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

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

Takeaway points include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Episode 103 exemplifies this.

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

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

LISTEN:


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

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

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

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

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

Adding,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davis added,

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

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

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

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

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

Andrews’ COVID-19 response emulates Sisyphus.

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

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

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

#Democracydiesindarkness


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

Image: ABC Australia.

Background image: Photo by Roman Kraft on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither, I would say, has Rusesabagina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References:

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

First published on Caldron Pool, 10th September, 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where adults abdicate responsibility tolerance and freedom becomes child abuse.

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

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

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 14th September 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020

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

According to PodNews there are ‘46 episodes missing’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote Weiss:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Photo by Austin Distel on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Bennett said,

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

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

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

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

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

Racism was the implied cause, but not specifically mentioned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Injustice in response to injustice, escalates injustice.

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 4th September 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


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

© Rod Lampard, 2020. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As was aptly noted by Matt Walsh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First published on Caldron Pool, 2nd September 2020.

Photo by Hasan Almasi on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

Great show. Good atmosphere.

Grateful for the opportunity.

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

 

 


 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 31st August 2020.

Photo by Amber Kipp on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 27th August 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

Fake news is a form of organized myth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistency matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith seeks understanding.

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

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

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

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

You can view that entire discussion here:


First published on Caldron Pool, 25th August 2020.

Audio: The George Christensen Podcast  

Conservative One: The Good Sauce

Photo by Gilles Lambert on Unsplash 

©Rod Lampard, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s the same all across the West.

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

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

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

If not, why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References (not otherwise linked):

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

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

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

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Cartoon: Artist unknown

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the general rule of thumb for Marxists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is solidarity in suffering.

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

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

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

Media bias is revealed by its blanket silence.

Cannon Hinnant’s life mattered.

#sayhisname


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

Photo by Alex Dukhanov on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renkiewicz shared Walsh’s conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aim, as Jacques Ellul explained,

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

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

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

Education begins in the home.


References:

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

[ii] Ellul, J. 1965 Propaganda

First published on Caldron Pool, 15th August 2020.

Photo by Morning Brew on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highly recommended.


Image: VIDANGEL Studios

© Rod Lampard, 2020

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

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

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

 


 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Additional references:

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

Note:

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

First published on Caldron Pool, 10th August 2020.

Photo by Halacious on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His 30 minute fireside chat can be viewed here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


© Rod Lampard, 2020

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

Precedent exists.

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

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

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

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

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

In addition,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References:

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

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

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

[iv] Letter: Kennedy Offer to USSR

First published on Caldron Pool, 4th August 2020.

Photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gold added,

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

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

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

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

A Queensland Government information page reads as follows:

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

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

The short answer is political capital.

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

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

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

Similarly, Binary director, Kirralee Smith tweeted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote IPA Director, Gideon Rozner,

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

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

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

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 31st July 2020.

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020

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

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

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 29th July 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References:

[i] Bonhoeffer, D. cited by Bethge, E. 2000. Bonhoeffer: A Biography. Fortress Press, (p.907)

First Published on Caldron Pool, 26th July 2020.

Photo by camilo jimenez on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

Left-leaning, Jewish online news organization, Jerusalem Post reports that Twitter have blocked accounts which feature the Star of David, branding the symbol “hateful imagery.”

The J.P stated that ‘the images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.’

After being bombarded with concerns, Twitter’s Public Policy page went into damage control, back peddling on the branding by stating that they ‘don’t consider the Star of David as a hateful symbol or hateful image.’

The blocking of accounts was a blitz on the ‘Yellow Star or Yellow badge’ associated with the Jewish Holocaust, allegedly being used by hate groups to target Jewish people. Twitter thanked people for bringing the issue to their attention, and restored accounts wrongly targeted.

While Twitter back-tracked on its suppressing of the Star of David, the U.K based CAA (Campaign Against Antisemitism) reported that Twitter refused to ‘act against abusive tweets’ linked to the anti-Jewish hashtag trend #Jewishprivilege.

An article on the CAA website cited examples which show extremists (what the CAA called ‘radical left-wing anti-Semitism and white supremacist anti-Semites’) joining forces. (For CAA the former ‘blames the Jews for being white’, the latter, ‘for not being white enough.’)

CAA noted that Jews and allies ‘co-opted the trend by attacking it’, but when ‘challenged to take action, Twitter refused’ to do so, claiming that the #jewishprivilige trend did not breach their community standards. In response, CAA has accused Twitter’s terms of service as ‘permitting the platform to be used for the dissemination of racist material.’

This led Stephen Silverman, a director with CAA to call for regulation of social media platforms in line with regulation applied to ‘all other mass media.’

He shot back stating,

‘the idea that Jews are a ‘privileged’ group is a slur designed to deny that antisemitism exists and to imply that Jews are a cause of racism towards other minorities… It is horrifying to see that #JewishPrivilege has been one of Twitter’s most popular hashtags of the past 24 hours. Twitter’s refusal to act is not just tone-deaf but brazen.’

CAA and Silverman’s concerns don’t come out of thin air. The problem is that they only mention antisemitism. Silverman’s point certainly carries weight when brought to bear against Twitter’s allowance of anti-white hate, misandry, Antifa, anti-Israel terror group Hamas, pro-LGBTQAII+ bigotry, and Twitter’s almost non-existent policy against pedophilia.

On more than one occasion Twitter has seen trends that mock, smear and demonize Christians, not just Jews. The most prominent was #christianprivilege.

Twitter also allows vile anti-conservative, anti-white organized myths, such as “Trump is Hitler”, “all white people are racist” and “white privilege.”

Twitter does so while its content filters are blocking content and accounts of conservatives. Seemingly based entirely on the yardstick of ideological differences (protecting some, harming others; perhaps even on the basis of melanin).

Such as the increasing censoring of President Donald Trump, the banning of Stefan Molyneux, and Katie Holmes (whose ban came after a “final straw” criticism of Black Lives Matter).

Add to this the social media block ban on Jewish conservative Laura Loomer, and Twitter’s recent block on all QAnon content.

These are stand out examples of Twitter approving some content, while suppressing others, through a selective interpretation of its terms and conditions.

The CAA and Stephen Silverman’s criticisms of Twitter share Donald Trump’s own concerns about the social media platform. In May Trump responded to selective censoring saying, “Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct…”

By omitting these examples, the CAA and the Jerusalem Post are exhibiting a self-defeating short-sightedness. They see enemies, where they have allies, and allies where they should be seeing enemies.

The real perpetrators, and the root cause of the rise in antisemitism are either ignored or hidden from view.

Fiercely, anti-Trump contributor to the Jerusalem Post, Douglas Bloomfield is representative of this tragic myopia.

In an article from May, he defended George Soros, setting the blame for the rise in antisemitism squarely on the Presidency of Donald Trump. (Bloomfield might have momentarily forgotten that Trump’s son-in-law and close advisor, Jared Kushner is Jewish.)

Bloomfield mentions Trump’s Twitter account, yet provides zero evidence to back up his “Trump is Hitler” insinuation, while completely overlooking the connection between the radical left, leftists in Mainstream Media, and the rise of antisemitism.

Bari Weiss, Ben Shapiro, Avi Yemini, and Melanie Phillips are all Jews. All have been labelled “Nazis and racists.” Look even closer at how the Leftist media, including Leftist Churches (who’ve long abandoned Christ for Karl Marx), demonize Israel, simply for existing.

Antisemitism gets a free pass while the real cause is ignored.

This myopic vision occurs because people are trained to only see white people as racists, and conservatives as Nazis.

It’s this kind of manipulative stigmatizing; this kind of organized myth, straw man mechanism that forms a lot of antisemitic rhetoric. The same stigmatizing is applied to Biblical Christians, and today’s conservatives. It places a lot of them in a position of genuine solidarity with Israel, and the Jewish community.

There is common ground. All it takes is someone willing to acknowledge that it exists. This common ground, despite differences, ignites unity, and it’s this unity that will help pull back the veil. Not just to address the real perpetrators of antisemitism, but to identify its roots, and stop it from doing significant harm.

For ‘man has both potentialities within himself; which one is actualised depends on decisions, not on conditions. Our generation is realistic, for we have come to know man as he really is. For after all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord’s Prayer or the Shima Yisrael on his lips.’[i]


References:

[i] Victor Frankl, 1959. Man’s Search for Meaning, Beacon Press. (p.133)

First published on Caldron Pool, 23rd July 2020.

Photo by Kon Karampelas on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

Weiss’ resignation last week raised eyebrows, ruffled feathers, and furthered speculation about the existence of an internal war being waged between the traditional Left and radical Leftists within modern liberalism.

This “civil war” isn’t new.

What has been emerging from a series of high-profile defections and protests over the past decade, is evidence of an unstable hegemonic power purging itself of the rational in order to exalt the radical.

Wiess’s protest exit adds to a growing list of intellectuals walking away from Leftism and its corrosive “convert, pay a tax or else” culture. The late Roger Scruton was exiled for not towing the party line, as was ex-Guardian journalist, Melanie Phillips. The rise of black conservatives, disingenuously called Uncle Toms by Leftists, also find themselves in a similar social position. Add to this the growing number of professionals calling out Apocalyptic Climate Change.

All of which is reminiscent of Jean-Paul Sartre’s disdain (and that of his French Communist intellectual clique) for Albert Camus’ critique of the Soviet Union, epitomized in Camus’, 1950 book ‘The Rebel.’ Cancelling people, they don’t like, or who disagree with them is what the radical left does.

Just as Sartre disowned Camus for questioning the new normal, for being applauded by the Right, and ‘refusing to call himself a Marxist’, Weiss has found herself in her own clash with ‘upstarts of the revolutionary spirit, nouveau riche and Pharisees of justice.’ (Camus)

For example, The New York Times ran a petty article snidely listing an array of Weiss’ “wrong think” misdemeanors. The list included Weiss ‘questioning aspects of [recent] social justice movements’ and expressing concerns about the “believe all women” witch hunt applied to Trump Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.

They made no mention of Weiss’ allegations about being called a “Nazi and a racist” by staff members. No real surprise. Many on the Left genuinely believe those who aren’t ideologically aligned or marked on the forehead in exactly the same way are Nazis’ and racists. It’s also the manipulative fallback for any Leftist not willing to engage in an intelligent debate, or the thought process in an honest way, generally.

As if to prove my point, the NYT gave special attention to Weiss’ comments on Twitter. Specifically, those made about “staff unrest” over James Bennett deciding to run the now infamous opinion piece from Senator Tom Cotton ‘calling for military response’ to extremists hijacking civil protests in response to the killing of George Floyd.

The Left’s response to Wiess has been somewhat more of a laugh it off, arrogant “meh”. They’re both dismissive and indifferent. Despite the restrained tone, the NYT couldn’t hide its contempt for her. They may as well have just said: “Weiss was never really one of us, so don’t take anything she has to say seriously.”

Odd, since Weiss is Jewish, a (lower case) liberal, and is staunchly anti-Trump.

Set the smug NYT piece alongside Wiess’ resignation letter, and it’s pretty clear why the Leftist activists in the NYT, who self-identify as journalists, are happy for her to move on. It’s better for the brand. There’s no effort required in having to remove her, nor defend against the very Nazified image of the New York Times “canceling” a Jewish woman’s livelihood because she wasn’t welcome within the culture, or didn’t fit its ideological mold.

In true intersectional inquisition fashion, The Guardian published a bizarre academic rant mocking Weiss. Her allegations were discounted and the author declined to call her a victim of ‘illiberal liberalism.’ According to the Guardian, the culprit wasn’t Leftism, it was “right wingers”. The piece strongly insinuated that Weiss was a ‘professionally cancelled pundit; a genre of primarily center-right contrarian who makes their living by deliberately provoking outrage online.’

The reaction from the Left solidifies Weiss’ her overall claim about experiencing hostility in the workplace simply for having, and voicing a different opinion. The fact the Guardian so easily discounted her accusations, and that NYT seemed happy enough to see the back of someone who thinks for themselves, instead of following herd thinking, speaks volumes.

In line with Weiss’ resignation, Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, resigned from the New York Magazine saying the reasons were “self-evident”.

Sullivan’s support of Weiss seems to have triggered his own departure from a Mainstream media organization dominated by the Leftist cult of modern liberalism.

Sullivan wrote:

“Mainstream Media seems to believe, that any writer not actively committed to critical theory in questions of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity is actively, physically harming co-workers merely by existing in the same virtual space. Actually attacking, and even mocking, critical theory’s ideas and methods, as I have done continually in this space, is therefore out of sync with the values of Vox Media.’

Despite Weiss and Sullivan being staunchly anti-Trump. Weiss won huge support from Conservatives.

Donald Trump Jnr responded to the news on Twitter saying: “NYT editor Bari Weiss resigns in STUNNING fashion & exposes the Times’ rampant attacks on anyone who breaks from the far-left narrative.”

Rita Panahi tweeted: “Bari Weiss isn’t a conservative, far from it, and they still made her life unbearable because she challenged aspects of Leftist orthodoxy. The modern Left is ruled by its fanatics & poses the greatest threat to free expression.”

Miranda Divine added,

“What an indictment of the NY Times. Rational leftie Bari Weiss driven out by the “illiberal environment” governed by trends on Twitter and workplace “bullying.” Appalling what Weiss endured. Kudos to her integrity.”

To be anti-leftist is not the same as being anti-Liberal (big “L” Classical Liberal). An anti-leftist, refuses to join the Leftist cult, an anti-Liberal is someone who tries to cancel those who refuse to join the Leftist cult.

It’s pretty simple math.

Weiss is another reminder that radicals on the Left are taking a form of theocracy; superiority. Where to be “sinless” is to be a Leftist.

I agree with Weiss. The Left has a serious problem.

Those who’ve pandered to the new normal, fanning the flames of cancel culture, shouldn’t wonder at why it’s so pervasive.  They are Frankenstein, and cancel culture is their monster. Literati on the Left shouldn’t be one bit surprised that they cannot control it, nor that they are finding themselves being cancelled by it.

