more questions than it can answer, and raises more problems than it claims to want to solve.

Hence the still powerful relevance of these words, ‘if a blind man follows another blind man, they both fall into a pit.’ – Jesus, Matthew 15:13, ESV


References:

Haidt, J. & Lukianoff, G. 2018. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting up a Generation for Failure,  Penguin Random House

Support My Work

July 6, 2020 — Leave a comment

Thanks for stopping by.

You can now support my work financially by clicking here:

If you’re looking to support the team @ Caldron Pool, you can do so by clicking here:


[Last updated: 6th July, 2020]

 

Last week Ben Packham wrote in The Australian that ‘China scored a victory in its campaign to prioritize its national interests over human rights, securing support for a UN resolution that would make individual rights a matter for “mutually beneficial co-operation.” [i]

In other words, individual rights are solely contingent on an individual’s total subservience to and acquiescence with the Marxist/Maoist state. The individual must bow to the deified state in toto – mind, body, soul and strength.

This is the Chinese Communist Party’s theocratic claim of possession over individuals, which is, outside good governance genuinely lived out under God, something neither government nor ideology has the right to make.

Within this framework the state is God. Rights are not inherently God given, they’re a reward, which can be cancelled at any time should the state so decree.

China’s resolution win allows for less accountability in how it implements inhumane programs to carry out its Marxist theocratic claim.

Australia voted against the resolution, ‘arguing that it undermined “long established principles with regards to the promotion and protection of human rights.’

Packham cited Elaine Pearson from Human Rights Watch, who said that the resolution ‘limits engagement on a country’s human rights record, as it prioritizes sovereignty over accountability, treats fundamental human rights as being subject to negotiation and compromise, and foresees no meaningful role for civil society.’[ii]

An equally important side note is that the resolution appears to have been won by China leveraging its 138 nation, global financial imperial alliance, created through its Belt and Road initiative (BRI).

Nations who voted in favor of the resolution included ‘African, and a range of developing nations, including The Philippines, Indonesia and Venezuela.’ [iii] Most of whom, according to data from Green-Bri.org are part of China’s BRI.

If pressure was applied by the CCP in order to win the UN vote, than the BRI isn’t just a debt trap. It’s part of a greater diabolical maneuver to undermine sovereign states, and bolster Chinese Communist influence through the creation of debt slaves.

The latter are unsuspecting nations who’ve sold themselves into quasi-indentured servitude to the Chinese Communist Party, routinely called upon to do the CCP’s bidding.

The BRI gives the CCP power to use these debt slaves to secure key votes, thereby swaying important international agreements, not in favor of their nation or the Chinese people, but in favor of the Communist regime.

It should also be noted that China was, until January this year, a sitting member of the U.N. Human Rights council, and that there are BRI [indentured] nations currently members of U.N. Council. China also has a place on the U.N. panel that chooses U.N. human rights investigators.

Indonesia, a predominately Muslim country supporting the suppression of accountability and dissent isn’t a big surprise either. They may be looking for assistance in blindsiding the world on their own human rights abuses, namely Indonesia’s reported mistreatment of Indigenous West Papuans.

This resolution means that authorities can more easily dismiss accusations about human rights abuses connected to the CCP’s brutal national oppression of Christians, and of the Muslim Uighurs in the Xinjiang region, once declared independent, but subsumed into the Communist Chinese Maoist state in 1949.

It means that reports like the one released this week by independent, bipartisan research organization, The Jamestown Foundation, may never get to see the light of day where it matters.

The 32 page report, put together by German Anthropologist, Adrian Zenz provided ‘evidence of birth prevention & mass female sterilization.’ [iv]

He explained on Twitter that these ‘findings give the strongest proof yet that Xinjiang atrocity fulfills a U.N. Genocide Convention criterion: imposing measures intended to prevent births.’

