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

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

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

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

Trump’s next move should be to:

  1. Fund replacement media.

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

2. Establish an election integrity foundation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As John wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyrie Eleison.


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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for the “spirit of unity.”

So much “for we are one and free.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No referendum. No change to the national anthem.


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

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

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

©Rod Lampard, 2021

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

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

This is the way.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entering 2021, be sure not to overlook the hypocrisy.

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

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

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


First posted on Caldron Pool, 30th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Here are my top ten most read articles of 2020.

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

Thanks for sticking around.

Top Ten:

1. Answering Cancel Culture With Unconquerable Joy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


©Rod Lampard, 2020.

“Oh, to grace how great a debtor,

Daily I’m constrained to be!

Let that grace,

Lord, like a fetter,

Bind my wandering heart to thee.”

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

Merry Christmas (2020).

December 28, 2020 — Leave a comment

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

– Rod.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academics took to Twitter hashtagging in anger that their

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

“I concur!” said another.

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

I have an idea, boasted yet another,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Others screamed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The poets and theologians then sang,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References:

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

First published on Caldron Pool 24th December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References:

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

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

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

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

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

[vi] See Karl Barth CD.II:1:328-350

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

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

©Rod Lampard, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 17th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Wilkie, Assange is innocent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posting on Facebook, George Christensen upped the ante:

‘How to annoy Killary.

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

2. Send a message to Donald J. Trump

asking him to pardon Julian Assange.

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

In an exclusive for Sky News, Christensen explained,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

That Andrew Klavan wisdom shines through once again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highlights:

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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Bunyan told it:

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

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

To quote Packer,

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

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

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

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


©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 12th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s worth pondering:

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 11th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

Iles reminded politicians and bureaucrats on both sides that Government had

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

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

According to the ACL,

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

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

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 8th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

Stating,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#freeRamyKamel


References:

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

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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese have condemned the post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He added that the ‘sheer ballsiness’ of the fake image was a deliberate attempt to stoke what he called a ‘wedge between the Australian electorate’ pushing voters ‘into two camps.’

On the ‘one side the China hawks, mostly on the right, who think we should keep going hard in our dealings with the CCP and give them no quarter.’ On the other side, ‘commentators on the Left’ whose function resembles that of a Communist sycophant.

This comes complete with Cold War era tactical red herrings, which distract from the Communist Party’s blatant “utopian” failures. Including human rights abuses, foreign policy stuff-ups, and its liability over COVID-19. By which attention is also diverted away from the CCP’s belligerent threat to Australia’s sovereignty, Taiwan and the Pacific.

The CCP attack on the morale of the ADF is a byproduct of appeasement and soft diplomacy.

Morrison needs to rally Australians, recalling statesmen like Robert Menzies, Bob Hawk, and the faith of the ANZACs, who pushed back against the dark shroud of totalitarianism that sought to enslave the 20th Century.

As I said at the start of the COVID-19 crisis, we need war time leadership and that means war time speeches; more “fight” and a little less “give.”


First published on Caldron Pool, 1st December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

NOTE: As of 11:47am, 2nd December, 2020, Twitter still hadn’t pulled down, blocked, fact checked, or suspended Lijian Zhao for posting this fake image to his official CCP Twitter account.

Andrew Hastie, 38-year-old SAS officer turned member of parliament, has weighed in on the alleged findings of the Brereton inquiry into the alleged killing of innocent civilians by the Australian SAS in Afghanistan.

Hastie, who’s backing the report, said he was ‘grieved and troubled’ by it.

Reflecting on his own service in Afghanistan, he offered five reflections on why such breaches of the ADF’s high code of conduct may have occurred, writing, ‘we’ve forgotten basic truths about human nature that previous generations of Australians better understood.’

He added, ‘we live in a bent world. We all carry man’s smudge: people do bad things. Christians call it sin in a fallen world. Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant called it the ‘crooked timber’ of humanity. Whatever name we give our condition, we should always guard against the reality of people doing bad things when they are left unaccountable.’

Hastie then spoke of complacent, sanitized bureaucratic perceptions of war, the need to fix broken parliamentary scrutiny of Defence, and the neo-pagan god-like ‘warrior culture’ that’s replacing the Biblical Christian theory of restrained violence, known as Just War.

Hastie also lamented how, the public record will never know about (let alone remember) ‘the good deeds of the many, the way it will the battlefield criminality of a few.’

A chronological outline provided by the Australian Parliament acknowledges that the majority of claims against the SAS come from ‘reports published in the Australian media since 2006.’

These sit alongside ADF operational reports which provide, in debrief form, a summary of combat action received, and combat action taken.

Reported allegations of atrocities involved Reuters, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Herald Sun, and the ABC. With the ABC being the loudest.

The four-year Brereton inquiry, was headed by NSW Court of Appeal Justice, Paul Brereton.

The purpose was to confirm the legitimacy of those allegations. Concluding that ‘there was credible evidence of 23 incidents [involving 39 alleged murders] in which one or more non-combatants – or individuals who had been captured or injured – were unlawfully killed by special forces soldiers, or at least at their direction.’ (The Age)

If the allegations prove true, it’ll be a bitter pill to swallow. Not just for the ADF community, but for most Australians. Many who, being estranged from the faith of the ANZACs, now put their faith in the ANZACs.

Criminal convictions of our decorated protectors in the ADF will strike at the heart of pagan ancestral worship that’s being slowly adopted by Australians.

Largely because of an expert class ejecting Jesus Christ, and Biblical Christian objective morality from the center of the cenotaph, Australian life, society, and Government.

For instance, during ANZAC services I’ve heard people yell “this is about the ANZACs, not God.” I’ve also seen public school teachers encourage their students to drown out the memorial message with slow, monotonous claps.

Another real moral issue here is the low integrity of the free press legacy media, who seem to be drooling with glee, leaping before they look, in order to sell more disaster porn; not caring about who they destroy in the process.

The focal point for them has been the media’s “guilty-until-proven-innocent,” Cardinal George Pell like, witch hunt of Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith.

Like Pell, Roberts-Smith has repeatedly denied the allegations, but found himself being tried by a largely leftist media, who seem to have no patience or affection for the basic civil right of due process.

In a statement, denying the allegations, brought to light by 60 Minutes, Roberts-Smith was right to be ‘concerned that [the program airing] the story, and the previous publications by the SMH/Age are an attempt to improperly influence the outcome of the (Inspector-General of the Defence Force) inquiry.”