Here, Hannah Arendt’s ‘revolutions devour’ its own, joins Karl Barth’s analysis of revolution: ‘far more than the conservative, the revolutionary is overcome of evil, because with his or her “No” they stand so strangely near to God. This is the tragedy of revolution. Evil is not the true answer to evil… Order and not disorder is the meaning of Divine revolt. The real revolt comes from God, not human revolution.’ (The Epistle to the Romans, XIII)

For Weiss there’s also the impossible-to-overstate irony of her signing an open letter that boldly claims Donald Trump ‘is a powerful ally of illiberalism’; that he’s a ‘threat to democracy,’ yet says nothing about the “illiberal” Leftist dominated Mainstream Media, and it’s repression of ‘the free exchange of information and ideas.’

Which is odd, since Donald Trump supports Classical Liberal freedoms, and is himself hounded by the Mainstream Media, Big Tech and American liberal elites. Some who have openly voiced how much they themselves want to cancel him, if not his Presidency.

Weiss’ resignation is a protest against the increasingly fascist Leftist hegemony. Her negative experiences provide the perfect reason for a Trump 2020 win. They also give reasons for why The Daily Wire, PragerU, and Caldron Pool (among others) are essential grass roots media service providers.


First published on Caldron Pool, 21st July 2020.

Photo by Marco Lenti on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020

We learn a lot from Indigenous Australian history about how good, well-intentioned, government can go wrong (and get it wrong) when said governments go too far by removing the rights of parents, and assume the role of father and mother in the community; more specifically in a child’s life.

Leftist bureaucrats and activists know this history, yet only seem to pull it out when it suits their mood, or when they see some political opportunity to advance their agenda.

The Left’s hypocritical push for more governmental control over families/children in education, should raise alarm bells about the ideology they seek to build their utopian society upon.

Why push for programs they know are harmful?

Why support this push, when we know from our Indigenous Australian brothers and sisters, the complications caused by pride, dismissive contempt and programs of dependency?

Why agree with the Left when they demand similar programs for Australian society today?

For example, under the “Pride” movement’s corrosive hegemonic power, we’re all but legally forced to lie to children about their own biology, as well as who their biological parents and siblings are.

The LGBTQAII+ worldview imposes on everyone around it the demand for complete silence towards the child, with threats of legal action if anyone dares to break with the pseudo-religious, LGBTQAAI+ ideological paradigm.

If a child asks who, or whether they have a father or a mother, and a person answers “yes”, they’ll be tried before the convert, pay a tax or die crowd. Then shouted down as “homophobic” or “transphobic”.

As we’ve seen with Israel Folau, and doctors who raise truths about abortion, all are forced to take the Mark, or face “cancellation” or a denial of trade. The love is love lie must be maintained at all costs.

Likewise, if a doctor innocently asks about a child’s paternal or maternal medical history (as they tend to do), could find themselves slapped with a suspension. The ironic charge? “Psychologically harming a child with heteronormative assumptions”, and/or a law suit because they’ve presented themselves as an “enemy of the LGBT community” for seeking scientific facts.

Doctors who require essential background medical information in order to provide the best available care, may be forced to break their “do no harm” oath by conforming to this big business backed, legally supported culture of silence.

The final solution from Radical Feminists and LGBTQAAI+ “Pride” industry is to remove father and mother altogether. Hence the blueprints for non-gender specific labels such as “parent one and parent two.”

Biological facts, a child’s genetic medical history, a healthy self-identity and the opportunity to function properly in a society, through equally shared male and female parenting roles are not just cancelled, they’re outlawed.

This is part of the radical feminist belief that a gender segregated society, where neither man nor woman meet, is the true feminist – truly tolerant society (via Mary Daly et.al).

Thus, making Mark Latham’s proposed bill to counter curriculum revisions in educational institutions of huge importance.

In talking to Alan Jones about the proposed legislation, Latham cited the helpful role of the “many good teachers out there”, but called the revisions ‘a massive insult to the millions of parents in NSW,” because the revisions basically say to mums and dads, “you’re no longer on the scene, schools have got to do this job. For someone to say that schools should be the main unit of passing on social values and morality in our society, is what my bill wants to address. Parents must have that role and should be [enshrined] in law.”

Should curriculum revisions that impose Leftist, LGBQAAI+ ideology (for example: safe schools, intersectionality, critical theory; Marxism) not be critiqued properly and stopped, “parents will be written out of the education system.”

Latham’s proposed addition to the education act should halt this, and at the same time remind those running the education industrial complex that enrolment in kindergarten doesn’t mean a transferal of parental responsibilities to the state, where kids are handed over to activists to be made in its image.

The bill gives a voice to the majority, who, based on voting trends since 2016, want to see a strong “no” to the creeping bureaucratic takeover of parenting by the state. (Along with strong protections against ideological indoctrination by Leftist dominated institutions, and their now infamous herd thinking.)

As Latham states, “the role of schools is to serve the family, not the other way around…Teaching kids that boys can be girls and girls can be boys is political indoctrination and it’s got to end.”

Education begins in the home. Parenting involves the gift of passing down a life story.

Home is where kids first interact with the world; first interact with story; first encounter what is means to be human.

Children learn that they belong. They learn patience. They learn through experience that human freedom has limitations through anatomy and biology – that humans need to crawl before they walk.

They learn the difference between a loving “no” and a responsible, gracious “yes.”

Denying men and women the right to remember and be remembered, turns children into strangers, parents into aliens, and robs people of their shared stories.

Latham’s bill will hope to set in stone the role of parents in teaching kids ‘values and morality’, by re-emphasising that a child’s ‘social and emotional development’ are the domain of parents, not government funded institutions.

Though the bill doesn’t mention historical mistakes, the very existence of it acknowledges them. When NSW politicians go to vote on it, the lessons available to them from Indigenous Australian history should give good reason for their complete support.

Mark is to be applauded for his stand.


First published on Caldron Pool, 15th July, 2020.

Photo by Karina Halley on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Whether you love him, loathe him, or are indifferent towards him, it was hard to ignore the applause for Trump’s Keystone speech, in South Dakota.

It’s not hard to see why Keystone was so popular either.

Although I had more of an issue with what the leftist Episcopalian denomination does with the Bible, Keystone was a big bounce back from Trump’s admittedly cheesy (if understandably necessary, given the context) photo in front of the damaged-by-“peaceful protesters”, historic St.John’s Church.

Not a highlight of the Trump presidency, but with his hands tied behind his back, who can really blame him? Better to have the Leftist dominated mainstream media wail and gripe about a photo of him holding a Bible, in a visible revolt against chaos and disorder, than have the MSM dominant the political narrative with manufactured stories about the President not leading the country, because he’s “hiding away in a bunker from (so-called) “peaceful protesters.”

Democrats have been absent without leave since the height of the Wuhan COVID-19 crisis, few seemed all too concerned about their lack of leadership, or the equally cringe worthy photo-op where key Democrats, draped in a traditional African kente cloth knelt down in solidarity with the Marxist LGBTQAAI+, Black Lives Matter political party.

The contrast between Trump at Church, and the Democrats on their knees, is that the former refused to surrender and genuflect, whereas the Democrats, seeing some political gain in selling the appearance of virtue, sold themselves into the hands of the Marxist mob. Some may argue that the Dems defused the tension and upheaval, and I’d be willing to give that some credence, if it weren’t for the fact that leaders of the freest nation earth bowing before Marx, gave a green light to cancel culture enthusiasts, and by doing so added fuel to the Leftist mob’s history raping, irrational iconoclasm.

Keystone was no St.John’s. His reference to  ‘Manifest Destiny’ aside, this speech was Trump at his best. He wasn’t on the defensive. He was no longer playing political catch up in the same way he was when the Wuhan COVID-19 crisis was overrun with rioters triggered by the entirely avoidable death of George Floyd, and egged on by Washington’s anti-Trump cabal.

Keystone was Trump standing up to the bureaucratic caste, who have been relentless in their campaign of hate. Career politicians and tenured academics tethered to the teat of neo-pagan secular humanism, seeking to undermine the America people, and Trump’s presidency, in order to maintain the hegemonic power handed to them without question since the late 1960s.

For some politicians, that amounts to decades of cosy deals, cushy offices, and cheesy photo-ops of their own that has done nothing for their constituents, but has done plenty for themselves and their own careers.

Keystone was a speech that spoke for the working class against the contempt of the political class who use them.

Evident in these words:

“Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our Founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities…
One of their political weapons is “Cancel Culture” — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees.  This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America.
In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.  If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished.  It’s not going to happen to us.
Make no mistake: this left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution.  In so doing, they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress…
The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice.  But in truth, it would demolish both justice and society.  It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance, and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of repression, domination, and exclusion.”
FULL transcript.


© Rod Lampard, 2020

Facebook fact checkers have tagged veteran environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s Forbes article as “partly false.”

The widely shared article, On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare, first published on Forbes, rejected ‘climate alarmism’, and featured Shellenberger apologizing for how ‘badly environmentalists have misled the public’ about the relatively new field of climate science.

Facebook’s Climate Science fact checking “Climate Feedback” evaluated Shellenberger’s article, arguing that he allegedly ‘mixed accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change.’

In the pseudo-peer review Climate Feedback cited ‘six scientists who “analyzed” the article, estimating its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’. Stating that [an ambiguous] majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Cherry-pickingMisleading.

The six “scientists”  were Daniel Swain (UCLA, Climate Scientist), Gerado Ceballos (Autonomous University of Mexico, Ecologist), Jennifer Francis, (Arctic Researcher, Woods Hole Research Center), Ryan Shriver (UOI, Associate Professor), Zeke Hausfather (Climate Scientist, Berkley U, & Director of Climate & Energy, Breakthrough Institute), and  Stefan Doerr (Wildlife Science and Geography researcher, Sawnsea U).

Hausfather and Swain formed the core “reviewers”, with Hausfather’s being the most outspoken. Credentials matter, but prima facie, this isn’t surprising. Hausfather appears to benefit more from Apocalyptic Climate Change hysteria, and therefore has more to lose from Shellenberger’s exposure of any potential climate change fraud than the rest.

The move to quickly slam the credibility door shut on Shellenberger infers that those who are more environmental activist, than scientist, are in damage control. Apparent by the desperate move to counter any loss of ground (funding?), should backers begin to take Shellenberger’s apology for misleading the public on man-made catastrophic Climate Change seriously.

By marking Shellenberger’s article as “partly false”, surely Climate Feedback’s reviewers have inferred that the article is “partly true.” Curiously enough, though, Climate Feedback focused on the “partly false”, and ignored the “partly true.”

Progressive online journal, “Independent Australia” slanderous “fact checking” reaction, called the article a “puff piece” that “attacked Climate Science”. I.A also managed to accuse the ‘Murdoch Press’ of spreading lies, stopping short of calling out Shellenberger as a fake environmentalist and heretic (although strongly implied).

This kind of one-sided, selective fact checking raises its own questions about bias. Are fact-checkers sorting truth from falsehood, or buttressing ‘herd madness’ and it’s shared narrative?

Or as Ian Plimer has posited, are scientists who are in the employ of politicians, Big Tech and the leftist hegemony, ‘crushing opposition to ensure that science serves politics?’ [i] The so-called “facts” simply just follow the money.

Who fact checks the fact checkers? Why are most fact checkers almost certain to be left-leaning activists?

In sum, is Climate Feedback to be trusted as a reliable source?

Author and investigative journalist, Donna Laframbois doesn’t think so. Commenting on an unrelated fact check, Laframboi noted strategic omissions from Climate Feedback reviewers, stating their absolute reliance on the peer-review mechanic to attack credibility instead of holistically evaluating an idea or argument for accuracy, undermined their own credibility.

As Laframbois states, ‘peer review is no guarantee. Not of credibility. And not of accuracy. Fact checkers who say otherwise are [themselves] profoundly misleading the public.’

Ian Plimer seconds this: ‘just because a scientific paper is peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct. The peer-reviewed scientific literature is full of papers that contradict each other so they can’t all be right. Peer review does not stop bad science being published. Scientific theories live or die on evidence, not whether or not they were published in the peer-reviewed literature.’ [ii]

While Shellenberger’s activist “scientist” assassins, didn’t throw down another “sit down and shut up – the science-is-settled, you must “believe” the science” vitriolic, their case against him isn’t airtight.

It comes across as a carefully crafted, neatly packaged denouncement of Shellenberger. One that’s too conveniently aligned with largely leftist dominated Big Tech, and big money, to dismiss any suspicions of bias on behalf of said fact check reviewers.

Some of whom appear to be well positioned, and well-funded members of the fear mongering Gaian priesthood.

To apply the words of Andreas Vou from Spiked-Online, the contempt towards Shellenberger is an example of how ‘terrible of an idea it is to have Big Tech companies act as arbiters of truth.’

To pad the point, Forbes has since suppressed Shellenberger’s article, removing it from his Forbes author page.

Shellenberger isn’t backing down. He’s posted a rebuttal to Climate Feedback and has challenged Facebook’s censorship.

His original article is available on Environmental Progress and a PDF is accessible here.

The explosive piece also kick-started the launch of his book, ‘Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All’.

An excerpt of which has been made available by Shellenberger  for free on Quillette.


References:

[i] Plimer, I. 2011. How to Get Expelled from School: A Guide to Climate Change for Pupils, Parents & Punters, Connor Court Publishing

[ii] Ibid, 2011

First published on Caldron Pool, 13th July, 2020 & The Spectator, 15th July, 2020.

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Australian TR News contributor, Avi Yemini masterfully illustrated how toxic intersectionality is to mental health. If intersectionality can’t find oppression, it’ll apply cognitive distortions to “find” oppression where none existed or exists.