Zenz, who is also a senior fellow in China studies at Victims of Communism, added: ‘Birth control has a long history in China, but evidence from government documents about birth prevention in Xinjiang indicates a ruthless, draconian suppression of population growth that is, frankly, unprecedented. Esp. worrying is evidence of a campaign of mass sterilization.’ [v]

Due to population growth among minority ethnic groups, ‘by 2019, Xinjiang [province] planned to subject >80% of women of childbearing age in the southern minority regions to intrusive birth prevention surgeries (IUDs or sterilizations). In 2018, 80% of new IUDs in China were fitted in XJ (region only makes up 1.8% of national population). [vi]

Zenz writes that the ‘likely goal of this campaign is to sterilize all women who have had 3 or more children, plus some. Funding in 2019/20 sufficient for potentially up to 200,000 sterilizations, but at least one region also received central gov’t funding for this.’ [vii]

The Marxist theocratic end goal is that

not one child to be born outside the will of the state. Technically, the government can now dial minority birth rates up and down at will, like opening or closing a faucet. Coupled with state-sponsored promotion of in-migration and of inter-ethnic marriages, this constitutes a tripartite campaign of ethno-racial domination’ [viii]

Zenz concludes, writing that ‘these findings provide strong evidence of the fulfilment of U.N. Genocide Convention, Section D of Article II: “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the [targeted] group.’

The Associated Press referred to the four year program as “demographic genocide.

The program is ‘backed by mass detention both as a threat and as a punishment for failure to comply. Having too many children is a major reason people are sent to detention camps.’

The Communist Chinese Party joining in on bandwagon accusations about the alleged systemic oppression of minorities in Western countries; raising the socialist power fist in unison with its Marxist LGBT Black Lives Matter cousin is nothing more than hot air on par with those living in glass houses throwing stones.


References:

[i] Packham, B. Human Rights take a Hit at UN, The Australian Wednesday, 8th July, 2020

[ii] ibid

[iii] ibid

[iv] Zenz, A. Twitter, 30th June 2020

[v] ibid

[vi] ibid

[viii] ibid

First published on Caldron Pool, 6th July, 2020.

Photo by Sonny Ravesteijn on Unsplash 

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

The late Christopher Lee (Dracula, LOTR and Star Wars) once responded to media reports claiming he was heavily involved in the occult,

“I have maybe four of five books. I’ve met people who claimed to be Satanists; who claimed to be involved with black magic; who claimed that they not only knew a lot about it, but I certainly haven’t been involved in it – I warn all of you never, never, never. You will not only lose your mind, you’ll lose your soul. I don’t have a big library. No, No. Look the internet, and the media, if they can’t think of something to do they invent it.

Omission often conjures up an immediate emotional response. As with Lee’s testimony, certain facts are strategically omitted from a story in order to present that story in a certain light.

This connects with Jacques Ellul’s concept of ‘organized myth’ in the field of manipulative propaganda and its progenitor “fake news”.

When faced with any information that takes the form of propaganda, Ellul writes, we need to ask whether or not ‘organized myth is trying to take hold of us, in order to invade every area of our consciousness?’

If so we’re being bombarded with the kind of information that is designed to ‘stimulate a feeling of exclusiveness, that produces a biased attitude’ along with it. (Ellul, Propaganda, 1965:11)

Not all cases of omission are part of the ‘organized myth’ megaphone. Not everything left out is an indicator of “fake news.”

Leaving out certain facts or viewpoints is sometimes unavoidable. No one can know all the facts as a situation is unfolding. Nor is every media outlet powered by the same reach, with boots on the ground, and not all have equal access to primary source material.

There’s also limited space available to communicate a wide range of key information. That limitation worsens as attention spans wane in the West. Thanks in part to the “stuff the verse, I only care about the chorus” approach to life, which is bolstered by the structure and pace of social media within the technological society.

Ellul would agree that “fake news” sows the seeds of ‘organized myth.’

“Fake or fabricated news” excites readers and viewers. Omission can translate into increased influence and even bigger dollars because half-truths sell.

In an industry overflowing with competition, constant information, and an audience who generally reads headlines, not articles, truth telling suffers.

One potential example of this comes from early June, when at the height of enthusiasm for the Black Lives Matter movement, the ABC ran an article appearing to push an ‘organized myth’, by omitting key information from a “push” to remove a monument of Australia’s first Prime Minister, and founder of federation, Sir Edmund Barton.