If Andrew Hastie’s reflection is to be believed, Roberts-Smith is no saint, but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of war crimes.

Should Roberts-Smith be summons to defend himself, let him have his day in court without interference from an activist media, and the self-righteous, Leftist expert class.

As David, an army veteran, wrote,

‘I feel that the Australian community and the media have turned against veterans. I have received a dozen messages from upset veterans already today. All we have are allegations, nothing more. Australia needs to calm down. Due process needs to be followed.’

In addition, ADF chief, Angus Campbell’s decision to revoke meritorious recognition ‘for all special forces task groups who served in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2013’, is as bizarre, and as reckless, as Julia Gillard’s 2011, blanket ban of beef exports, which shut down an entire industry, affecting lives, and livelihoods, all based on media coverage, and outrage online.

Stripping the ’99.3% [of medals] for the actions of the 0.7%’ is to commit an injustice that will further demoralize our valuable veterans. A large portion of them suffer in silence, because of the ignorance of an indifferent public, a hostile media, and now, self-centered public “servants” looking for a quick P.R. fix, without concern for who they’re throwing under the bus.

Liberal member for Hughes, Craig Kelly’s response to the ADF’s decision – which will punish the brave actions of the many for the sins of a few – hit a home run, saying,

‘Oh, no they won’t. But if we do, then we’ve set a precedent, so next is that we must also strip away every award and retirement benefit from every politician due to [the corrupt] conduct of [politicians] the likes of Orkopoulos* Obeid & Maguire?’

Prime Minister, Scott Morrison in acknowledging the seriousness of the claims, has also publicly backed the ADF, stating

“I wouldn’t want any Defence Force member, serving men or women, or veterans to feel that anyone is looking at them differently, I’m certainly not … we’re incredibly proud of them.” (Sky News)

If the Prime Minister is sincere about this, he needs to advise the Governor-General against stripping good soldiers of their medals, under the callus justification of ‘collective guilt.’

Aussie soldiers being hunted by radical leftist jihadists today, means open season on the people those soldiers step up to protect and serve.

For example, the largely Leftist, Australian Broadcasting Commission, giddy-at-the-prospect of having soldiers in their sights, provided detailed analysis on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

Not one to miss out on celebrating the demonization of Western Civilization, and its Biblical Christian foundations, Victoria’s Socialist Alliance, despite COVID-19 rules, has even organized an anti-ADF protest.

I agree with Hastie. We need reform and accountability. We also need to recognize why war crimes occur. All this should involve improving how we as a society look after, show appreciation for, and serve our military, and its veterans.

This process shouldn’t involve hurting our veterans in order to help them.

Of course, high and lowbrow contempt for Diggers, with the poor going to die for the smug elite, and entitled intellectuals, isn’t new.

It’s a societal fact immortalized by Rudyard Kipling,

“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please; An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!”

You can show your support for Australian soldiers by visiting Voiceofaveteran.org and signing the petition to help stop this persecution of the majority who served with honour.

To rephrase Hastie:

The battlefield criminality of a few, does not justify stripping meritorious recognition earned by the good deeds of ‘the many.’

#istandwiththeADF


First published on Caldron Pool, 27th November, 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

If Joe Biden wins, and it’s still an if, he’ll have won on shaky grounds. Not on merit.

Assuming the navel gazing, head-in-the-sand, legacy media are right, and no electoral fraud played a part in the 2020 election, Biden’s win will be because the Democrat party were successful in their false, and reckless labelling of Republicans as racists, Trump as Hitler, and Make America Great Again supporters as fascists.

Lindsey Graham is right. If Trump does concede, I doubt we’ll ever see a Republican president ever again. Not just because of mail-in-ballots, and ballot harvesting.

Democrats now have a tight-knit strategy to win every election in all tiers of government.

The formula? Threaten, gaslight, cheat, lie, scam, bully, connive, hate, divide, and manipulate.

Accompanied by the 2020, Covid-19 reflex, and the Democrat fear formula. Should Trump lose, the Democrat “vote for us, or face certain death at the hands of Covid, Nazis, and racists” will go down as one of the most successful mass manipulations of a populace in history.

The Republicans may enjoy a level of voter support, but once the status quo fence-sitters are back in office, as most assuredly they will be under Biden, it’s back to Globalist or bust, imperialism, business as usual.

I also think the gains made by Republicans this year – which are huge – will be lost. As a consequence, it’s not a stretch to say that under the “hate everything, and everyone who doesn’t agree with us”, Democrats, one party rule in the United States could become a reality.

I know some of you are probably happy about a Democrat president, but as I said yesterday to a friend on the Left – better four more years of President Trump, than decades of Democrat dominance, because they were able to manipulate an election with four years of constant lies, hoaxes, hate, division, violence, fear, and threats of violence.

I’d serve under Trump, over the Left’s tyrannical authoritarianism, any day.

If four years of evidence (available through a quick search in the Caldron Pool archives) doesn’t sway you, consider the bullying of an impartial female government director to further condition people into believing the “Joe Biden, President-elect” illusion.

Emily Murphy is the head of the General Services Administration. GSA is the non-partisan Government logistics caretaker, who ‘holds the [actual building] keys, transition funds and tools’ for incoming Presidents. (USA Today)

Murphy’s job isn’t to decide election results, but to get the wheels of change moving, in order to keep government functional.

In a formal letter to Joe Biden informing him of the imminent release of transition funds, Murphy explained how she had received no pressure from the Trump administration to delay the decision, but had done so based on the unprecedented circumstances.

Murphy, now confident in fulfilling her formal duties, also formally acknowledged that Democrats (and add to this pressure from the largely Leftist legacy media), had been bullying her. Stating that she’d ‘received threats online, by phone, and by mail directed at her safety.’

Threats which were also directed at her ‘family, staff, and even her pets in an effort to coerce her into making this determination prematurely.’

Posting his gratitude to Twitter, President Trump supported the decision, and applauded Murphy saying,

I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country. She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA. Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.’

Ignoring the President’s tweet, people on both sides falsely read into Murphy’s decision, saying that it was a definite sign that President Trump was moving towards conceding the election.

Two major points were dismissed.

a). This is only a formality. This is not Trump conceding (yet).

b). This looks worse for Democrats than it does Trump. For example, let the record show that the “tolerant” Left bullied a female director of an impartial government service provider, and then some.

A Government employee being threatened, and intimidated by Democrats, isn’t the best start for any potential Biden administration.

The bullying of Murphy shows that some Democrats are confident their formular of fear is a winning strategy.