Yemini wrote on Twitter:

“I’m half white. Meaning half of me is responsible for the oppression of the other half. I finally grew the bollocks to confront myself. I demanded an apology from my oppressive half. He refused. Selfish prick.”

Jonathon Haidt explains in ‘The Coddling of the American Mind‘, that the concept of intersectionality follows directly on the heals of Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay, ‘Repressive Tolerance’.  Marcuse, ‘the father of the New Left’, was the main influence behind the traditional Left moving from standing up for worker’s rights to promoting social justice movements.

In applying the Marxist dichotomy of oppressed vs. oppressor to the ‘Left-Right dimension’, Marcuse painted the Right ‘as the party of “hate”, the Left as the party of “humanity.” His hard line polarising set one group against the other, without regard for common ground. The Right were a sinful party of hate vs. the Left a sinless party of humanity; the Right warlike, the Left peace loving.

For example:

‘Even though the Democrats controlled Washington at that time, Marcuse associated the right with the business community, the military, and other vested interests that he saw as wielding power, hoarding wealth, and working to block social change.The left referred to students, intellectuals, and minorities of all kinds. For Marcuse, there was no moral equivalence between the two sides.’ (Haidt, p.69)

The ‘end goal of Marcuse’s revolution is not equality but a reversal of power.’ From the platform of identity politics and critical theory, intersectonality entrenches the sinless side against the sinful other. According to Haidt this is exhibited by the ‘untruth of us vs. them’, and it’s powered by “…identity politics, which amplifies the human proclivity for us-versus-them thinking.’

Consequently, on many University campuses the Marcusian doctrine has ‘prepared students [and their teachers] for battle, not for learning.’ Through Marcusian’s vicious dichotomy the sinless party of humanity self-righteously justifies violence against the sinful party of hate, drawing the West into an inevitable civil war, potentially even a global one. It’s apt that Haidt references back to witch hunts, and the bloody suppression of those deemed unworthy of life during the Communist Cultural Revolution in China during the late 1960s to mid-1970s.

Hadit tracks the birth of intersectionality back to  Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, a one time law professor at UCLA, now professor at Columbia. Her 1989 essay on the subject is considered by Haidt to be ‘important insight’ into why ‘you can’t just look at a few big “main effects” of discrimination; you have to look at interactions, or “intersections.” Citing Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge, he defines intersectionality ‘as an analytic tool that examines the impact of power relations’ between people, groups, cultures, sub-cultures and institutions.

He agrees with the premise of interesectionality because power has a tendency to be abused and ‘cruelly used’. Thus creating ‘disadvantage in ways that are often blind to others.’ The problem is that ‘certain interpreations’ of intersectionality corrupt it through misapplication, and weaponization. As a result, ‘interpretations of intersectionality teach people to see bipolar dimensions of privilege and oppression’ everywhere.

This magnifies a ‘proton pseudos; imagining oppression where none exists. Then exaggerating, or ignoring oppression where it does exist. For instance, black on black crime in the United States is overlooked for the racist cops vs. the black community narrative.

The flaw in Haidt’s affection, as he inadvertently admits, is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intersectionality is an unstable, volatile concept. It’s function may intend to protect and serve the vulnerable against abuses of power, but misused (as we’re seeing examples of exploding to life everywhere), intersectonality is the source of confusion, dysfunction and violence.

Intersectionality is simply a bad idea. It’s primary use is as a weapon, not a shield. By way of instilling in people self-hatred, through guilt, shame, blame and condemnation, intersectionality is the Marcusian weapon of choice in it’s destructive quest for a ‘reversal of power’.

Through Marcuse’s sinless vs. sinful – party of hate vs. party of humanity – divide and conquer dichotomy, intersectionality justifies senseless violence, believing (without question) all kinds of accusations. As long as those accusations come from those deemed oppressed by the privileged vs. oppressed intersectional rubric.

Intersectionality is no liberator, reconciler or redeemer. It does violence to society in large part because it empowers the abuse of language and by default manipulative propaganda. This allows people to ‘label their opponents’ words [or silence] as violence, whereby they give themselves permission to engage in ideologically motivated physical violence.’

Intersectionality is a thought prison that chains people to fear and suspicion. It serves self-righteousness and encourages people to replace evidence based reasoning with emotion; charitable interpretation with a list of cognitive distortions, such as  ‘catastraphising’, ‘mind reading’, ‘dichotomous thinking’, ‘negative filtering’, ‘blame’, and ‘positive discounting’.

This joyless yardstick thinking drives a wedge into communities, families, Churches and Western governments, which explains why warmongering Western Communists are among Marcuse’s greatest admirers.

Conclusively, intersectionality raises more questions than it can answer, and raises more problems than it claims to want to solve.

Hence the still powerful relevance of these words, ‘if a blind man follows another blind man, they both fall into a pit.’ – Jesus, Matthew 15:13, ESV


References:

Haidt, J. & Lukianoff, G. 2018. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting up a Generation for Failure,  Penguin Random House

Support My Work

July 6, 2020 — Leave a comment

Thanks for stopping by.

You can now support my work financially by clicking here:

If you’re looking to support the team @ Caldron Pool, you can do so by clicking here:


[Last updated: 6th July, 2020]

 

Last week Ben Packham wrote in The Australian that ‘China scored a victory in its campaign to prioritize its national interests over human rights, securing support for a UN resolution that would make individual rights a matter for “mutually beneficial co-operation.” [i]

In other words, individual rights are solely contingent on an individual’s total subservience to and acquiescence with the Marxist/Maoist state. The individual must bow to the deified state in toto – mind, body, soul and strength.

This is the Chinese Communist Party’s theocratic claim of possession over individuals, which is, outside good governance genuinely lived out under God, something neither government nor ideology has the right to make.

Within this framework the state is God. Rights are not inherently God given, they’re a reward, which can be cancelled at any time should the state so decree.

China’s resolution win allows for less accountability in how it implements inhumane programs to carry out its Marxist theocratic claim.

Australia voted against the resolution, ‘arguing that it undermined “long established principles with regards to the promotion and protection of human rights.’

Packham cited Elaine Pearson from Human Rights Watch, who said that the resolution ‘limits engagement on a country’s human rights record, as it prioritizes sovereignty over accountability, treats fundamental human rights as being subject to negotiation and compromise, and foresees no meaningful role for civil society.’[ii]

An equally important side note is that the resolution appears to have been won by China leveraging its 138 nation, global financial imperial alliance, created through its Belt and Road initiative (BRI).

Nations who voted in favor of the resolution included ‘African, and a range of developing nations, including The Philippines, Indonesia and Venezuela.’ [iii] Most of whom, according to data from Green-Bri.org are part of China’s BRI.

If pressure was applied by the CCP in order to win the UN vote, than the BRI isn’t just a debt trap. It’s part of a greater diabolical maneuver to undermine sovereign states, and bolster Chinese Communist influence through the creation of debt slaves.

The latter are unsuspecting nations who’ve sold themselves into quasi-indentured servitude to the Chinese Communist Party, routinely called upon to do the CCP’s bidding.

The BRI gives the CCP power to use these debt slaves to secure key votes, thereby swaying important international agreements, not in favor of their nation or the Chinese people, but in favor of the Communist regime.

It should also be noted that China was, until January this year, a sitting member of the U.N. Human Rights council, and that there are BRI [indentured] nations currently members of U.N. Council. China also has a place on the U.N. panel that chooses U.N. human rights investigators.

Indonesia, a predominately Muslim country supporting the suppression of accountability and dissent isn’t a big surprise either. They may be looking for assistance in blindsiding the world on their own human rights abuses, namely Indonesia’s reported mistreatment of Indigenous West Papuans.

This resolution means that authorities can more easily dismiss accusations about human rights abuses connected to the CCP’s brutal national oppression of Christians, and of the Muslim Uighurs in the Xinjiang region, once declared independent, but subsumed into the Communist Chinese Maoist state in 1949.

It means that reports like the one released this week by independent, bipartisan research organization, The Jamestown Foundation, may never get to see the light of day where it matters.

The 32 page report, put together by German Anthropologist, Adrian Zenz provided ‘evidence of birth prevention & mass female sterilization.’ [iv]

He explained on Twitter that these ‘findings give the strongest proof yet that Xinjiang atrocity fulfills a U.N. Genocide Convention criterion: imposing measures intended to prevent births.’

Zenz, who is also a senior fellow in China studies at Victims of Communism, added: ‘Birth control has a long history in China, but evidence from government documents about birth prevention in Xinjiang indicates a ruthless, draconian suppression of population growth that is, frankly, unprecedented. Esp. worrying is evidence of a campaign of mass sterilization.’ [v]

Due to population growth among minority ethnic groups, ‘by 2019, Xinjiang [province] planned to subject >80% of women of childbearing age in the southern minority regions to intrusive birth prevention surgeries (IUDs or sterilizations). In 2018, 80% of new IUDs in China were fitted in XJ (region only makes up 1.8% of national population). [vi]

Zenz writes that the ‘likely goal of this campaign is to sterilize all women who have had 3 or more children, plus some. Funding in 2019/20 sufficient for potentially up to 200,000 sterilizations, but at least one region also received central gov’t funding for this.’ [vii]

The Marxist theocratic end goal is that

not one child to be born outside the will of the state. Technically, the government can now dial minority birth rates up and down at will, like opening or closing a faucet. Coupled with state-sponsored promotion of in-migration and of inter-ethnic marriages, this constitutes a tripartite campaign of ethno-racial domination’ [viii]

Zenz concludes, writing that ‘these findings provide strong evidence of the fulfilment of U.N. Genocide Convention, Section D of Article II: “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the [targeted] group.’

The Associated Press referred to the four year program as “demographic genocide.

The program is ‘backed by mass detention both as a threat and as a punishment for failure to comply. Having too many children is a major reason people are sent to detention camps.’

The Communist Chinese Party joining in on bandwagon accusations about the alleged systemic oppression of minorities in Western countries; raising the socialist power fist in unison with its Marxist LGBT Black Lives Matter cousin is nothing more than hot air on par with those living in glass houses throwing stones.


References:

[i] Packham, B. Human Rights take a Hit at UN, The Australian Wednesday, 8th July, 2020

[ii] ibid

[iii] ibid

[iv] Zenz, A. Twitter, 30th June 2020

[v] ibid

[vi] ibid

[viii] ibid

First published on Caldron Pool, 6th July, 2020.

Photo by Sonny Ravesteijn on Unsplash 

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

The late Christopher Lee (Dracula, LOTR and Star Wars) once responded to media reports claiming he was heavily involved in the occult,

“I have maybe four of five books. I’ve met people who claimed to be Satanists; who claimed to be involved with black magic; who claimed that they not only knew a lot about it, but I certainly haven’t been involved in it – I warn all of you never, never, never. You will not only lose your mind, you’ll lose your soul. I don’t have a big library. No, No. Look the internet, and the media, if they can’t think of something to do they invent it.

Omission often conjures up an immediate emotional response. As with Lee’s testimony, certain facts are strategically omitted from a story in order to present that story in a certain light.

This connects with Jacques Ellul’s concept of ‘organized myth’ in the field of manipulative propaganda and its progenitor “fake news”.

When faced with any information that takes the form of propaganda, Ellul writes, we need to ask whether or not ‘organized myth is trying to take hold of us, in order to invade every area of our consciousness?’

If so we’re being bombarded with the kind of information that is designed to ‘stimulate a feeling of exclusiveness, that produces a biased attitude’ along with it. (Ellul, Propaganda, 1965:11)

Not all cases of omission are part of the ‘organized myth’ megaphone. Not everything left out is an indicator of “fake news.”

Leaving out certain facts or viewpoints is sometimes unavoidable. No one can know all the facts as a situation is unfolding. Nor is every media outlet powered by the same reach, with boots on the ground, and not all have equal access to primary source material.

There’s also limited space available to communicate a wide range of key information. That limitation worsens as attention spans wane in the West. Thanks in part to the “stuff the verse, I only care about the chorus” approach to life, which is bolstered by the structure and pace of social media within the technological society.

Ellul would agree that “fake news” sows the seeds of ‘organized myth.’

“Fake or fabricated news” excites readers and viewers. Omission can translate into increased influence and even bigger dollars because half-truths sell.

In an industry overflowing with competition, constant information, and an audience who generally reads headlines, not articles, truth telling suffers.

One potential example of this comes from early June, when at the height of enthusiasm for the Black Lives Matter movement, the ABC ran an article appearing to push an ‘organized myth’, by omitting key information from a “push” to remove a monument of Australia’s first Prime Minister, and founder of federation, Sir Edmund Barton.

An Indigenous Australian woman was petitioning for the statue to be ditched from Port Macquarie’s Town Green foreshore, on the claim that Barton ‘represents racism’ and that the statue was ‘located on an ancient aboriginal burial site.’

The ABC article omitted that most of Port Macquarie’s foreshore is reclaimed swamp land; that the statue is located on, or nearer to that reclaimed land, and is about 20 meters away from the alleged burial site.

The article also failed to mention that an historic hotel and council car park/town center were also close by, and that artworks in the Hastings region, recognizing Indigenous Australian history, outnumber those recognizing European Australian history.

Also omitted: the alleged 1000+ year old burial site itself is respectfully recognized, well looked after, and zoned off for preservation.

Given the political climate, the ABC seems to have been openly harbouring ethnic tension, and division. Omitting key bits of information can’t easily be dismissed, largely because the article came from the local Mid North Coast branch.

If the master of manipulative propaganda is political indoctrination, then the Australian Broadcasting Corporation needs to answer some hard questions.

They have over $1 billion in tax payer funding, there’s no excuse for sloppy, or limited source material reporting. So why is the ABC flirting with omission?

Why, when it comes to important national issues, and debates, do they appear to be perpetuating an ‘organized myth’ through a pattern of one-sided reporting?

Rita Panahi noted another example. The ABC left out the mentally handicapped part, when reporting on a man who recently threw a passing racial slur at legendary Indigenous Australian actor, Ernie Dingo. A ‘key detail’ that was lost in the ABC’s apparent sadistic celebration of the B.L.M movement, and Ernie Dingo’s assault on the man.