An Indigenous Australian woman was petitioning for the statue to be ditched from Port Macquarie’s Town Green foreshore, on the claim that Barton ‘represents racism’ and that the statue was ‘located on an ancient aboriginal burial site.’

The ABC article omitted that most of Port Macquarie’s foreshore is reclaimed swamp land; that the statue is located on, or nearer to that reclaimed land, and is about 20 meters away from the alleged burial site.

The article also failed to mention that an historic hotel and council car park/town center were also close by, and that artworks in the Hastings region, recognizing Indigenous Australian history, outnumber those recognizing European Australian history.

Also omitted: the alleged 1000+ year old burial site itself is respectfully recognized, well looked after, and zoned off for preservation.

Given the political climate, the ABC seems to have been openly harbouring ethnic tension, and division. Omitting key bits of information can’t easily be dismissed, largely because the article came from the local Mid North Coast branch.

If the master of manipulative propaganda is political indoctrination, then the Australian Broadcasting Corporation needs to answer some hard questions.

They have over $1 billion in tax payer funding, there’s no excuse for sloppy, or limited source material reporting. So why is the ABC flirting with omission?

Why, when it comes to important national issues, and debates, do they appear to be perpetuating an ‘organized myth’ through a pattern of one-sided reporting?

Rita Panahi noted another example. The ABC left out the mentally handicapped part, when reporting on a man who recently threw a passing racial slur at legendary Indigenous Australian actor, Ernie Dingo. A ‘key detail’ that was lost in the ABC’s apparent sadistic celebration of the B.L.M movement, and Ernie Dingo’s assault on the man.

In recent years, Andrew Bolt and Jo Nova have both cited examples where the ABC has flirted with omission, noting the ABC’s unwillingness to allow dissent on Climate Change et.al.

 ‘…lies by omission, and selective, biased editing, is permitted by a network of government funded agencies. It starts with scientists being funded to find a crisis, who selectively don’t publish inconvenient papers. Then that bias is spread by a media outlet that won’t publish expert whistleblower complaints. Then that bias is protected by a media regulator…’ (Nova)

Of course, the ABC isn’t alone. As Nova pointed out with regards to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2014,

‘rather than talking about possibilities that scientists are discussing, it was more important to remind SMH readers that Prime Minister Abbott once said climate change was “absolute crap”.

The ABC’s pattern of omission hinders its credibility. That a pattern of omission exists indicates that the tax-payer funded organization is not serving in the interests of all Australians.

I still think the ABC is an important part of Australian society, however it’s a position I’m being forced to reconsider because of how imperative it’s become to separate the sacred from surreptitiously spurious.


First published on Caldron Pool, 29th June 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

City of Beverly Hills officials have issued an indefinite order banning gatherings of no more than 10 people in residential areas.

The ‘civil emergency order’ is a response to violent Black Lives Matter protesters disturbing the ‘peace and tranquility’ of the “home of the stars”.

The order cites, one ‘group called “Occupy” staging loud protests at night using bullhorns and loud music in residential areas’, with Vanity magazine adding that the ban also coincides with an earlier curfew put in place after ‘Beverly Hills was hit by violence, and property damage as looting began in the area, particularly around Rodeo Drive’ in May.

According to the LA Times, City officials were none too happy about Beverly Hills residents sleep being disturbed by protesters, and therefore ‘deemed it necessary to limit the use of residential neighborhoods at night to allow residents to sleep.’

Vanity’s Jordan Moreau noted, ‘silent gatherings, like candlelight vigils and private events, are still allowed, but people disobeying the order will be subject to arrest.’

The ban on gatherings came into effect on Saturday.

The decision met some resistance on social media with a number of Twitter users calling the decision hypocritical, given the large support from some of Hollywood’s elite for protesters carrying the Black Lives Matter movement’s Marxist banner.

Worse still, while George Floyd’s brother, Terrance, was calling for peace, those same Hollywood elites were chanting to the equivalent of “burn it all down.”