It also legitimizes (by way of actual non-partisan proof) further suspicion over potential interference in the election by “we’ll do anything it takes to win” Leftists.

As Candace Owens stated,

‘Common sense 101: You don’t destroy ballots, refuse audits and have big tech censor your citizens because you acted honestly. The American election was clearly rigged. The bigger question is whether or not this was the 1st time. The next 2 weeks are going to be interesting.’


©Rod Lampard, 2020

Donald Trump’s Legal Team has issued a press release signaling that lawyer, Sidney Powell, was ‘not part of Donald Trump’s’ contingent of lawyers questioning legacy media’s coronation of Joe Biden as President-elect.

The official announcement from Trumps’ personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, blew a chill through the Trump camp online, like a long-lasting Artic blast does to advocates of Apocalyptic Global Warming.

Many were left speechless. Some were even bewildered by the news. Dinesh D’Souza, responded, stating ‘he didn’t know what to make of it.’

Others such as General Flynn, whose own case against fraud was won by Sidney Powell, said that Powell ‘understands the WH press release & agrees with it. She is staying the course to prove the massive deliberate election fraud that robbed #WeThePeople of our votes for President Trump & other Republican candidates.’

Politco called the press release an ‘abrupt shake-up’ stating that it ‘appears as though President Donald Trump has cut ties’ with the lawyer.

Citing Giuliani’s statements, Powell’s repeated “unsupported” ‘claims of voter fraud,’ and her use of the phrase “Release the Kraken”, Politico painted Powell as a Conservative nutcase.

They then plied that with concerns from fence sitting Republican Pro-D.C. status-quo apologists, to back its own speculation on why the press release was issued.

Providing some clarification on what Powell means by ‘Release the Kraken’, author, and Popular Twitter user, Praying Medic explained that election fraud has been around for decades. Trump’s win in 2016, and now his fight to question the bizarre spike on election night in support of Joe Biden, has given victims, and witnesses of electoral fraud, the courage to speak out.

Medic added, ‘I may be wrong, but I suspect that when Sidney Powell says she’s going to “release the Kraken,” she’s referring to an avalanche of first-hand, eyewitness testimony from hundreds of patriots around the country–evidence that cannot be disputed by anyone.’

Sidney Powell not being on the Trump legal team isn’t all that surprising.

Powell will be even more potent if what she says she has in the way of evidence is true.

It means she’s an impartial figure in the investigation. I.e.: not being played by the Trump team.

(Of course, there is a chance she’s playing the Trump team, or trying to do so.)

Regardless of whether Politico is right, and Trump has distanced himself from Powell, her independent role will make for a stronger stance against corruption, should her claims turn out to be exactly as advertised.

Releasing, ‘Release the Kraken’ Sidney Powell, could be the game changer many of us concerned about preserving Constitutional Democracy from an authoritarian Bureaucratic caste, have been hoping to see.

Turn the spotlight away from Powell for a minute onto the Democrats, and their many supporters within legacy media. It’s worth considering why there’s such an obvious absence of “go right ahead, we have nothing to hide” from Democrats, and a booming silence from Dominion’s creators when it comes to criticism of its voter software.

Most companies would be jumping over themselves to defend their product.

A lot of what we’re being told is just speculation.

As an Alexander Deme, a well-read friend of mine pointed out online, the Trump cases which have been dismissed are small.

Could the so many cases in itself be evidence of fraud?

He thinks it’s quite possible; possibly the ‘perfect crime.’

For ‘to be above the law, fraudsters combine multiple such smaller frauds to create a winning margin which the courts cannot overturn, unless all frauds are proven before the very short protest deadline! Fraudsters sit back and gloat that the courts reject all smaller fraud appeals so there is “zero court evidence” of voter fraud!’

This is why it’s important to let due process run its course.

Let every legal vote can be counted, every shady mail-in ballot dump, and computer “glitch” be investigated.

I’m still not convinced that the hate Trump, love trumps hate, “we’ll remove “Trump is Hitler” by any means” Democrats are above committing massive voter fraud so as to overturn the embarrassment of Hillary Clinton’s massive election loss in 2016.

Instead of feeding legacy media’s speculative kingmaking narrative, pray that the truth burns through to be seen.


First published on Caldron Pool, 24th November 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

The New York Times has accused commentators expressing their concerns about ‘The Great Reset’, of ‘spreading misinformation.’

Appearing to contradict both the World Economic Forum and TIME magazine, The NYT called ‘The Great Reset’, a ‘baseless conspiracy theory.’

The click bait headline, ‘The baseless ‘Great Reset’ conspiracy theory rises againis evidence of the legacy media’s collaborative effort to impose an agenda akin to Global Communism – once the dream of Lenin and Mao.

The New York Times headline was misleading. It’s myopic content, not much better.

By dismissing genuine concerns, the NYT was able to twist facts around in order to attack Conservatives, and their allies so as to paint them as tin-foil hat basement dwellers, distorting the intent and purpose of the forum.

From there the NYT spun ‘The Great Reset’ into something we should all be celebrating. Conditioning people to embrace anti-COVID totalitarianism as a great liberator, in much the same way many are being conditioned to embrace the not-yet President-elect, Joe Biden.

Is this fascism proper?

I think it is.

The woke masses are bots conditioned to act without thinking. Programmed to coerce, bully and gaslight the rest of us, under mandates which demand that we all fall in, line up, salute, and goose-step in unison, or else!

A far better option is a return to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, embracing God’s restart, not man’s reset!

As Bill Muehlenberg said in his recent Caldron Pool rundown of ‘The Great Reset’, ‘we have been warned […] this coercive utopianism is tied in with coronavirus and global warming. It has become the perfect excuse to bring about this new world order.’


First published on Caldron Pool 19th November, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Earlier this month Leftists provided another example of how the COVID-19 reflex has empowered would-be totalitarians to abuse power in the name of protecting feelings from facts.

In an ironic move, State Library of WA organizers of the Disrupted Festival of Ideas cancelled a livestream panel discussion on cancel culture, because of heterophobic influenced concerns about Augusto Zimmermann’s presentation.

Zimmermann, a Professor, writer, former Western Australian Law Commissioner, and occasional Caldron Pool contributor et.al, said the ‘event was supposedly about the free exchange of ideas and challenging the status quo and the establishment.’

Instead, it became an example of how ‘privileged individuals’ use cancel culture ‘to suppress dissenting ideas [in order] to prohibit opposing voices that challenge their hegemonic discourse in our democratic society.’