In recent years, Andrew Bolt and Jo Nova have both cited examples where the ABC has flirted with omission, noting the ABC’s unwillingness to allow dissent on Climate Change et.al.

 ‘…lies by omission, and selective, biased editing, is permitted by a network of government funded agencies. It starts with scientists being funded to find a crisis, who selectively don’t publish inconvenient papers. Then that bias is spread by a media outlet that won’t publish expert whistleblower complaints. Then that bias is protected by a media regulator…’ (Nova)

Of course, the ABC isn’t alone. As Nova pointed out with regards to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2014,

‘rather than talking about possibilities that scientists are discussing, it was more important to remind SMH readers that Prime Minister Abbott once said climate change was “absolute crap”.

The ABC’s pattern of omission hinders its credibility. That a pattern of omission exists indicates that the tax-payer funded organization is not serving in the interests of all Australians.

I still think the ABC is an important part of Australian society, however it’s a position I’m being forced to reconsider because of how imperative it’s become to separate the sacred from surreptitiously spurious.


First published on Caldron Pool, 29th June 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

 

City of Beverly Hills officials have issued an indefinite order banning gatherings of no more than 10 people in residential areas.

The ‘civil emergency order’ is a response to violent Black Lives Matter protesters disturbing the ‘peace and tranquility’ of the “home of the stars”.

The order cites, one ‘group called “Occupy” staging loud protests at night using bullhorns and loud music in residential areas’, with Vanity magazine adding that the ban also coincides with an earlier curfew put in place after ‘Beverly Hills was hit by violence, and property damage as looting began in the area, particularly around Rodeo Drive’ in May.

According to the LA Times, City officials were none too happy about Beverly Hills residents sleep being disturbed by protesters, and therefore ‘deemed it necessary to limit the use of residential neighborhoods at night to allow residents to sleep.’

Vanity’s Jordan Moreau noted, ‘silent gatherings, like candlelight vigils and private events, are still allowed, but people disobeying the order will be subject to arrest.’

The ban on gatherings came into effect on Saturday.

The decision met some resistance on social media with a number of Twitter users calling the decision hypocritical, given the large support from some of Hollywood’s elite for protesters carrying the Black Lives Matter movement’s Marxist banner.

Worse still, while George Floyd’s brother, Terrance, was calling for peace, those same Hollywood elites were chanting to the equivalent of “burn it all down.”

In May, Michael Moore encouraged rioters to burn down the police precinct, while simultaneously calling for no violence:

Ice Cube fueled the “kill whitey” flames by lending his support for violence, (which on another occasion included his use of an Anti-Semitic cartoon):

Legendary rapper and television star, Ice T, along with Miley Cyrus lent their unwavering support to the protests.

Ice T’s Twitter wall is drenched with anti-Trump rhetoric, conflating hatred for Donald Trump with the notion of “systemic racism”, celebrating peaceful Black Lives Matters protests, while giving an approving nod to any Anglo-American fans who genuflected to the BLM movement’s narrative, ridiculing those who questioned it.

Rosie O’Donnell, Bette Milder, reflected a similar sentiment, throwing up “police are racist” retweets; mixing that in with their hate Trump because love trumps hate dissonance, all in between their worship of Barrack Obama and “love is love”.

Rob Reiner also fueled the fires and fanaticism, encouraging division and ethnic tension by spamming his Twitter feed with rants accusing Donald Trump of ‘being a white supremacist’ labeling the Republican President a racist confederacy supporter.

The City of Beverly Hills ban is a “hell no, not here” to violent Black Lives Matter protests. There’s nothing wrong with officials maintaining law and order.

Hollywood supporters of BLM movement protests don’t get off so easy. It seems that protesters, protesting injustice against African Americans, disrupting and destroying the lives and livelihoods of those in predominately African American neighborhoods, is all still okay, just don’t do it to their neighbourhood, or on their front yard.

All of this suggests that there’s one rule for those who wish to rule us, another for those they wish to rule.


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th June 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020

Watch as both white and black police officers respectfully try to school (or perhaps its better to say unschool?) this leftist, white woman, after she accuses the white police officer of being a racist (and therefore evil) because of his shade of melanin.

One of the officers near the end nails it saying, “let me tell you something, America has a sin problem. The world has a sin problem. Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” America and the world has a sin problem. That’s where racism, injustice, and hate, and anger, and violence, are coming from. It’s not about racism. Read the Bible!”

Associating evil with skin colour in the name of anti-racism, is racism. Worse, it’s demonising a complete ethnic group in much the same way the Nazis demonised the Jews, and in the same way Bolsheviks demonised the “kulaks”. The end result of this kind of thinking is bloodshed.

You can help end this before it gets to that point, by speaking truth into the falsehoods, and rejecting that trajectory as graciously as possible.

Big kudos to these lads from law enforcement.

“Blessed are the peacemakers…”


Video: Breitbart

 

Eric Abetz (LNP) is proving to be no mediocre politician. His speech from July last year remains relevant, making his message one of the best ever entered into the Australian senate’s Hansard.[i]

This year the Senator for Tasmania provided us with a sequel. Speaking about ‘Political Discourse’ Abetz went head to head with cancel culture and the Left’s double standards.

The speech highlighted Queensland University Law professor, James Allen’s piece for The Australian on the June, 16th.

He gave a long list of examples where people were being bullied into submission, and their livelihoods cancelled because of a small, boisterous percentage of people online, and within corporations, looking for oppression, prejudice, malice and racism in everything.

Under Cancel Culture, it no longer matters whether or not a perceived offense was intentional or unintentional (or accidental). These are often labeled micro-aggressions. All that matters is the perceived outcome.

This is what Jonathon Haidt called ‘outcome over intent’ [ii]. Haidt explains that micro-aggression theory is the life blood of cancel culture. If the outcome is perceived to be offensive, intention doesn’t matter.

Appearance and accusation, follows emotional reasoning. Feelings are then placed as lord and master over evidence based reasoning. If something feels offensive, than that something, or someone, is no longer deemed worthy of life or livelihood.

Not only is this culture unstable, it’s unsustainable, and as Abetz argues, ultimately destructive.

Make no mistake about it. Cancel culture is a “life unworthy of life” prescription that echoes the same kind of ideology which allowed Stalin’s Gulags, and purges, along with Nazi Germany’s Auschwitz, Dachau, Ravensbruck and Buchenwald (among others).

This should send a chill up and down the proverbial spine of Western society. The same callous boney fingers which gripped Europe in the 20th Century, is wrapping its hands round the necks of Western society.

It gives us a strong reason to step back, assess and rethink any agreement with, or participation in such a culture and its ideology.

For these reasons alone, I don’t think it a stretch to say here that, yet again, Abetz is spot on in both his warning, and rebuttal of Cancel Culture’s, “life unworthy of life” prescription for cultural suicide.

Full Transcript of Eric’s five minute speech:

“If an individual were to engage in self-loathing, relentlessly finding the fault with self, and ridiculing and denigrating all their past endeavors, we would rightly conclude the individual had issues. Counseling might be in order.

So to with a society; if a society is willing to engage and embrace those who relentlessly spread negativity, and wallow in fault-finding it will have an extremely bleak future. A mature reflection of self or of society recognizes the good, with the not so good.

We should learn from past mistakes, not to tear down and destroy, but to build an even better future. This is how our society has progressed, and why we are where we are today as a nation – the envy of the world.

Let’s be clear. One of the great freedoms we have in Australia is the liberty to leave if we don’t like it. I don’t see any of the professionally and perpetually outraged leaving Australia for North Korea, Cuba or China.

For its alleged and real faults, Australia is the favored destination of the peoples of the world seeking freedom and opportunity.

As professor [James] Allen so eloquently wrote, “you know you’re living in George Orwell’s world, when speech is considered violence, and violence is considered speech.”

And that is exactly what we are witnessing today. Ugly double standards courtesy of the Anarchist Left; when conservatives speak they are accused of violence if they take a view contrary to the “woke” Left, but if the same language is used by the Left, it as indication of empathy, and “wokeness” – always excused.

Bettina Arndt’s award earlier this year was vehemently attacked by Labor senate leadership team. That same team of two women remain as silent as a rock, over the more recent award to that purveyor of ugly, sexist violence to women and anti-Semitic tweets, Mike Carlton.

Reason? He’s from the tribe. He’s from the Left. Similarly the treatment of Cardinal George Pell, and Paul Bonjornio, both in a seminary with that horrific pedophile, Ridgedale.

Pell should have been fully alert and known all that went on. Bonjornio on the other hand, fully excused, “of course, he couldn’t have known.”

The difference of treatment? Pell is of a conservative disposition; Bonjornio from the Left. We see the “woke” Left attacking statues of former Coalition leaders and Captain Cook, possibly the world’s greatest ever navigator; for allegedly being racist.

But a Labor leader [Arthur Calwell] who supported the ‘White Australia Policy’, and famously (or infamously) said, “two wongs, don’t make a white” sits in the pantheon of Labor leaders. As does another Labor leader [Gough Whitlam] who referred to Vietnamese refugees “[expletive deleted], Vietnamese Balts.”

No their names are not to be vilified or desecrated. Instead they are hallowed. Why? Because they are from the Left, whereas the Coalition leader [Tony Abbott] who voluntarily dedicated a week per year assisting Indigenous communities without media fan fare, needs to be vilified for his alleged racism.

Go figure!

Refusal to acknowledge any good in others, and any possible failings in the tribe has become the mantra and justification to remove people from employment, films and books from the public; for sports people to kneel for a cause and close businesses.

So much for the celebration of diversity – everything is judged in terms of claimable victimhood, division and partisanship.

The tribe excuses each other and accuses everyone else – the recipe for disharmony, anarchy and societal collapse. Facts, evidence, objective truths are junked in favor of bullying, sloganeering, and emoting.

The time has come to stand firm, push back and advocate the cause of our wonderful heritage bequeathed to us by our forebears; an heritage of civility, a system of democratic government, the rule of law, personal freedoms, and the standard of living, all of which makes Australians the envy of the world.

I for one will continue to be thankful and defend and promote that heritage, because for all its faults I know no better country.

I know no better people.”

References:

[i] Abetz, E. Freedom of Speech, 2nd July 2019.

[ii] Haidt, J. & Lukianoff. G. 2018. The Coddling of the American Mind Penguin Books Ltd.

[iii] Allen, J. Cowardly Elites appease bullies of Cancel Culture The Australian, 16th June, 2020

First published on Caldron Pool, 25th June 2020.

Photo by Mateus Campos Felipe on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Are we truly listening to the voice of ALL African Americans?

Or are we only hearing from those who’ve been pre-approved to speak on behalf of our would-be Marxist overlords?

In the case of the latter, our African American brothers and sisters are seen as a possession, powerless and inferior; an instrument for Cultural Marxists to plough through Western Civilisation, further establishing the false promise of a Utopia, via hidden power brokers within the Western Marxist hegemony.

Are we truly listening?

Or is it, that the only black lives who matter, are those who can be used to further the paralyzing, oppressive, and divisive, Leftist ideological paradigm?

[Read more here: Woke Healthcare workers lose their Wokeness When asked Whether Black lives in the Womb Mattered]

Brandon Tatum:

“Leaving the Student For Trump Rally today the lone Trump protester couldn’t believe ME a Black man was a Trump supporter 🤣”

Grow the Heck Up:

Angela Stanton-King:

Voddie Baucham:

Anthony Brian Logan:

 

Anyone who still thinks the protests in the United States, and elsewhere are about black lives, and not about Marxism, are deluding themselves.

Case in point: Heg gave his life in the fight against slave-owners, yet the mob sees his monument as a valid target for “cancellation.” 🤔

‘On December 30, 1862, at the battle of Stones River, Heg’s regiment lost more than 100 men. His horse was shot out from under him and his general called him “the bravest of the brave.” In February 1863 Heg was put in command of the entire brigade and pursued retreating Confederate troops through Tennessee, briefly into Alabama, and across the state line to Chickamauga, Georgia.
At Chickamauga, Georgia, 10 miles south of Chattanooga, the Confederates made a stand. On September 19-20, 1863, Heg’s brigade was outnumbered and the 15th Infantry again lost more than 100 soldiers.
On the afternoon of September 19, 1863, Heg was charging forward at the front of his troops when he was shot in the abdomen. He managed to stay in the saddle for a short time, but loss of blood compelled him to leave the field and move to a hospital behind the lines where he died the next morning.’  (Source: Heg, Col. Hans Christian (1829-1863) 

As Klavan explains:

 

 

 

If the facts cannot be squeezed into a meme the level of attention those facts receive is reduced. Attention to detail is overlooked for what will best attract a view, a like, a follow or a share. Information is seen purely as a commodity.

The problem is that when information is seen purely as a commodity, truth is easily compromised.

We don’t need to look any further than the internet. It’s now common place to log on and find someone accusing someone else of being a Nazi or a racist. This may have reached the status of cliché, and as such is easily dismissed. Nevertheless real concern should be given to it. Especially, when we’re bombarded with celebrity endorsed outrage, and articles written by professionals, (often falsely) equating their opponents with the National Socialists of the 1930’s, without qualification.

For example: in August 2016, a lecturer from Sydney University,  compared fair-minded conservative opposition to same-sex marriage, with the Nazi treatment of homosexuals. In addition, a student was reported to have been disallowed from presenting a case, linking examples of how anti-Israel sentiment, is linked to anti-Semitism. [source]

Historical comparisons made between present and past, should be measured for accuracy. Responsible self-criticism leads us to ask ourselves whether or not our opponent has a point. However, measuring the accuracy of our opponents claim shouldn’t stop with us. For it to be completely fair, the enquiry must also include the consideration of whether or not our opponents, are themselves guilty of doing the very things they’re accusing others of doing.