In May, Michael Moore encouraged rioters to burn down the police precinct, while simultaneously calling for no violence:

Ice Cube fueled the “kill whitey” flames by lending his support for violence, (which on another occasion included his use of an Anti-Semitic cartoon):

Legendary rapper and television star, Ice T, along with Miley Cyrus lent their unwavering support to the protests.

Ice T’s Twitter wall is drenched with anti-Trump rhetoric, conflating hatred for Donald Trump with the notion of “systemic racism”, celebrating peaceful Black Lives Matters protests, while giving an approving nod to any Anglo-American fans who genuflected to the BLM movement’s narrative, ridiculing those who questioned it.

Rosie O’Donnell, Bette Milder, reflected a similar sentiment, throwing up “police are racist” retweets; mixing that in with their hate Trump because love trumps hate dissonance, all in between their worship of Barrack Obama and “love is love”.

Rob Reiner also fueled the fires and fanaticism, encouraging division and ethnic tension by spamming his Twitter feed with rants accusing Donald Trump of ‘being a white supremacist’ labeling the Republican President a racist confederacy supporter.

The City of Beverly Hills ban is a “hell no, not here” to violent Black Lives Matter protests. There’s nothing wrong with officials maintaining law and order.

Hollywood supporters of BLM movement protests don’t get off so easy. It seems that protesters, protesting injustice against African Americans, disrupting and destroying the lives and livelihoods of those in predominately African American neighborhoods, is all still okay, just don’t do it to their neighbourhood, or on their front yard.

All of this suggests that there’s one rule for those who wish to rule us, another for those they wish to rule.


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th June 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020

Watch as both white and black police officers respectfully try to school (or perhaps its better to say unschool?) this leftist, white woman, after she accuses the white police officer of being a racist (and therefore evil) because of his shade of melanin.

One of the officers near the end nails it saying, “let me tell you something, America has a sin problem. The world has a sin problem. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” America and the world has a sin problem. That’s where racism, injustice, and hate, and anger, and violence, are coming from. It’s not about racism. Read the Bible!”

Associating evil with skin colour in the name of anti-racism, is racism. Worse, it’s demonising a complete ethnic group in much the same way the Nazis demonised the Jews, and in the same way Bolsheviks demonised the “kulaks”. The end result of this kind of thinking is bloodshed.

You can help end this before it gets to that point, by speaking truth into the falsehoods, and rejecting that trajectory as graciously as possible.

Big kudos to these lads from law enforcement.

“Blessed are the peacemakers…”


Video: Breitbart

 

Eric Abetz (LNP) is proving to be no mediocre politician. His speech from July last year remains relevant, making his message one of the best ever entered into the Australian senate’s Hansard.[i]

This year the Senator for Tasmania provided us with a sequel. Speaking about ‘Political Discourse’ Abetz went head to head with cancel culture and the Left’s double standards.

The speech highlighted Queensland University Law professor, James Allen’s piece for The Australian on the June, 16th.

He gave a long list of examples where people were being bullied into submission, and their livelihoods cancelled because of a small, boisterous percentage of people online, and within corporations, looking for oppression, prejudice, malice and racism in everything.

Under Cancel Culture, it no longer matters whether or not a perceived offense was intentional or unintentional (or accidental). These are often labeled micro-aggressions. All that matters is the perceived outcome.

This is what Jonathon Haidt called ‘outcome over intent’ [ii]. Haidt explains that micro-aggression theory is the life blood of cancel culture. If the outcome is perceived to be offensive, intention doesn’t matter.

Appearance and accusation, follows emotional reasoning. Feelings are then placed as lord and master over evidence based reasoning. If something feels offensive, than that something, or someone, is no longer deemed worthy of life or livelihood.

Not only is this culture unstable, it’s unsustainable, and as Abetz argues, ultimately destructive.

Make no mistake about it. Cancel culture is a “life unworthy of life” prescription that echoes the same kind of ideology which allowed Stalin’s Gulags, and purges, along with Nazi Germany’s Auschwitz, Dachau, Ravensbruck and Buchenwald (among others).

This should send a chill up and down the proverbial spine of Western society. The same callous boney fingers which gripped Europe in the 20th Century, is wrapping its hands round the necks of Western society.