According to The Age, ‘ a SLWA spokesman said the livestream of the cancel culture discussion, held on Saturday, had been cancelled due to one of the panellists not giving permission for it to air ahead of the event. The spokesman said the panellist was concerned the discussion could upset some of his followers on social media.’

The event was tabled as an open discussion on whether Cancel Culture exists, and if so, what defined it. Or whether Cancel Culture was an ‘“alt-right” and “boomer” term used to crush the dissent of militant millennials?”

Graeme Paton, another panellist, defended sexologist and “LGBTQ specialist”, Kai Schweizer’s requests to ban the livestream on the grounds that Augusto’s “position was lacking in nuance.”

Paton argued that in seeking to censor Zimmermann, Schweizer was protecting ‘the vulnerable [Trans] community’ from ‘topics that might have been disturbing.’

Ignoring the unequal treatment shown towards Zimmermann, and the importance of social distancing livestreams under the shadow of COVID-19, Paton claimed that Zimmermann was “exaggerating” what had happened, because he “still got to say his piece; and nobody was against him coming out in a public space.”

Organizers and fellow panellists deploying cancel culture tactics in an event asking whether Cancel Culture is “right-wing” fiction or fact, is peak Leftism.

Like all human self-righteous, self-appointed “paragons of virtue”, they’re oblivious to stench in their own backyards. The Left is, without a doubt, plagued by Plank Eye Syndrome.

The event panellists, and organizers have successfully shown what Cancel Culture is. What defines it, and how it’s weaponized.

Cancelling Zimmermann’s livestream. Pompous mockery in ambiguous appeals to nuance. The asinine refusal to acknowledge the significance of the “COVID SAFE” livestream ban, and the posturing of virtue, as though cancelling Zimmermann was a selfless act, saving lives by protecting the feelings of the vulnerable from facts, is Cancel Culture.

Much the same as abortion, Cancel Culture pivots on a ‘life unworthy of life’ doctrine. True to this, while Schweizer’s concerns were taken seriously, triggering immediate action, Zimmermann’s concerns were dismissed as an exaggeration.

One of the integral foundations of this culture is the arbitrary use of the term “hate speech.”

Under the faux lordship of Cancel Culture, reasoned, verbal disagreement is falsely reduced to an act of physical violence.

Under this, Cancel Culture creates harmful safe spaces, the dismissal/dehumanization of opponents, and the outlawing of ‘honest debate.’

As Martyn Iles wrote:

Rational discussion and mutual respect is ‘a thing of the past. We increasingly live in a culture of power by almost any means…There is an ever-growing strand of left-wing thought which is utterly incapable of understanding anything except by reference to power. It’s the Marxist bilge pumped into kids’ brains all their lives[…]Power is a higher goal than morality[…]That is why they never engage. They just abuse, dox, cancel, and do whatever it takes – ie seize the power.’

I’ve had the privilege of exchanging some one on one correspondence with Augusto over the course of this year. By all counts he’s a good man. Smart, well respected, experienced. Zimmermann knows his stuff. This cancellation nonsense is another sign of the times.

The reality is that hate speech isn’t reasoned, verbal disagreement. The development of good arguments requires engaging with an opposing viewpoint.

Taking into consideration all of the above, “hate speech” is really nothing more than speech truth-haters, hate hearing.


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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

If you’re not familiar with Darrell, you should be. Check out his Podcast, Just Thinking For Myself, which is co-hosted by Virgil Walker.

Related reading: Genuflecting to Black Lives Matter is Straight-Up Idolatry


 

Revelations from late September of Biden campaign electoral fraud have resurfaced online.

The September 30th investigative piece published by C-Vine (a non-profit, online news platform, which advocates for freedom of speech) reported that the ‘Texas political director of the Biden campaign, was formally charged for helping run an illegal ballot harvesting operation.’

According to C-Vine, a former FBI agent, Charles F. Marler and a former police officer, Mark A. Aguirre turned private investigators, testified ‘under oath that they had video evidence, documentation, and witnesses to prove that Biden’s Texas political Director, Dallas Jones was working with others to hoard mail-in and absentee ballots.’

The investigation revealed a ‘ballot harvesting scheme’ where Jones would direct ‘operatives’ to use the ballots illegally in order to swing the Harris county vote towards Biden.

The investigators said that ‘operatives were to illegally fill the ballots out for people. Including the dead, homeless, and nursing home residents.’

Marler stated, ‘Witnesses have shown me and described to me how the ballot harvesters take absentee ballots from the elderly in nursing homes, from the homeless, and from unsuspecting residences’ mailboxes. The ballot harvesters then complete the ballots for their preferred candidate and forge the signature of the “voter”. Two witnesses stated to me that there are two individuals employed at the Harris County Clerk’s Office who are aware of the illegal ballots and help facilitate and mask the processing of the ballots into the legal stream of ballots.”

In addition to his in-depth article, C-Vines’ investigative reporter, Leanard Bacani did some freedom of information digging of his own. Bacani found accusations and evidence from as far back as 2008, 2016 and 2018.

Citing the work of ‘citizen journalist’ Colleen Vera, Bacani presented evidence of electoral interference, including a video ‘appearing to show a campaign worker for Texas State Rep Harold Dutton Jr (Dem) harvesting ballots of 400 elderly voters.’

As well as audio of a ‘Democrat campaign worker admitting to harvesting ballots from a nursing home, and mail-in ballots from Harris County that all have the same handwriting and envelope process.’

National File journalist, Patrick Howley is credited with getting access to Marler and Aguirre testimonies. The main reporting of the September 30th ballot harvesting fraud, was carried by The Texan, Tennessee Star and Newsbreak.

It’s no big surprise, that as of today, there has been no reporting of this news from the legacy media.

C-Vine makes a compelling argument. From 2008 up until now, it’s evident that a pattern of electoral fraud exists, and that there’s compelling evidence that some officials representing the Democrat Party are right in the center of it.

To answer concerns about the date. The September timestamp on this news only makes this news all the more relevant. Jones’ intentions reveal the extent to which Democrats might have been willing to go, in order to win the 2020 election. He just happened to get caught.

As C-Vine’s Leonard Bacani concluded in September, ‘The Democrat claim that fear of Coronavirus constitutes a disability has been only partially successful in Texas.’ Through mail-in ballots ‘nursing homes remain a hotspot for potential fraud.’       

If Democrats can manipulate the outcome of an election through electoral fraud, which is something Bacani’s evidence-based argument concludes that Democrats are capable of, we have to ask how this will impact future elections.