One good practice, when being likened to the Nazis, is reading material from those who’ve studied the historical context; the history of and the history associated with Nazism. Read those who’ve engaged with the primary sources, and who understand not just what the Nazis did, but how, and why, they did it.

It’s here that Thomas Doherty’s insightful and well researched 2013 book, ‘Hollywood & Hitler‘ shines:

Page 9, citing a PCA[i] report on the prohibition of the movie ‘All Quiet on The Western Front‘, Dec, 18, 1930:
“There is no doubt that this wave of intense national prejudice, which is for now going on, will continue and that any pictures, particularly foreign pictures, which offend the sensibilities of the National Socialists will be a signal for riots and demonstrations.’ [i]
Page 21: ‘Even before Goebbels laid down the law, the Nazi rhetoric on race was being implemented by pumped-up S.A. thugs and zealous party bureaucrats. From Berlin radiating outward, the iron grip tightened over all aspects of film-related culture – artists and technicians, film content and style, trade periodicals and reviewer bylines, theatre ownership and ticket buyers.’ [ii]
Page 97: ‘The Nazis, said Prince Hubertus Lowenstein [an early critic of Nazism], had annihilated all that was good in German culture.”Everything that had made for the glory of Germany has been destroyed in the past three years. The best actors and artists have been expelled.
Approximately 1100 scholars and scientists have had to leave, only because they believed in freedom of art, of thought, and of religion.” Jews were forbidden to buy milk for their children, and Catholics were jailed for keeping the faith.
The jackboot crushing Jews and Catholics, he predicted, was but a preview of oppressions to come. All those speaking that night urged a united front against Hitler. “We must organise to fight the Nazi invasion before Americans lose their constitutional liberties”‘[iii]

Doherty helps to shine a light on where, and if, Nazism or fascists are active today. When matched against current events descriptions such as, “intense prejudice, the iron grip, that which offends the sensibilities is a signal for riots and demonstrations; rhetoric on race by pumped-up thugs and zealous party bureaucrats”, all show that those pointing their finger and crying wolf about Nazism and fascism, reflect it the most.

The radical Left is already becomes suspect when its adherents use its political platforms to denounce all opposition as Nazism, without any real qualification. It’s already suspect when those same adherents ignore questions, make false claims and turn all fair criticism into “hate speech”. It’s already suspect when this very same ideology backs policies that undermine the humanity of the unborn, democratic debate, diversity of thought, reasoned opinion, expression and faith.

It’s already suspect when some of its most fervent adherents remain silent about the current events in Turkey, or Islamism in general, and yet continue to promote the BDS academic boycott movement against Israel. [source] The radical Left is more than worthy of our suspicions when we only hear the sound of crickets chirping to the tune of double standards, hypocrisy, selective outrage, suppression of faith and reason, political evasion, and propaganda.

As Theodore Kupfer asked, ‘Where are the Academic Boycotts of Turkey?’ It’s tragically ironic that anti-Israel protesters are loud and proud, yet they remain silent about Turkey:

“The response of Western academia has thus far been limited to expressions of grave concern for the fate of individual academics who have been subject to the purge [in Turkey].
No organised boycott effort has surfaced on any level. Mere proclamations of solidarity are supposed to suffice in the case of Turkey, while the same organisations agitate for nothing short of a blanket institutional boycott in the case of Israel.
Mind you, academic conditions in Israel are far superior to those in Turkey. Even attempts to portray Israel as hostile to academic freedom are evidence for this.” [iv]

The irony feeds suspicion of the radical Left. All that’s missing from the trajectory of this ideological radicalism is a figure-head with the power to influence enough people to fanatically fall in line behind them. With what’s happened in opposition to Donald Trump’s election in the United States, such suspicions should be weighed carefully.

Whether we like it or not, we’re being forced into categories by those who want to define us, determine what we think, and turn our freedoms into a carrot on a stick. The agenda isn’t about equality, it’s about dominance. The agenda isn’t about rights, it’s about power. The agenda isn’t about progress, it’s about pride.

It’s ironic that a people’s court stands ready to condemn those who don’t align, agree or pledge allegiance to the Left. The oppressor presents themselves as the oppressed, and no one is allowed to have an opposing view. It’s at this point that we’re not far from Gene Edward Veith, in his underrated 1993, book ‘Modern Fascism’, rightly suggested that there is a link between Heidegger’s revisionist/deconstructionism and fascism.

For example:

“What is the deconstructive basis for condemning Nazism? Would it not be in keeping with the in keeping with the logic of deconstruction, the deconstructive basis for condemning Nazism, reverses a claim like “the Nazis oppressed the Jews,” showing instead that the Jew cooked in a Nazi oven was really the Nazis’ oppressor.
The real-world endpoint of Heideggerian (and now Derridean and de Manian) deconstructionism [and its elimination of] the logocentric (Judeo-Christian) tradition is Auschwitz […]” [v]

This is why theology is important. As Timothy Gorringe states, ‘[Judeo-Christian] theology stands as a critique of ideology,’ [vi] but if it’s to remain authentic theology, it will have to navigate society’s obsession with the Left/Right metaphor. This is partly why I’m not big on the Right/Left metaphor in regards to describing factions within the State or the Church. Throughout history, the meaning has shifted. The metaphor is inadequate. We cannot rely on it entirely.

Another reason for why theology is important is because faith seeks understanding. To confess that Jesus Christ is Lord necessarily means to admit that Jesus Christ is no human pawn. Whether they be, deconstructionists, modernists, futuristic, archaic, primitive, progressive, communist, fascist, conservative, material or spiritual; Any Christian theology worthy of its name-sake, is and always will stand as a critique of all human centered strongholds that claim godlikeness; a challenge to all towers of Bable.

Genuine Christianity is, as Karl Barth duly noted, ‘the protest against all the high places which human beings build for themselves’ (Karl Barth C.D IV/II p.524).

To say that history is being repeated is not overstating the current zeitgeist. History is not, however, being repeated in the same way that the Left often sells it. Based on what is presented by Doherty, Kupfer, Vieth and Hirsch above, it’s those who recklessly cry wolf about Fascists, and subsequently point to the Right, who have more in common with the Nazis, than they do the victims of Nazism.

May we continue to be free, and well informed enough to differentiate between the real and the wrongly labelled.


References:

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

[ii] ibid, 2013

[iii] ibid, 2013

[iv] Kupfer, T. 2016 Where Are the Academic Boycotts of Turkey? sourced 24th August 2016 from nationalreview.com

[v] Hirsch, D. 1991. The Deconstruction of Literature: Criticism after Auschwitz (p.87) Cited by Gene E. Veith, Modern Fascism, 1993. Concordia Publishing House.

[vi] Gorringe, T.J 1999 Karl Barth: Against Hegemony Christian theology in context Oxford University Press New York

[Updated and edited from an article posted in August, 2016, called, The Usurping of Things To Come?’ Also published at The Caldron Pool, 13th November, 2018 under the heading, ‘Who are the real fascists?’]

Photo credit:  Taton Moïse on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2018.

An African American man questioning healthcare workers about abortion is making its way around the internet. The group had lined up outside either a healthcare clinic or Hospital, brandishing placards in a show of “woke” solidarity with Black Lives Matter.

As one of the healthcare workers moves forward to kneel, the man in the video asks the group whether “all black lives matter or just some black lives?” The crowd responded, “All black lives matter.

The unknown individual then asks “the black lives killed by black men matter right?” Again the healthcare workers respond, “Yes! Oh, hell yes!”

He then asks, “black babies killed in abortion clinics matter, right?”

Unwilling, unable or unsure of how to respond, the healthcare workers go silent. The man replies, “thought so.”

He continues with, “that black officer killed in Minnesota matters to right?” To which the group also gives their loud, resounding “yes!”

The yet to be identified man in the video then rhetorically asks, “but the black babies that are killed in the abortion clinics don’t matter do they, medical people?”

Healthcare workers once again go silent.

The man in the brief video then closes with this thunderous punch line,

 “Do their lives matter? Does the future of our black babies matter? What’s up? Huh? Awful quiet now aren’t they? Ah. Huh! It’s okay if we kill them in the womb, right? But you don’t seem to really have a problem when we [black people] kill them on the streets. Yes, well we know that they’re the same issue. If we don’t respect the lives of our unborn children, enough to save them and fight for them, our lives mean nothing once we’re born.”

American Civil Rights group The Radiance Foundation posted the video to Facebook & Twitter yesterday, with a caption saying:

“These (pandering) healthcare professionals become awfully silent when their “wokeness” is called out. So “woke”. So “blind”.

The questions within the video are consistent with the Radiance Foundation’s rejection of “race”, and its own self-titled “factivist” criticisms of Leftist activism, including the Black Lives Matter movement, racism, abortion, and LGBT ideology.

On June 5th, founder, Ryan Bomberger penned an outstanding ten point article listing reasons for why he’ll never support B.L.M. stating,

‘Yes, black lives matter. But truth matters. As a Christian, the Church should be leading on these issues instead of sheepishly following a movement hostile to the Gospel.’

As part of this rejection he cites the B.L.M’s Marxist manifest, its focus on ‘black power, the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism. It ignores the fatherlessness epidemic of our age, includes the demand for reparations, abolishing of law enforcement, and is pro-abortion.’

They aren’t the only African Americans speaking out against the shackles put on them by the Left’s reigning, toxic leftist hegemony.

Brandon Tatum hit his Youtube channel hard with a range of dialogue about it, including “White Privilege is MADE UP by leftists”, “Enough with the anti-White narrative” and the (must watch) panel discussing B.L.M  featuring Derrick Gradenigo, Chi Brown, and Anthony Logan.

The latter also came down hard on the subject. Logan’s been prolific in his criticism of people genuflecting to leftism, B.L.M., people capitulating to cancel culture, and Antifa; including one post called ‘PLEASE STOP WHITE GUILT’ (caps are his).

There’s more.

Darrell B. Harrison and Virgil Walker, the voices behind the Just Thinking Podcast, put up a ‘free style episode’ called ‘George Floyd & the Gospel’ addressing the ‘tiresome’ leftist narrative of white vs. black perpetuated by mainstream media.

Harrison & Walker also discussed the serious theological error of equating sin with the shade of a person’s melanin; and how the importance of the Imago Dei confronts us with God’s “no” to the concept of “race”, and the sin of racism.

The episode has hit over 100k shares, making it their biggest podcast to date.

The theme all these voices have in common is that the genuflecting has to end. The bad theology supporting the Black Lives Matter movement (as opposed to the sentiment of the statement) has to end. The tip toeing, kneeling, feet kissing, constant apologizing, agreeing to cancel anything deemed racist by a mob leaping before it looks, has to end.

If the African American voices I’m hearing are correct, none of this is helpful to the black community. Instead of being an expression of love for neighbour, it becomes a self-serving, harmful deification of neighbour.

Worse, it fuses the false concept of race to the Gospel; measures evil by the shade of someone’s melanin, and deifies ethnicity. It raises one group up as superior over against the other. This is a theology of glory preaching the fascist concepts of the superman (ubermensch), blood and soil (blut und boden) and life unworthy of life (Lebensunwertes Leben). It’s not the Gospel. It’s not the theology of the cross.

As Virgil Walker wrote on Instagram today,

“When you follow the BLM/Social Justice Gospel, the lengthy list of “works” required to atone for the sins of others NEVER ends. Furthermore, it changes every day as someone more WOKE (woker than thou) provides you with a new list.”

In order words, you’ll never be woke enough.

Since the death of George Floyd we’ve all been asked to pause and listen, but are we genuinely hearing the voice of ALL African Americans?

Or are we only hearing from those who’ve been pre-approved to speak on behalf of our would-be Marxist overlords?

It should be well noted that in the case of the latter, all appearances suggest that our African American brothers and sisters are seen as a possession, powerless and inferior; an instrument for Cultural Marxists to plough through Western Civilization, further establishing the false promise of a Utopia, via hidden power brokers within the Western Marxist hegemony.

Are we truly listening?

Or is it that the only black lives that matter are those who can be used to keep the paralyzing, oppressive, and divisive, leftist hegemony on life-support, and it’s soon to be defeated, toxic ideological paradigm alive?

[VIDEO]


First published on Caldron Pool, 20th June 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020

Carl F.H. Henry’s ‘Twilight of a Great Civilization: The Drift Toward Neo-Paganism’ (1988) is chillingly accurate.

He admonishes complacency, retreat and inaction without slipping into an apocalyptic moralistic rant about a wayward world. The value here, at least for me anyway, is found in its prescience, and Henry’s focus on truth vs. falsehood, as opposed to Right vs. Left; sinner vs. sinless.

Henry pivots his entire discourse on a Socratic question, asking readers to note, reflect, and deflect neo-paganism’s self-evident cultural contamination of the West through Secular Humanism. Centre-stage is the salvific importance of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

This is because as long as God’s freely spoken Word remains free to be spoken; it will always restrain the ‘isms, and false gods we create in our own image. This restraint comes in the form of confrontation and correction. It isn’t for the betterment or advance of an ideology. Nor is it to candy coat a totalitarian overreach of religion. It’s for our betterment and advance, because of God’s love for us.

When the Word of God no longer is free, the boxing in of the Creator reaps the inevitable backwards movement of the creature. Man and woman position themselves as lord over the Word. They operate as lawless, under the false idea that they are lordless. This happens when the free Word of God is distorted, made abstract and alien; re-imagined through the lens of human ideas, imagination, superstition, and false myth.

For Henry, the subjugation of the free, objectively spoken Word of God is an abandonment of reason, faith and ultimately true humanity.

‘History loosed from God can be a pattern of meaningless cycles, each turning inward, or an arena in which the superman imagines himself to be its divine Lord’ (1988, p.35).

He correctly warns,

‘when contemporary theologians call for works, and not words – beware!’ Adding, ‘we must not be timid and isolate ourselves…we must not be held at bay by the powers of this world or defanged by the spirit of the age.’ (Henry, 1988. pp.54-55)

Melanie Phillips provides an apt example of this in her discussion on the downgrading of the Anglican Church. Its accommodation of moral and cultural relativism, surrender to victim culture (Cultural Marxism), and inclusivity can be linked to abusive New Age cults rising within the church.