It gives us a strong reason to step back, assess and rethink any agreement with, or participation in such a culture and its ideology.

For these reasons alone, I don’t think it a stretch to say here that, yet again, Abetz is spot on in both his warning, and rebuttal of Cancel Culture’s, “life unworthy of life” prescription for cultural suicide.

Full Transcript of Eric’s five minute speech:

“If an individual were to engage in self-loathing, relentlessly finding the fault with self, and ridiculing and denigrating all their past endeavors, we would rightly conclude the individual had issues. Counseling might be in order.

So to with a society; if a society is willing to engage and embrace those who relentlessly spread negativity, and wallow in fault-finding it will have an extremely bleak future. A mature reflection of self or of society recognizes the good, with the not so good.

We should learn from past mistakes, not to tear down and destroy, but to build an even better future. This is how our society has progressed, and why we are where we are today as a nation – the envy of the world.

Let’s be clear. One of the great freedoms we have in Australia is the liberty to leave if we don’t like it. I don’t see any of the professionally and perpetually outraged leaving Australia for North Korea, Cuba or China.

For its alleged and real faults, Australia is the favored destination of the peoples of the world seeking freedom and opportunity.

As professor [James] Allen so eloquently wrote, “you know you’re living in George Orwell’s world, when speech is considered violence, and violence is considered speech.”

And that is exactly what we are witnessing today. Ugly double standards courtesy of the Anarchist Left; when conservatives speak they are accused of violence if they take a view contrary to the “woke” Left, but if the same language is used by the Left, it as indication of empathy, and “wokeness” – always excused.

Bettina Arndt’s award earlier this year was vehemently attacked by Labor senate leadership team. That same team of two women remain as silent as a rock, over the more recent award to that purveyor of ugly, sexist violence to women and anti-Semitic tweets, Mike Carlton.

Reason? He’s from the tribe. He’s from the Left. Similarly the treatment of Cardinal George Pell, and Paul Bonjornio, both in a seminary with that horrific pedophile, Ridgedale.

Pell should have been fully alert and known all that went on. Bonjornio on the other hand, fully excused, “of course, he couldn’t have known.”

The difference of treatment? Pell is of a conservative disposition; Bonjornio from the Left. We see the “woke” Left attacking statues of former Coalition leaders and Captain Cook, possibly the world’s greatest ever navigator; for allegedly being racist.

But a Labor leader [Arthur Calwell] who supported the ‘White Australia Policy’, and famously (or infamously) said, “two wongs, don’t make a white” sits in the pantheon of Labor leaders. As does another Labor leader [Gough Whitlam] who referred to Vietnamese refugees “[expletive deleted], Vietnamese Balts.”

No their names are not to be vilified or desecrated. Instead they are hallowed. Why? Because they are from the Left, whereas the Coalition leader [Tony Abbott] who voluntarily dedicated a week per year assisting Indigenous communities without media fan fare, needs to be vilified for his alleged racism.

Go figure!

Refusal to acknowledge any good in others, and any possible failings in the tribe has become the mantra and justification to remove people from employment, films and books from the public; for sports people to kneel for a cause and close businesses.

So much for the celebration of diversity – everything is judged in terms of claimable victimhood, division and partisanship.

The tribe excuses each other and accuses everyone else – the recipe for disharmony, anarchy and societal collapse. Facts, evidence, objective truths are junked in favor of bullying, sloganeering, and emoting.

The time has come to stand firm, push back and advocate the cause of our wonderful heritage bequeathed to us by our forebears; an heritage of civility, a system of democratic government, the rule of law, personal freedoms, and the standard of living, all of which makes Australians the envy of the world.

I for one will continue to be thankful and defend and promote that heritage, because for all its faults I know no better country.

I know no better people.”

References:

[i] Abetz, E. Freedom of Speech, 2nd July 2019.

[ii] Haidt, J. & Lukianoff. G. 2018. The Coddling of the American Mind Penguin Books Ltd.

[iii] Allen, J. Cowardly Elites appease bullies of Cancel Culture The Australian, 16th June, 2020

First published on Caldron Pool, 25th June 2020.

Photo by Mateus Campos Felipe on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020