As I said last week, if the Democrats can use fear to win, they’ll use fear to Govern.

The abuse of power always comes with the power to abuse.

The widespread complicity of the legacy media in not reporting on clear cases of ballot harvesting manipulation, also raises questions about collaboration with any potential mass cases of fraud.

There will be no hiding from the enormity of collaborating factors which may well prove that this election outcome was designed, and decided months ago.

With the goal being to legitimatize a phony Biden Presidency, in order to delegitimize the legitimacy of a duly elected President.

Joe Biden assuming the Presidency, and acting as though Trump doesn’t exist effectively means that we have two sitting U.S Presidents. One anointed by the legacy media and the Leftwing elite, another still duly elected by the people, for the people, of the people.

Trump isn’t a threat to Democracy. The phony Biden presidency is. That a Biden presidency only comes into effect on Jan. 20th. (if he wins) makes this whole propping up of Biden as the President, the precipice of civil war.

As they’ve said, if Trump won’t move, they’ll move him.

If they do this before January 20th, that will mean arresting a sitting US President. If so, it could mean war. Something that I suspect, many on the “peace loving”, “unity and healing” Left would love to see happen.

Especially the hate Trump-love trumps hate, hypocritical media.


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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

When the Democrats call themselves the party of “Unity and Healing.” Don’t believe the hype.

Remove the life-affirming veneer and the current line-up of pro-abortion Democrats are the party of bullhorn manipulative propaganda.

Joe Biden’s retirement home handlers using his twitter account to tweet ad nauseum about “A nation united. A nation strengthened. A nation healed,” may appeal to the globalist elite, white bourgeois leftists, and the docile, automated Democrat, but it will struggle to win popularity with the wider public. 70 million of whom voted for President Donald Trump.

Democrats lathering on insincere platitudes about Godliness and grace; as if they’ve been adhering to Godliness and grace for the past four years, is just a smoke screen.

It’s soppy, narcissistic eisegesis designed to cover four years of obstructionism. Four years of the self-righteous demanding total compliance with their new cultural laws through the mob megaphone of cancel culture, screaming at everyone: “Fall in. Line up. Salute. Goose-step in unison, or else!”

Four years of dividing and dehumanizing people by way of whip statements infused with shaming control techniques like the reckless, dishonest labelling of anyone, whom the Left doesn’t like, a “FASCIST, NAZI, HOMOPHOBE, or RACIST!”

Should Biden and company win, all of whom are career politicians, they will rule of the media, for the media, through the media, by the media.

As 2020 testifies, he’ll have Big Tech to back him up. They’ll pimp out legacy media as it whores after falsehoods to shut down any and all opposing viewpoints.

If the use of fear succeeds in winning Democrats the Presidency, they will use fear to govern.

If you’re convinced that “abortion is healthcare,” “love is love,” “all white people are racist,” “Not all women have periods,” “some women have a penis,” or that there’s an actual “white supremacy crisis”, you’re well on your way to believing that “war is peace.”

This is fascism proper, and it’s what 21st century fascism looks like.

The good news is that Democrats lost more than they claim to have won. Despite the legacy media narrative, even their claim to the presidency is still in doubt, and even if they win that, it’ll have been won by a super thin margin.

Meaning the Democrats have no clear mandate from the American people. Anyone with even a small amount of knowledge about politics will tell you this isn’t a good place from which an elected leader can properly govern.

Like him, loathe him or hate him, the fact is, with the gains Republicans have made in the Senate and house, Donald Trump is still better positioned to deliver for the American people than Joe Biden.

No amount of bull-horn propaganda or hypocrisy from the Left will change this fact.

Of course, if the radical leftist base which seems to control the Democrat party doesn’t get a Biden/Harris Presidency, civil unrest is a likely scenario.

A real possibility given the looting, riots and killings cheered on by Democrats in the past six months.

This is another reason to not buy into the Democrat fed hype over “unity and healing.”

If radical leftism stays on its current fascist trajectory, and goes unanswered, the only way it will be defeated, bar God’s intervention, is on the battlefield.

I’m not for war, but it’s worthwhile pointing out that as far as historical precedence goes, conservatives and their allies (some who are on and from the Left) may, in the end, have to fight a war, to end a war, they never wanted.


First published on Caldron Pool 10th November, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Want a good summary of where things are at? Watch this.

Some good points were raised by Andrew Klavan on his show today:

  1. “Biden is diminishing daily” his ‘unity & healing’ rhetoric is seriously undermined by the Leftist rhetoric from AOC, Schumer & company, about “change,” rounding up and punishing 70 million Trump voters et. al.
  2. “We should fight the system in the courts, but let’s be honest, it’s a long shot.”

With Biden being contradicted by members of the Democrat party, with their threats of “burning the Republican party to the ground,” and rounding up 70.6 million Trump voters, creating blacklists via the “Trump Accountability Project” and calling for them to be punished for all sorts of fake crimes, it’s not going to be clear skies, and blue horizons for the potential President.

He’s already a lame duck, and the election outcome hasn’t even been officially declared.

The party preaching “unity and healing” is not a party united behind the “unity and healing” message.

As has been the general run of the mill with Leftists since Hillary Clinton lost and Trump was duly voted into office, this contradiction reveals an internal divide on par with their four years of “hate Trump/Love trumps hate” dissonance.

Dissonance is the only consistency. This has been proven time and time again. While the legacy media bathes in electing itself to the role of King maker, the contradictory messages from with the Democrat party signal a party in disarray, a party not ready to responsibly Govern for the people, of the people, by the people.

If there is any burning, may it be the truth burning through to be seen.


©Rod Lampard, 2020.

The COVID Reflex & the Mechanization of the Masses

Under the shadow of Democrat encouraged civil unrest, and Covid-19, the 2020 election was always going to be a close call.

Temporarily set aside valid concerns about voter fraud. Then consider the climate of fear that has been battering voters non-stop since January.

Leftist politicians and activists went from attacking pro-active, anti-COVID conservative governments with “that’s racist”, to “they knew and didn’t do anything to save lives.”

Go back to the debates. The Biden/Harris campaign maximized COVID-19 for political gain. Biden was propped up as the adult, taking Covid-19 seriously, while Trump was portrayed by the feckless legacy media as irresponsible, and reckless.

Aided by Big Tech, Doctors were silenced, while keyboard warriors asserted themselves as life-saving experts.

Anyone who presented a well-reasoned argument that countered the approved narrative, was censored.