The Anglican Church in Britain let the ‘welfare state displace Christianity.’ The church surrendered its convictions, and ‘retreated from the public square’, knocking the everyday relevance of Christianity from its rightful place in British society.

Hence Melanie’s conclusion,

‘While ‘the decline of the church has contributed in great measure to the decline of Britain, it is also arguable that the decline of Britain has contributed in large measure to the decline of the church.’ (‘World Turned Upside Down’, 2010)

The primary theme addressed by Henry is that institutional Christianity ‘dropped the barricade against paganism, has been too busy powdering it’s nose to preserve an attractive image; and too busy pandering to revolutionaries and reactionaries who need to be remade in Christ’s image’ instead the Church allowing them to remake Christ in theirs. (p.17)

This protest is about getting our own house in order before looking to bring order to an ever increasingly disordered world.

Henry notes:

‘It makes a critical difference whether or not one thinks and acts christianly.
• If one believes that God is the supreme Sovereign, one will not be deluded by myths about Hitler or Stalin or Mao or by emperors like the Roman Caesars or the German Kaiser Wilhelm, who proclaimed “Deutschland uber Alles!” (Germany above all)
• If one believes that God is creator of the planets and stars, one will pity sun-worshippers and horoscope addicts and all who think that human life is merely a cosmic accident.
• If one believes that God created humanity in the divine image, one will not consider women inferior to men, or give credence to apartheid and myths about racial superiority.
• If one believes that God instituted monogamous marriage – so that father, mother, and offspring conceived in wedlock form the ideal home – one will think differently about the single woman who wants a child outside of marriage, and about artificial insemination of a woman with the sperm of an unknown father.
• If one believes that God fixes the boundaries of the nations, one will know that it is not military might alone that ultimately will decide the fortunes of the United States or Soviet Russia or Mainland China and Hong Kong.
• If one believes that God is omniscient, one will not think one can hide the way one does one’s business, or that what one does in the privacy of one’s home can be hidden [forever].
• If one believes that God made human beings to think His thoughts after Him, one will not stock one’s soul with salacious literature or steep his spirit in pornographic publications.
• If one believes that God intends the human body to be a temple of the Holy Spirit, one will not debilitate it with alcohol, cigarettes and drugs.
• If one believes that God works out for good whatever touches the life of His children, one will not respond as pagans do to the loss of a job, to terminal illness, or to the unexpected death of a loved one.
• If one believes that God commands us to love our neighbours as ourselves, one will not leave a neighbour in need or trouble to fend for himself or herself, but will treat the neighbour as extended family.’ (pp.119-120)

This marks the prescience of Henry’s work (that of Melanie Phillips, and even Jordan Peterson, who has talked about the consequences of removing the Logos from Western Civilization).

All three point to the dehumanizing consequences of removing the free, objectively spoken Word of God (the Logos) from the centre of society, politics and religion.

The right response to compromise is acknowledging where, why and how it exists. This includes the uncritical Christian accommodation for neo-paganism under the banner of tolerance and inclusion, and often conveniently forgotten red flags by which historical precedence blasts warnings into the present.

Henry’s work here isn’t a procedural self-help, 12 step cure-all treatise. Neither is it a diatribe about Right vs. Left, black vs. white, Evangelical vs. liberal, and so on.

Henry’s sole concern is about truth vs. falsehood, replacing lies with the truth; the role of Christ, and therefore the role of the true Christian Church as it looks to lead, by being led by the Holy Spirit, without falling into step with the spirit of the age.


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

Photo by Pawel Janiak on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020

Whether you’re soaked in the dye of the Left or the Right; politically branded and proud to wear it, or disinclined to bow before either.

No one is outside the sharp insight found within these words:

‘’…He told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt.’’ (Lk.18:9)

Prior to this Jesus had just finished speaking of a widow, who persistently came before a judge, pleading her case.

The judge is described as one ‘who neither feared God nor respected man.’ (Lk.18:2). We know little of the widow’s situation other than that, given her persistence, it must have been desperate.  As the parable goes, the judge, more out of irritation than compassion, grants the widow justice.

Jesus doesn’t finish there. Luke records that what followed was an imperative “…hear what the unrighteous judge says.” (Lk.18:6)

Jesus then makes it clear that God “will give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night … He will give justice to them speedily.” (Lk.18:7-8)

In a seemingly unrelated conclusion, Jesus poses a question about the future. Leaning on the distinction between the widow’s relentless faith despite her suffering, and what could be described as the judge’s militant atheism, Jesus asks: “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?”

It’s from here that Luke cements one of the most significant parables taught by Jesus: the Pharisee and the Tax collector.

We’re told that.

‘’two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.”

The Pharisee prays,

“God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; and give tithes of all that I get.” (Lk.18:11-12)

We’re to understand that the Pharisee considers himself more righteous than the tax collector. He is ‘asserting his own righteousness’[i]

To see the relevance of this, we need to go back to Jesus’ question about the future at the end of the last parable:

“When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?”

It’s a question that begs another: Do we have more faith in ourselves, than we do in God?

In 21st century terms, the Pharisee would be living out of an attitude that leads to a prayer like this:

“God, I thank you that I am not like that racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, or intolerant person over there; I’m socially “responsible” and unlike all those haters, and “deplorables.”

There is a keenness to point out what others are, readiness to shift the focus of sin, a readiness to parade a fashionable, Machiavellian, public display of righteousness.

There is no recognition or confession of the fact that ‘’all have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God’’ (Rom.3:23). The sinner is whoever and whatever the 21st Century Pharisee claims not to be. You are whatever they say you are. You will do, speak and think what they tell you to or else.

Accordingly, the righteous are those who adhere to the human rules and guidelines set by the modern Pharisee. In modern society this is imposed by the predominantly political and academic elite.

On the surface the 21st century Pharisee gives lip service to God, but underneath has become as God.

As identified by John Machen, in his 1923 book ‘Christianity Vs. Liberalism’, the majority of the Left, similar to that of the far-right, follow a faux religion. It’s a revisionism that fits the Bible and Christianity into a political box. The extremes of modern liberalism are upheld by tea-straining theology through the lens of social justice; of feel-good activism and ideologically mandated politics, which is quick to damn anyone they’ve collectively deemed as having fallen short of the faux word of god.

These are built on the imperatives of the progressive, “social Gospel”, that has slowly replaced Jesus Christ as the Gospel, with loyalty to a political ideology, a faux Christ, faux gospel and therefore a faux god.

Evidence for this can be found in the uncontrolled emotional outbursts and reactions to the recent election in the United States.

The Right (extremes excluded), through its own issues with pride and fear, is dragged into this downgrade of the Gospel, (and along with it the downgrade of democracy.) Reacting against the temerity of modern liberalism, the Right builds its own ideological fortifications. Justified by the faux gospel taught by liberalism, the Right stands in a state of constant battle, brought about by constant bombardment from the Left.

In its final form, though, this monster, this faux god, emerges, having control over both spheres. Still distinct in identity, both Left and Right worship, and conduct themselves under one faux religion. The difference is that one side, through compromise, jettisoned God, for the power it thought it would gain for having done so; whereas the other side, provoked into pushing back, finds itself slowly becoming that which it once fought against.

‘The warfare of the world has entered even into the house of God, and sad indeed is the heart of the man who has come seeking peace.’ (Machen, 1923*)

In contrast to the Pharisee, we’re confronted by the awkward timidity of the tax collector. He stands far off. He doesn’t even raise his eyes to heaven (Lk.18:13). He knows the job he has to do each day and wears the cost of it. His job isn’t easy and it’s not going to get easy anytime soon.

His only hope is in God. It isn’t in what he does, his nation gives or what others say he is.

Instead of seeking to out-do the Pharisee in self-praise, the tax collector “beats his chest [a sign of humility & shame][ii], saying, God, be merciful to me, a sinner!”

Jesus finishes the parable, saying,

“I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other.”

The bible tells us that ‘none is righteous and the fool jettisons God.’ (Rom.3:10/Psalm 14/Psalm 53)

We are encouraged to be wary of wolves in sheep’s clothing, of false teachers; masked “believers”.

We’re warned that at the coming of the Son of Man, sheep will be separated from goats (Matthew 25). That the political games of deny, evade and blame that give power, will no longer serve to do so.

Both sheep and goats are strong metaphors. For justifiable reasons, whether right or left, liberal or conservative, Christians are summoned to trust and follow the Good Shepherd, not bleat expletives, or eat everything that comes our way.

As for the elect, mentioned in the first parable, we can say that they are, the broken and contrite. They are ‘those who call upon the name of the LORD…’(Rom.10:13 et.al)[iii]  They are, in the words of Karl Barth,

‘Jesus Christ and those He represents’ (CD. 2/2).

In closing, Jesus speaks:

 ‘For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.’ (Lk.18:14)

Whether police officer, anarchist rioter, tax collector, Pharisee, liberal, or conservative, no one lives outside the parameters of these words.[iv]

The praise of God outdoes and outlasts the praise of self. May we follow the heartfelt and humble zeal of the tax collector, over-against, the self-righteous fanaticism[v] of the Pharisee.


Notes:

[i] Green, J.B. 1997 NICNT: Luke Wm.B Eerdmans Publishing, [Green also notes, ‘Luke’s purpose is not to condemn a particular group but to warn against a particular way of comporting oneself in light of the present and impending reign of God.’ (NICNT: Luke, p.646)]

[ii]  (Green, p.649)

[iii]  Romans 10:13, ‘For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’ See also: Joel 2:32/Acts 2:21/Psalm 145:18 & my personal favourite Psalm 51:17.

[iv] As Green writes: ‘disciples always are in danger of Pharisaic behaviour’ (NICNT: Luke p.646)

[v] Keenness to issue blame, and bestow on themselves credit.

*Machen, J.G. 1923 Christianity & Liberalism: closing remarks

Photo by John Moeses Bauan on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020

The tragic death of George Floyd was primarily about law enforcement’s abuse of deadly force. All the evidence suggests racism was not a motivator. Yet, many in the Leftist mainstream media, along with their celebrity sycophants, and some well-meaning community leaders jumped straight to the “it’s racist” button, using George’s death as an excuse to once again impose their vacuous ideological paradigm on the rest of us, as they parade their own self-righteous virtue all over social media.

The majority of images, and comments, from “kill whitey”, to those laden with white guilt, and self-hatred, weren’t altruistic. They weren’t about seeking justice for George. They were shared to either perpetuate, or avoid the “you’re white, therefore you’re racist” fallacy. It’s all a self-righteous show that puts appearances before substance; emotion before evidence; bandwagon activism before just causes.

Images posted of George to social media, claiming that George’s death was the result of “systemic racism” within the “white” community perpetuates the racist myth that our melanin or ethnicity defines our character, when it doesn’t. On a deeper level, this kind of fallacious belief extracts sin from racism. Since sin permeates all ethnicities, it removes the sin of racism from select communities. In turn those select communities are deemed sinless; exempt, immune from the virus.

But sin makes no distinction between gender and ethnicity. Sin knows no race other than the human race. Perpetuating the racist myth from Leftists that “all white people are racist” doesn’t give George justice. Perpetuating this stigma against white people emboldens a false narrative and its cycle of manipulative rhetoric, resentment and hate. It perpetuates racism.  Perpetuating this stigma against white people, is as unjust as stigmatizing all black people with the brand “criminal”.

This genetic fallacy takes attention away from the injustices carried out by a minority of law enforcement officers, who abuse the power and trust handed to them. It exaggerates the sin of racism where racism doesn’t exist, and dilutes action against racism where it does exist.

Even though there is an obvious disproportionate dysfunctional relationship between law enforcement and members of the African American community, the overall inherent breakdown between law enforcement, and the public, affects all members of the community.

Justice for George begins here. It begins by separating fact from fiction. Justice, free from the political agendas of predominantly loud, Leftist activists. Activists who would love nothing more than to ignite a race war in order to take down people that they themselves deem unworthy of life – people with a different view, who offer reasoned criticism or don’t follow along blindly.

It should be no surprise that the same people screaming “evidence of systemic racism” now, without evidence to back that claim up, hate Trump with a vengeance. Where were they when Democrat presidential candidate, Joe Biden made racist remarks? Biden inferred to black America that they were owned by the Democrat Party because they owed the Democrat Party – words USA Today was right to describe as ‘voter intimidation.

Note well the hypocrisy of leaders who remain silent about abortion, but publicly beat their chests, and tear open their garments in protest over George’s death, remain silent about the industrial abortion industry. The latter, is surely as important as the former, when applying Martin Luther King’s ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere’.

As tragic, as unnecessary, as senseless, and as vile as the murder of George Floyd is, that doesn’t change the fact that under the definition of racism, it is racist to assume racism was the chief motivator solely because the police officer was white!

The emotionally charged jump past the evidence, towards racist conclusions, has turned just protests into unjust rioting. Personal property is destroyed, communities suffer and cities burn. The political charged narrative has trumped justice, mercy and love.

We need to preserve the truth, not perpetuate Leftist myths which preach a false narrative that stirs up fear, division, as its progenitors steer an unquestioning public towards an outcome that serves their own political ends.

When I asked on social media about whether there was proof of racism in this case, I was shutdown. I asked about whether or not George’s death was racially motivated or simply an example of arrogant law enforcement applying an unnecessary, excessive use of force? I asked for people to back up their virtue signalling with evidence to support their claims.

In the case of Kevin Max, an ex-DC Talk member, who now describes himself as a leftist, my respectful, reasoned comments were deleted. Then my account blocked.

The message was clear: “don’t challenge the narrative”, “don’t question the party line.”

The lingering questions attached are about political agenda.  As suggested on Twitter by Jesse Lee Peterson, and at least one other Twitter user:

With reports of ANTIFA (and it would be fair to assume, white nationalist fringe dwellers) on the ground fuelling the riots, Leftists appear to want a race war. Accompanied by their sense of entitlement to black Americans this suggests that the Left is confident of winning the 2020 election in the United States on a zero sum basis of pitching black against white.

The Left’s chosen battle field for the election may very well be a community divided by hatred. Their weapon of choice, a reigniting of old wounds, in order to take a throne that they consider to be rightfully theirs.

What these lingering questions imply is that the outrage isn’t about justice for George. The outrage is a pretence for a last ditch attempt to reinstate a corrupt, totalitarian power structure, threatened by Donald Trump’s presidency because his election signaled a broad rejection of Leftist utopianism.

Justice for George is about achieving justice for all victims of law enforcement who’ve abused the power and trust handed to them. Racism may have played a role, but that’s not what the evidence points to. Amy Swearer’s well written piece in the Daily Signal backs this conclusion.

According to The Week’s, Kathryn Krawczyk, the officer who pinned George down, had a history of conduct complaints laid against him, with zero action taken by then prosecutor, and now potential Vice-Presidential candidate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (Democrat-Minn.).

A radicalized media, aligned comfortably with the far-Left, counts their profits, as they warm their hands by fires they helped to ignite. They play the heart strings of Americans like a fiddle, and in the process stop all thinking Americans from questioning their agenda. That they appear to be succeeding is beyond tragic.

I’m not alone. Candace Owens, among many others, including Brandon Tatum, Alveda King, and Terrance Williams, took to social media to call for calm, and for a push back against the narrative. On Instagram yesterday, Owen’s passionately wrote:

This is Minnesota where black people are now looting and rioting to avenge the death of George Floyd.
EXACTLY AS I PREDICTED AND WHY I TOLD YOU MORONS NOT TO TAKE THE MEDIA BAIT.
No one—not a single solitary person defended or excused the death of George Floyd, so why is this rioting happen? Because that is what the media wanted. Because it’s what they have trained us to do since the mid 60’s, when they married us to the Democrat Party….white liberal politicians will stump on our issues, pretending to be our shoulders to cry on. They will tell us it’s because of system oppression and we will believe it and repeat the same bullshit again, EVERY FOUR YEARS.
We allow our black youth to be programmed by a satanic media that tells them that they will never be anything, and life will never be fair so they MIGHT AS WELL lead a life of anger and crime.
Our inability to THINK through emotional tragedies is our biggest curse, and the Democrat Party’s biggest blessing.’ (Abridged)

The process of justice for George has only just begun. Yet America burns because the meta-narrative being preached by leftists is winning out over the process of justice, and evidence based reasoning.

One of the few things this proves is that Westerners are slipping further and further away from objective morality, fact based evidence, and intellectual inquiry.

Instead of lament and remedy, our poets applaud as fires burn, and our leaders submit to an acquiescent quid pro quo, while freedom, truth and honesty, lay mortally wounded on the altar of the cult of modern liberalism.


First published on Caldron Pool, 30th May 2020.

Photo by Jack Finnigan on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Bolstered by the apparent reluctance of the Morrison federal government to answer growing concerns over the Victorian government’s secretive ‘belt and road’ deal with the Chinese Communist Party, China’s Communist propaganda machine went full Hanoi Hannah, in an attempt to stir up fear of a potential American withdrawal from its long standing partnership with Australia.

In response to what America thought about the deal, U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, a frequent whipping boy of China’s Global Times, told Sky News that he didn’t know the ‘nature of the projects’, but asserted that the United States will do everything it can to protect its communications infrastructure, including ‘simply disconnecting’ if trust in this area was broken.

Pompeo, who is pro-Australia, mentioned that America aims to ‘preserve trust in networks for important information’, and said he hopes that their ‘five eyes (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Britain, U.S.) intelligence partners would do the same.’ He added that the U.S. had absolute confidence in the Australian government’s ability to protect the security of its telecommunications networks and those of its Five Eyes partners.’

The Global Times and some within the Australian MSM took ‘simply disconnect’ and ran with it. The Guardian wrote a melodramatic hit piece, accusing Pompeo of causing ‘damage’, shooting off a brief, pompous rant about Rupert Murdoch, and Sky News’ program, ‘Outsiders’ along with it. The Guardian noted that Pompeo’s comments caused a major stir, while simultaneously downplayed the reach and impact of the Sky News program as a minor player. The ABC ran with the sound bite, but steered clear of the biased analysis vomited by The Guardian.

The equally biased, Australian hating, anti-American Global Times said,

‘Be well prepared to be abandoned at any time. Obviously, what is on the mind of Pompeo and his likes is only US self-interests, and Washington is not going to foot the bill for the lost Australian jobs, Australia is already in a passive position in the face of wavering US policy. Canberra is forced to pick a side between Beijing and the Washington even when it is loath to jeopardise its relationship with China.’

The statement from China’s state owned media further reveals the arrogance which underpins the Chinese Communist Party’s view of themselves and their trade partners. It’s also apparent that Chinese Communist officials either don’t understand, or underestimate Australia’s relationship with the United States. I suspect the former.

Chinese communist chest beating has progressed beyond verbal intimidation tactics. As we’ve seen in recent weeks, China’s first strike against Australia is an attempt to trigger a tariff war. By targeting the Australian economy, the CCP believe that they will bring the Australian people into submission. The CCP believe they have power over Australia, and their smug presumption is encouraged further by the Victorian Labor Party’s deal with the oppressive totalitarian regime.

Regardless of comments from the Victorian Premier saying “he doesn’t agree with the Chinese Communist Party on everything”, don’t miss the blatant contradiction. Daniel Andrews, an avid social justice warrior, who ‘believes all victims’, and marches for the concerns of the oppressed, signed a deal with an oppressive regime.

As noted by outspoken Hong Kong business man, Lai Chee-Ying (Jimmy Lai) on Twitter:

China’s intimidation tactics and its tariff war should have been enough for Daniel Andrews to rip up the ‘belt and road’ initiative deal. It wasn’t. In declining to defend Australia’s national interest, against an oppressor, Daniel Andrews proved that his deal was not about people or jobs. It was about profit; power and political capital for the Victorian Australian Labor Party.

Australia is at the crossroads. Scott Morrison needs to act on Daniel Andrews’ pro-CCP deal. Andrews dodging critical questions about his smug government’s relationship with China is a red flag. As one Twitter user said, in refuting a broad attack on Rupert Murdoch, the LNP and Newscorp, for criticism of the secretive Andrews/CCP deal:

As much as the leftist mainstream media here in Australia, and their inadvertent support for Chinese propagandists, may twist it, Pompeo isn’t the one threatening Australians.

Unlike the Chinese Communist Party, the United States isn’t holding us to ransom when they don’t get what they want, or somebody says something they don’t like.

Victoria’s alignment with China, via Labor’s Daniel Andrews, isn’t just unAustralian, it’s anti-Australian. His state government’s deal with the devil for political and financial gain just made getting Australia out of its contract with Chinese Communist totalitarian oppressors, a hell of a lot harder.

Appeasement of the Chinese Communist party is treason.


First published on Caldron Pool, 27th May 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

In July, 2017, Australian, Justine Damond (nee Ruszczyk) was gunned down by Minnesotan police officer, Mohamed Noor. Damond was fatally shot in the stomach after calling 911 in response to a woman screaming in an alley near her home. After a second call to 911, police responded. As Justine approached the vehicle, Noor shot her, later claiming he was defending against what he had determined was an ambush.

Noor was found guilty and sentenced in 2019. Over the course of that year instead of the media lamenting the murder of Justine, or calling for the reform of Minnesotan law enforcement culture, practices and training, the mainstream media saturated its reporting with a pseudo-defense of Noor, claiming racism played a crucial role in his conviction.

The New York Times headlined with A Black police officer, a White Woman, a Rare Murder Conviction. Is it hypocrisy, or justice?’. The ACLU called it ‘What Officer Noor’s Conviction Says About Racism in America’. Even the Canberra Times chimed in saying ‘Damond shooting points to U.S. police racism’. The Washington Post was less belligerent, more diplomatic, but couldn’t hide its own sway towards the “it’s because of racism” bent being applied to the officer convicted of Justine’s murder.

This phenomenon wasn’t unique to 2019. Days after Justine’s murder, VOX contributor, German Lopez wrapped the cold boney fingers of racism all over the Damond case. Lopez’s “exposé” set its sights squarely on what he alleged was a disparity of protest between the death of a white woman, and the deaths of black men in the hands of police.

The article took this “observation” and proceeded to use selective quotes from “right-wing” media as proof of bias, and white systemic racism. Lopez equated “blonde, white Justine” with innocence, and “Noor’s blackness” with crime in an attempt to paint the right-wing media as racist. By doing so he furthered the stigma a crime with African American ethnicity, something those deemed to be right-wing media never did.

Lopez constructed a racist narrative in the name of fighting racism. By publishing it VOX plugged themselves into a direct attempt to profit from a tragedy. This wasn’t “brave”. It was reckless because it embeds racism within the American community through a false narrative by allegedly uncovering hidden ‘systemic bias’’ against African Americans within right-wing media. The majority of racist narratives they will find are the ones planted there by Leftists.

To paraphrase a Booker T. Washington quote shared by David Webb in his address to Oxford Union in 2015,

‘There’s a class of people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of African Americans, before the public. Some of these people do not want African Americans to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs. There’s a certain class of race problems solvers, who don’t won’t the patient to get well.’

Lopez’s apparent obsession with racism illustrates how the leftist media wallows in its own systemic bias. Then psychologically projects that onto their opponents. To borrow Melanie Phillip’s assessment of Al Gore’s apocalyptic climate change propaganda film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’: there’s a tendency to ‘state a threat where none exists, or exaggerate threats where they may exist.’ [i]

The media coverage about Justine’s death infers that mainstream media willfully look for confirmation of their narrative. Call it confirmation bias, call it manipulative propaganda. Regardless of the name given to the process, it seems that if the largely leftist controlled mainstream media can’t find that confirmation, they’ll construe words, and events, even hijack the emotion of a tragedy and milk it for political leverage. In Lopez’s case, a well intentioned fight against racism becomes racism, by giving tragic events a racial twist.

Those on the Right aren’t exempt from promoting half-truths that confirm a certain narrative either. However, the difference between both political isles is that the Right are often more tactful about it, and they don’t get away with it was much as those on the Left. Most, at the very least, refrain from using the suffering of others as a means to promote their own virtue or piety. For the Right it’s generally about addressing the argument, not attacking the people.

For evidence of this chase down any number of examples where Conservative voices have been blocked, banned or suspended on Social Media sites for even the smallest “infringements” of their EULAs.

One quintessential example of this is the treatment of Tommy Robinson, and Free Hong Kong supporter, Avi Yemini, in contrast with the free ride given to foul mouthed feminist, Clementine Ford by the Leftist mainstream media, and Social Media platforms.

For both sides, what tends to get lost in the noise is clarity.

In Justine’s case the urgency for law enforcement reform is drowned out by a narrative of racism that is superimposed over the top. As her family recently stated, ‘the fact that another person has died at the hands of the Minneapolis police using excessive force shows that they have not made adequate changes to their practices and training as we had been told they would after Justine’s murder.’

There is no real justice for Justine or George, if their murders are used as a springboard to further entrench the false narrative of white systemic racism. Yes, racism exists. It’s an undeniable reality, which among others, proves the accuracy of the biblical indictment about the condition of the HUMAN heart, the biblical injunction against sin, that all have sinned, and God’s decisive gift of liberation from it in Jesus Christ.

Instead of focusing on the issue, which was the abuse of power by law enforcement; instead of pushing for reform of the culture, practice, and training, the Leftist mainstream media chose to tilt at windmills, chasing the “white supremacy crisis” narrative they’ve been pushing since Hilary Clinton lost the 2016 election.

That narrative is now costing lives. I think it’s fair to say that if Justine’s death hadn’t been hijacked to confirm the bias of those on the Left, who now sadly, are so thoroughly dominated by the inflexible and intolerant Leftist ideology, George Floyd may still be alive today.

As we say George Floyd’s name, may we say Justine Damond’s also.

References:

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

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

Photo by Marc Schulte on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020

 

Sitting state Labor members defending the Communist Chinese Party, while simultaneously attacking their federal government colleagues is not a good look for Australian Labor. The attacks against Andrew Hastie, George Christensen, and Scott Morrison, reveal a party divided by arrogant far-left factions advancing Australia further into a social, cultural, moral, political and economic abyss.

The reason why Labor governments in both Western Australia and Victoria warm to any “kiss and make up” approach between the Australian and Communist Chinese governments, is because Labor has political capital invested in the relationship.

Tapping into China’s flawed totalitarian powerhouse, gives them the illusion of gaining power, and the hope of maintaining it. As long as it furthers their self-interest, their ideology, and assuages the egos of Communist Chinese sycophants on their payroll, to hell with the constitution and our national interest.

Victorian Transport Infrastructure Minister Jacinta Allan, when questioned on whether Victorian Labor will use the newly signed ‘belt and road initiative’ deal with the Chinese Communist party to fund white elephant projects sinking deeper into the red, danced around it.

Despite Chinese officials denying that new 80% tariffs on barley exports were related to Australia’s push for a COVID-19 inquiry, Victorian treasurer, Tim Pallas gaslighted the Morrison government, saying the China’s new tariff war ‘was a consequence of the way that the federal government had conducted themselves.’ Sky news also reported that Pallas accused the LNP of ‘vilifying’ China.

Labor’s Western Australian “Asian Engagement Minister”, M.P, Peter Tinley hit out at Andrew Hastie in a long-winded rebuke of one of the few Australian politicians taking a principled stand in the ‘defense of Australian sovereignty, prosperity and security.’