When this was questioned, with the help of leftist funded “fact-checkers” hiding behind the word “Independent” (not to be confused with impartial), Big Tech told us that this censorship was “for the greater good” because it was about “saving lives.”

As has been suggested by others on various platforms, the consequence of this is that people have voted against Trump as though he was a) responsible for COVID-19 and b) was the virus itself.

Since 2016 the Democrats have been playing a zero-sum game. (Found in the murderous ambition of Antifa and BLM.) It wasn’t beyond them to pave Biden’s road to the White House with fear and the bodies of COVID victims.

Covid-19 may not have been designed to remove Donald Trump from the White House, but the Left was quick to weaponize COVID-19 as a means to do so.

As Amanda Prestigiacomo put it,

‘This election is not like anything we’ve seen before, with well over 65 million mail-in ballots cast, relaxed rules. (COVID panic porn vital here.) The chaos is a feature, not a bug. Trump needs to challenge everything. I think he will. His supporters can’t be disenfranchised.’

COVID-19 propaganda porn created a COVID reflex. Disaster porn has been the bedrock of the Democrat platform since Hillary Clinton failed to move into the White House after Barrack Obama, the leftist lord-of-lords and king-of-kings, ended his tenure.

The “vote for us, or face certain death at the hands of COVID and racists” equation appears to have been a winning formula.

This says nothing positive about American voters who appear to have voted in fear, because of falsehoods and fake news, over against facts, faith, and freedom. Victims of a successful, corrupt Democrat scare campaign.

The COVID reflex is the result of propaganda; vicious political maneuvering. It’s what Jacques Ellul called psychological warfare.

To illustrate this, Ellul pointed to the different levels of aid provided by the United States, and the Soviet Union to under-developed countries in the 1960s.

 ‘The United States gave three times as much assistance as did the Soviet Union; but thanks to propaganda, it is the Soviet Union who is regarded as the great helper and benefactor in whom one can put one’s trust.’ (Propaganda, 1965:134)

Ellul warned that the dangers in doubting the power of propaganda led to propagandists manipulating and implanting within the public a conditioned reflex. 

He deduced that ‘the propagandist seeks automatic responses; to induce action without consideration; mass movement without thought.’ (ibid, 300 & 302)

Enemies of this mechanization of the masses were ‘organic groups.’

This is why genuine dictatorships, and totalitarians undermine families, authentic churches, and traditional community assemblies.

The only way for the masses to be manipulated is to replace these groups with ‘new primary groups’; political action groups, parties, unions, where ‘the individual can be trapped and made ready for propaganda.’

This meant automated mechanization (ibid, p. 98). Examples include the Nazis’ strategy in banning Homeschooling, and undermining Sunday School with laws instructing parents to enlist their children in the Hitler Youth. Moa and Lenin’s political re-education mantra ‘each must be a propagandist for all.’ (ibid, p.82)

The point of this, Ellul states, is ‘to make the masses demand of the government what the government has already decided to do.’ (ibid, p.132)

Come back to the U.S. election, and four years of Democrat scare campaigning. The climate of fear successfully established conditions and controls. Covid-19 just gave the political establishment the impetus it needed to deploy hysteria and its subsequent, “vote for us, or face certain death” brain washing, to move the people against its political enemies.

As economics Professor Gary Galles concluded in his article for the Mises Institute,

‘The 2020 election results will be a test of earlier liberal/progressive “investments” in modifying how Americans think about things. But at this point, perhaps more important will be whether, after the fact, people recognize how much they have been manipulated, which is the first step to thinking more accurately, which must precede learning to effectively resist that manipulation.’

This COVID reflex may have given Joe Biden and the Democrats the edge over Trump. Fear is a powerful motivator. Much more so than freedom.

The globalist elite, and their bureaucratic caste friends in Washington D.C know this, and they strip-mined it for every ounce of political gain they could squeeze out of it.

The COVID reflex is a direct product of Leftist propaganda. More concerning than a Biden/Harris Presidency is this mechanization of the masses, and I’m almost convinced that the U.S. election results are proof of it.


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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Pray For America

November 5, 2020 — Leave a comment

Christians come in under the Kingship of Christ. Despite the busy to and fro of politics, He remains Lord; God’s elected One, the same yesterday, today and forever. Rest in that as Christ did, and walk [scroll], calmly past the smugness of the self-satisfied and the mockery of the thief.


Image credit: Ben Davis

©Rod Lampard, 2020

John Piper’s ambiguous words this week missed the point.

The Pastor, author and respected teacher posted a raw shakedown of the U.S Elections, saying both Trump, and Biden are an ill wind that will reap no national good.

Therefore, Piper wrote, vote as you will, but as for me ‘I won’t be endorsing the devastation.’

Piper was right to assert his allegiance to Christ over party, platform and policy. He was right to question the superficial protestations about Christian faith which seem permanently glued to the Trump presidency.

Piper was half-right to assume that for Christians the choice in this election is between Government, and Jesus Christ.

On one side there’s a party as far from Christ on the issues of civil liberties, classical liberal freedoms, life, and livelihood, as any Western political party has ever been this side of Germany in the 1930s.

On the other is an incumbent President, who’s been consistently harassed, attacked, falsely accused, and maligned, by the latter group simply for having the power they want.

Look at the political, and theological trends which accept appeasement as the only strategy to deal with slow toxins poisoning Western societies, of apathy, and of blind tolerance, of redefinition, the language of “resetting”, of administering to the world a false doctrine that considers “niceness” a crucial Christian trait.

Eternity News exemplifies the point. Both their articles, “John piper says character trumps policy when it comes to Trump,” and “Beyond John Piper, More Christian ‘How To’ Votes,” show a heavy lean in favor of Piper’s apparent denouncement of Donald Trump, while giving only a whisper to Piper’s equal response to Joe Biden.

Buoyed by Piper’s comments, and an apparent excitement at possible divisions within the Evangelical camp, Eternity News seems to have been working the “Trump isn’t nice, so don’t vote for him” card, hard.

Niceness is faulty yardstick.

The devil, for example, is prone to make himself look “nice.” As Paul, talking about false Apostles, wrote: ‘for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.’ (2 Cor.11:14)

Good isn’t always nice. “Niceness” is nearly always a trait of malevolence.

An “ethic of niceness” is a false doctrine. It’s what the late feminist and political scientist, Jean Bethke Elshtain meant when she directed cautionary words against reducing the Gospel to universal benevolence:

‘Christianity is not an exalted or mystical form of utilitarianism. Jesus preached no doctrine of universal benevolence. He showed anger and issued condemnations. These dimensions of Christ’s life and words tend to be overlooked nowadays as Christians concentrate on God’s love rather than God’s justice. That love is sometimes reduced to a diffuse benignity that is then enjoined on believers. For Christians living in historic time and before the end of time, the pervasiveness of conflict must be faced. One may aspire to perfection, but living perfectly is not possible. To believe one is without sin is to commit the sin of pride and to become ever more boastful in the conviction that a human being can sustain a perfectionist ethic.’ [i]

Presidents may serve well, but they’ll never be Jesus Christ. If that’s what John is looking for this side of the Parousia, he’s going to be in constant retreat, taking a good portion of the church with him.

Piper is right that ‘bad company corrupts good character’ (1 Cor.15:33), but all-in-all his words are problematic. They encourage Trump’s enemies to read Piper’s concerns about “character” through the lens of this “niceness” false doctrine.

Despite his protests to the contrary, Piper’s “no” to the 2020 election is not just an abandonment of his civic duty. Considering how high the stakes are, his “no” is tantamount to moral abdication.

As Charlie Kirk pointed out in his own flawed brief response, John Piper doesn’t know Donald Trump personally, yet here he is making judgements on him, and those who do know him.

John misses the point. Beyond a flawed citizen President taking on powerful, career politicians, lay the greater conflict of truth vs. falsehood.

In the context of the Church, if we fail to bring a confession of Jesus Christ up against the clear, and present false doctrines woven into the current Democrat platform, we’ve failed, not only in our civic duty, but as Christians.


References:

[i] Elshtain, J. 2008, Just War Against Terror: The Burden Of American Power In A Violent World Basic Books Kindle Ed. (p. 100-101)

First published on Caldron Pool, 1st November 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

‘Entrepreneur, digital marketing guru, and best-selling author’, Scott Galloway, told The Australian this week that an unholy alliance existed between Donald Trump, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter.

Galloway ‘wants the US government to radically overfund regulatory bodies like the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission in America, to rewrite the rule book on anti-trust: moving away from a test around consumer harm and prices back to a test around market power.’

Quoting Galloway, Ticky Fullerton stated, ‘the odds of a possible break-up are three to five times more likely with a well-funded and more thoughtful administration around tech, the Biden/Harris administration.’

This is because ‘Trump has shown just a mix of inconsistency, incompetence and underfunding that transfers advantage to big tech.’ Noting that Big Tech were coming through COVID-19 as big winners.

Galloway’s advice to investors was to move in front of ‘three tsunamis’ which are set to make significant financial gains, as people, and businesses ‘move from commercial to residential, traditional education to online learning, hospitals, and doctors’ offices to home and remote health.’

Galloway makes sense when talking about COVID triggering seismic economic shifts. His absurd claim of an unholy alliance between Trump, and big tech, is way off. 

As ‘Professor of marketing strategy at NYU’, and one-time board member of the New York Times, Galloway’s predictions are probably par for the course.

Support Biden now, be rewarded later. Don’t support Biden now, be punished later.

Meaning that Galloway is assured a place at the power table, where he’ll join the majority of journalists currently playing partisan defense for the opposition in the United States.

The latter having chosen to remain silent on verified facts relating to substantial corruption within the Biden family. Choosing to aid the Biden/Harris camp by not pressuring them to deny categorically, or provide an evidence-based answer.

Here is why Galloway is right that a Biden/Harris administration would be more likely to back the ‘radical overfunding of regulatory bodies.’ It’s also why he’s dead wrong about Trump.

Radicalism is the basis of the Biden/Harris policy platform. Overfunding would require increased taxation, and bigger government. These are areas where the Democrats excel. Taxation and government-will-save-the-day is their default position when offering solutions to problems, whether real, exaggerated, or manufactured.

In addition, big tech hates Trump. They’re private bias against the conservative voice, comes out in their public aid of their preferred candidate. In this case Biden (maybe more so, Harris), in their bid for the White House.

Examples of this include Silicon Valley’s very cosy relationship with Communist China, and their stonewalling of the New York Post over verified claims about the Biden family’s business dealings. The continual suppression and control of speech, and information, through agenda driven “fact-checkers.”

From “believe the science about apocalyptic climate change”, to deny the science “there are more than two genders”, “not all women have periods”, “abortion is healthcare”, down to arbitrary laws which represses freedom of speech and individual responsibility, you can be sure that Big Tech supports the Democrat platform.

If an unholy alliance does exist between government and Silicon Valley, its members don’t include Donald Trump or his supporters.

For Big Tech, it’s not a matter of if Biden wins, it’s a matter of when Trump loses. They want to be on the “right side of history”* when Biden secures (with their help) an “unprecedented” and “historic” 2020 election victory. (*newspeak for: in good with wannabe Leftist overlords).

Big Tech needs accountability. There’s bipartisan agreement on this. We don’t want a centralized conglomerate with a monopoly on information; governed by pompous, dishonest gatekeepers who adjust algorithms, to favour news and information that best serves their bottom line, favourite politician, or activist lobby group, and not the masses.

Galloway overlooks the overall mistreatment of the Trump administration, and Donald Trump since his election. Much of it encouraged by Big Tech, who fail to censor speech which breaches their own rules, from the likes of Cathy Griffin, Carl Reiner, Bette Midler et.al. Then shadow bans entities and individuals who aren’t ideologically aligned with the prevailing worldview in Silicon Valley.


References:

Fullerton, T. 2020. Tech Giants ‘lapping up a tsunami of capital’ The Australian, Wednesday 29th October 2020

First published on Caldron Pool, 29th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Ronald Reagan had a unique distaste for career politicians sucking wealth out of D.C.’s tax-payer funded tenure. Most too often more in tune with self-service, than public service. He also had a keen dislike for the faulty, seized-up mechanical inner-workings of Washington.

Reagan was a citizen president. He poked fun at the self-importance of the political class, and wasn’t afraid to include himself in it.

Talking to a gathering of Independent television stations two years after being elected to office, Reagan quipped,

‘”I sometimes think that government is like that definition – that old definition of a baby. It’s an alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

Reagan came to office at the end of a dismal decade. In large part because Reagan was, as John O’Sullivan also wrote of Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, ‘one of the apostles of hope’, when despair, fear, and doom, was the order of the day.

The 70s were turbulent. Global instability was everywhere.

The mid to late 60s were an open wound. Peace in Vietnam War was won, and then lost by diplomatic fumbling. Americans were confronted with deep state political corruption, and suffered through a series of fearmongering, joyless Presidential leaders from Republicans to Democrats.

The biggest issue of them all was the “Energy Crisis.”

Concerns over the “Energy Crisis” – a decline in domestic energy production, coupled with Lyndon Johnson’s environmental restrictions, and an OPEC embargo (a consequence of America’s support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War), resulting in high oil prices – was echoed by both sides of the political aisle, coupled with apocalyptic projections, and big government solutions to them.

Republican, President Richard Nixon’s proposed energy rationing, was later extended by Democrat, President Jimmy Carter, who, in 1979, told Americans that the “energy crisis” was here to stay. Then tabled a policy around big government control, such as mandatory rationing. (The 1970s version of “the new normal.”)

Carter’s panic rode on the back of urgency, caused by a drop in global oil supply, a consequence of the 1979 Islamist, Iranian revolution.

His six-point plan delivered the same year, included an increase in taxes, ‘mandatory conservation, gasoline rationing’, ‘expanding public transportation’, and creating a new government department to oversee energy rationing, and conservation.

Carter’s speech wove the “energy crisis” into a “crisis of confidence,” telling Americans that they were losing their sense of purpose, and needed to act:

“I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security, to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense, I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”

Carter’s blame shifting by way of his infamous “crisis of confidence” gave Reagan an edge.

Who said in return that,

 “it’s true there’s a lack of confidence, an unease with things the way they are, but the confidence we’ve lost is confidence in our Government’s policies…there remains the greatness of our people, our capacity for dreaming up fantastic deeds and bringing them off to the surprise of an unbelieving world.” (NYT, 14th November, 1979)

Six years after the success of Reagan’s ‘supply-side mix’ policies, which reduced ‘intrusive and overburdening taxation, regulatory, and currency policies, delivering an effective resolution to the ‘Energy Crisis’, Reagan told administration supporters,

“I’ve always thought that the common sense and the wisdom of the Government were summed up in a sign they used to have hanging on that gigantic Hoover Dam. It said: “Government Property. Do Not Remove.” (29th June, 1987)

It’s often said that we don’t vote for individuals, we vote for political parties, their politicians, and their current policy platform.

The 2020 choice for Americans gives this axiom resonance. 

The Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris ballot is a ballot between a citizen President, and career politicians.

Similar in many ways to the context of Reagan vs. Carter in ’79.

One side speaks of hope, freedom, individual responsibility, perseverance, ingenuity, and protections for civil liberties.

The other speaks of crisis upon crisis; of doom, and destruction. From which they preach that only the political class, correct alignment with Leftism, and big government can save us.

Such as, Joe Biden’s “dark winter”, the alleged crises of “institutional racism”, “an unbeatable, Covid-19,” “the new normal of wearing masks, enduring lockdowns, and losing livelihoods in economic shutdowns”; unhealthy fear of conservatives in the supreme court, and apocalyptic “climate change.”

Joe Biden is too entrenched in the game to see that he is the D.C. “swamp”, that leftist activists, are part of the establishment, dancing Carter’s “crisis of confidence”, bureaucratic two-step: the art of blaming others, and looking busy while achieving nothing at all.

On this basis, a vote for Biden is a retreat into darkness. It’s a vote for a “crisis of confidence”; a vote for career politicians who are guarded by leftist activists, and guided by the idolatry inherent within their ideological nonsense.

As Ronald Reagan said in 1964,

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.”

“We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” (A Time For Choosing)


References:

[i] Cited by Karl Menninger, 1976. Whatever became of Sin? p.142

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

First published on Caldron Pool, 28th October, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Note that the entire (current) Democrat policy platform is simply: “hate Trump, because love trumps hate.”

To Trump’s credit, he’s never come out and said, “if you don’t vote for me, you hate America.”

It’s bewildering to those of us who are constantly interacting with a wide range sources and material, to see and hear people accuse Trump of being dictatorial, when it’s those on the Left actually saying “if you vote for Trump, you hate America.”

Which, in Biden/Harris intersectional speak, means, ‘if you don’t vote for Biden/Harris, you ain’t American!”

It’s a risky gamble for current Democrats to rest on deception, and evasion, as a sure fire way to take political ground from political opponents by falsely claiming those opponents are doing exactly the same thing that Democrat policies, and rhetoric is doing. Such as dividing Americans.

Look at the recent debate.

Joe Biden accused Donald Trump of being a xenophobe and racist; of taking Joe’s words about fracking “out of context”, then Joe rips the context out of Trump’s relationship building attempts with North Korea, Russia, Mexico (through the USMCA deal), and America’s black community, just to orchestrate a false image of Trump. Which Biden then attempted to use as a a way of discredited the President by slapping on him terms from the Left’s usual go to of derogatory slurs, such as racist, and xenophobe.

Notice Biden’s doubletalk.

He made the claim that Americans were all gonna die of Covid-19 if they didn’t vote for him. Then, with his closing remarks, said “we’re going to choose hope over fear.”

Biden also acknowledged that the U.S provides 25% of the global economy, but that that economy essentially needs to be shut down in order to protect against COVID-19.

Another example: while advocating a fair go for small businesses, contradicted what he’d said earlier about those same small businesses having to implement costly COVID-19 protection gear, such as plexiglass.

Then Biden used an attack on Trump’s personal income taxes to dodge answering questions about the scandal involving his son, Hunter Biden.

The shots were a low blow. Trump’s businesses generate tax revenue, while Biden’s wealth, as a career politician, is built on that same revenue.

The character of each political camp can be identified by how the majority of one group is praying for their nation and candidates. While the other group is paying through their noses in order to not only see their candidate win, but to shelter him from all just criticism.

The 2020 election is about a citizen President going in to bat against a career politician. (If we’re thorough, we’d need to also add the plural, politicians, and include activists in that mix).

Trump is flawed, but he’s no fascist.

Many on the Left, and the majority of Democrats on the other hand, exhibit the very same tendencies they claim to see in Donald Trump.

As Stephen Chavura aptly put it:

Re Trump = fascist. Historically fascists take advantage of riots or street violence to declare states of emergency. They use riots to justify aggrandising their power. Trump didn’t do this at all during the riots. Nor did he use a Covid state of emergency to aggrandise his powers. Such accusations are mere projection. Over the last two years it’s not been conservatives who appealed to states of emergency to justify expanding the state’s powers, but the left appealing to “climate emergency” and Dan with his covid “emergency” in Victoria. Trump ain’t no authoritarian or fascist.’


© Rod Lampard, 2020.

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.