Calling criticism of China “harmful”, Tinley aligned with the Victorian government, former LNP foreign minister, Julie Bishop, and former W.A. LNP premier Colin Barnett, advocating for ‘quiet diplomacy’. Which means surrender because it seeks to subdue, subvert and silence open criticism of the Chinese Communist regime within Australia.

The good news for Labor is that not all within the party share the same views on China. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Victorian Labor Premier, Daniel Andrews isn’t getting absolute support from his federal Labor colleagues.

“Some Labor MPs said the Victorian Labor Treasurer’s intervention was another concerning example of the Andrews government interfering in Australian foreign policy, after Victoria refused to cancel its Belt and Road agreements with the Chinese government.”

Contrary to Andrews, Premier Mark McGowan said “he had not spoken to the China’s consul-general in WA over the trade war, arguing he did not want to be accused of meddling in foreign affairs, which is a responsibility of the Commonwealth.”

Even somewhat Labor statesmen, Graham Richardson refrained from shooting blame in direction of the Prime Minister. Richardson hit the pause button talking about China’s guilt, and stated that ‘the biggest bully on the block can’t run, and can’t hide.’ So China should just own up to mistakes made in relation to COVID-19.

Richardson aligned with the sentiment in LNP’s trade minister, Simon Birmingham’s push-back against China’s ‘cheap politicking’, calling the Chinese ambassador’s glib remark about Australia ‘being a joke’, ‘a silly, childish pique’. [i]

The bad news for Labor is that this indicates a party in disarray, fundamentally fractured by divided loyalties. The Labor party appears divided between those loyal to Australia and those loyal to the Chinese Communist party; a division emboldened by a thirst for totalitarianism inherent in the utopian leftist ideological paradigm they serve.

Serving and protecting their own political, and ideological self-interests, appear more important than serving, and protecting Australia’s national interest.

This was made apparent when states went against federal advice, and buoyed by the teacher’s union, ran COVID-19 fear campaigns in order to keep schools shut.

While this may reflect the life-force of our vibrant, robust federalism, it wouldn’t be unfair to ask, if this is a sign that our federation is stuffed. How long will it be until Daniel Andrews declares Victoria’s succession, and rebirth as a province of the Communist Chinese regime?

The states turning against the Federal government isn’t new. States turning against the Australian constitution is. Daniel Andrews’ foray into foreign affairs gives him a newfound power, and he will yield it. With China’s ‘belt and road initiative’ Daniel Andrews doesn’t just have Chinese Communist party backing; he has the backing of its military. And vice versa, the Chinese Communist Party has the Andrews government’s backing, and now a beachhead on Australian shores.

Zero transparency equals zero accountability.

This smoke and mirrors deal, rightly condemned by commentators as an unconstitutional overreach into foreign affairs by Victorian Labor, binds Victorians to the Communist Chinese Party.

Furthermore, Victorian Labor has undermined Australia’s relationship reset with the Chinese Communist Party.  If Daniel Andrews won’t respect the Australian constitution, there’s no way he’ll be able to hold the Chinese Communist Party back from bypassing or even overthrowing the Australian constitution. Contempt for it is already sown. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. Good luck trying to put it back in.

The rise of the Victorian “Vichy” government under marshal Daniel Andrews, and their Communist Chinese puppet masters, has tightened the noose already being quietly wrapped around the neck of all Australians.

Though some may cheer, “all hail the Victorian “Vichy” Government and her Chinese Communist puppet masters.”

Let the rest of us say, “We will not go quietly into that cold night. We will never surrender. We will rage, rage against the dying of the light.” [ii]

May God have mercy on us all.


References:

[i] Richardson, G. Biggest Bully on the block can’t run and can’t hide, The Australian, paper edition, sourced 20th May 2020.

[ii] Dylan Thomas paraphrased

First published on Caldron Pool, 24th May 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020

When China rolled three warships with sailors decked out in full combat gear into Sydney harbour unannounced, the response was “there’s nothing to see here.”

This, along with the rhetoric blaming the Federal government for China’s first strike against Australia by way of a ridiculous 80% tariff on barley imports, and the verbal attacks against Andrew Hastie, George Christensen, and other outspoken Australian parliamentarians in recent days, conjures up images of Labor politicians with their heads stuck in the sand.

Worse, their first response to China’s first strike, would suggest that China could take half of Australia by military force, and some of our politicians would be out here telling us, “It’s not an invasion. Keep quiet, we don’t want to escalate tensions.”

Right on cue, the mainstream media would be telling us “not to criticize our benevolent Chinese Communist overlords, because they’re here to liberate us, not enslave us. You’re just racists and bigots”.

Not unlike the Nazi extension of Austria. Our elite would follow along with the rhythm of the media’s cadence.

They’d picket China’s critics. Chant virtue signalling slogans, and wave corflute signs from make shift welcome wagons. While their minions denounce, lynch, and prey on dissenters, as their goose-stepping, Christless Communist overlords, stomp in jackboot unison to cheers drowning out the purging.

Embers and ash from burning Australian flags, would be remembered by historians as metaphors for a nation wounded by backstabbing corrupted leaders, cashed up, and sheltered, who, despite red flags flying, preached “there’s nothing to see here”, whilst Australia lay dying.

If this kind of blame shifting isn’t treason, then the appeasement behind it is! It’s is a limp-wristed evasion tactic. It tells the Chinese communist party we’re a country of push-overs willing to let them slap us around whenever they so choose.

Appeasement precipitates an abdication of responsibility. It is one step away from total surrender.

Appeasement adopts the timidity injected into our subjective relativist addicted society by Leftists, who see phobias everywhere, and at work in everyone. Whose schizophrenic obsession with phobias causes us to doubt, question and reject everything about ourselves, while binding us to an inevitable defeat in the face of those who would capitalize on this Leftist induced paralysis, by turning us into an enemy.

Appeasement isn’t the ANZAC way.

Walking on egg shells around abuse enables the abuser.

Recall the words of French ex-Communist, Albert Camus, who, writing in support of the anti-Communist revolt in Hungary, 1957, said:

The Left is schizophrenic and needs doctoring through pitiless self-criticism, exercise of the heart, close reasoning, and a little modesty. Until such an effort at re-examination is well under way, any rallying will be useless even harmful. None of the evils that totalitarianism (defined by the single party and the suppression of all opposition) claims to remedy is worse than totalitarianism itself.

He added,

‘To be sure, the Right is not brilliant. But the Left is in complete decadence, a prisoner of words, caught in its own vocabulary, capable merely of stereo-typed replies, constantly at a loss when faced with the truth, from which it nevertheless claimed to derive its laws.’ [i]

Chinese Communists have soured the relationship with Australia by pouring their abuse all over it. This cannot be wished away, discounted, or swept under the carpet in an act of compliant dismissal. We answer their belligerence with appeasement at our peril.

Healthy boundaries save lives.

Therefore, we add our voices to the growing chorus of those in the wilderness, advocating a correction of this blatant imbalance of power. We call for the redefinition of this relationship, in order to stop Australians from being pushed into the same mass graves, Chinese Communists dug for the Chinese victims of their Marxist infused, Maoist totalitarian regime.

As Camus said,

‘None of the evils that totalitarianism claims to remedy is worse than totalitarianism itself.’ [ii]


References:

[i] Camus, A. 1961 Resistance, Rebellion and Death: Essays; ‘Hungary: Socialism of the Gallows’, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1960 First Vintage International Edition

[ii] Totalitarianism: defined by the single party and the suppression of all opposition.

First published on Caldron Pool, 21st May 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020

Firebrand Australian Tasmanian senator, Jacqui Lambie joins the Liberal National Party’s George Christensen, and Andrew Hastie, along with One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, and Mark Latham, in being among the few Australian parliamentarians to publicly challenge Chinese Communist interference in Australian society, education and politics.

Arguing for a “Make Australia Make Again” campaign, the senator channeled her fiery speech from December warning about government inaction with regards to the Chinese regime. Lambie took direct aim, and shot straight in the heart of the path of least resistance chosen by The Greens, Labor, and the LNP.

It was a clean shot across the bow of pro-Chinese Communist politicians like Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, Former W.A. Liberal Premier, Colin Barnett, and former Foreign minister, Julie Bishop. The speech was also a repudiation of poorly considered decisions from both sides of politics, such as Northern Territory Labor signing over the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company for 99 years, and corruption brought about by Chinese interference in state and federal politics, evidenced by disgraced NSW Labor senator, Sam Dastyari.

To recap: Andrews bypassed Federal government concerns about national sovereignty and signed up for the CCP’s expansionist “Silk Road” initiative. Barnett said that if he was Scott Morrison, he’d have told Peter Dutton to ‘be quiet’, after the Home Affairs minister, said that ‘Chinese Communist party’s values are inconsistent with Australian values’.

Julie Bishop just this week publicly remarked that what Australia needed in the face of Chinese belligerency was “more quiet diplomacy”. Bishop advocated for an approach that would appeal to the Chinese regime’s propaganda and its blame shifting, stating that the LNP government needs to include an investigation into the U.S and Europe, in order to get the CCP on board with any COVID-19 enquiry.

Without a doubt the official line when dealing with the belligerent Chinese Communist leviathan, from most of our politicians, is “keep quiet”.

This passivity communicates to the electorate that the majority of Australia’s elected representatives are more interested in giving Australians the run around, creating political bull, instead of cutting through it.

Their policy of silence furthers the idea that these politicians are in the back pocket of the Chinese Communist regime. Every time these politicians appear to be protecting Communist Chinese interests in Australia, over against Australia’s national interest, they lose legitimacy as elected representatives.

There is a tendency to play it safe. Up to and including playing the fiddle handed to them by the Chinese regime, where CCP’s belligerence is re-imaged as misunderstood benevolence. Public criticism is deflected – labelled racist and xenophobic. It’s no wonder that the Australian electorate finds themselves frustrated by the silence of politicians who, through a policy of appeasement, appear to put their own political self-interest, first and the interest of the nation last.

“Keeping quiet” isn’t a proactive solution. It’s a policy of surrender. Instead of our elected gate keepers defending the Australian constitution, and protecting Australian sovereignty, we hear crickets emanating from Canberra for fear of upsetting China or failing to be inclusive and “multicultural”.

If Charles Sturt Professor of Public Ethics, Clive Hamilton, is right, and the evidence backs him on this, Australians aren’t just facing a ‘Silent Invasion’[i]; they’re face to face with an elected political class who’ve signed Australia’s death warrant through a policy of quiet surrender.

This is why Christensen’s upcoming enquiry, Hastie’s resolute defiance, Hanson, and Latham’s persistence, and now Lambie’s impassioned speech to the Senate, are on par with the ringing of the Liberty Bell.

In defiance of this silence and its policy of quiet surrender, Australians are being rallied together. Not because of hatred for, or fear of the Chinese, but because of an inherent cultural disdain for totalitarianism; because of a deep respect for the many healthy aspects of our heritage, our laws, our faith, and our people; in defense of our constitution, in order to protect our national sovereignty. To do what our elected representatives have chosen not to do.

As Lambie warned back in December 2019,

“It is clear that China is actively trying to reshape our democracy, and no-one seems to be talking about that seriously enough…It’s about time the people in this place woke up to China’s attempts to infiltrate our economy and our democracy… Both sides of politics need to take a good hard look at themselves and make sure they’re acting in our national interest, which quite obviously, over China, they are not.”


References (not otherwise linked):

[i] Clive Hamilton, 2018. Silent Invasion, Hardie Books

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

© Rod Lampard, 2020

There’s a big difference between politicians doing something, and politicians making it look like they’re doing something. What looks good for us, isn’t always what’s good for us. The image we are sold is can often be dissimilar to the product we end up with.

For instance, social distancing laws have created an image of police protecting politicians, instead of the police protecting the people. Look at how famously the police have broken their own social distancing rules while enforcing the will of the political class.

Another example is the sleight of hand when it comes to taxation, the important social welfare safety net and healthcare. Governments like to tell you that they’re providing for the people, when for the most part, all they’ve done is take from the people to provide for themselves.

The government takes money from one pocket, puts it in the other, and we all applaud them for it. This is after they’ve taken their cut for giving us the privilege of rights, freedoms, and access to services. If, and it’s sometimes a big “if”, they consider us eligible.

If I’m coming across as an extreme sceptic in the benevolence of government programs, it’s because I am, and for good reason.

I grew up in a government owned house, on a government housing estate. I come from an abusive, highly dysfunctional home, where my family never broke out beyond its dependency on government programs. My parents were decent enough people. My mother did the best she could with what she had. My father didn’t do a whole lot, but our house was always clean, and food was always on the table. While they seriously missed the boat when it comes to parenting skills, they were neither drug addicted nor negligent of their responsibilities as citizens. My parents were stuck in the welfare cycle, couldn’t get out of it, and in the end, gave in to the idea that they never would.

In 2015, not long after my father’s death, I learned he had a criminal record. The news wasn’t all that surprising. He was a proud man. Reason enough for why he never spoke of word it to anyone for over 40 years. He didn’t fear work or fear having to work. He’d convinced himself that his multiple run-ins with the law as a teenager in the 1960s, made him unemployable. The only job I remember him having was a four year stint in the army reserve during the mid-late 1980s.

My father may not have gone to prison, but the social system, and the broken family he came from put him in a psychological one. While partly of his own making, this psychological prison was enabled by politicians who benefited from keeping him locked down in the “benevolence” of the welfare state.

Though both my mother and father had worked off and on, neither of them ever held down a full time job. My mother worked once in the 1970’s, but as she tells it, my father held her back from continuing, because he was concerned about how much what she earned would impact his social security payment.

The system enabled, and funded my father’s dysfunctional way of life. (In some ways he was probably a victim of the unintended side-effects of Whitlam’s Welfare reforms.)

He was a die-hard Labor voter, and he opposed communism, even though he lived on welfare for the majority of his life. When, in later years I questioned Labor initiatives, and their policy platform, he always vehemently defended the hands that had led, housed, healed and fed him for decades.

It was murky subject matter. Still it taught me that Marxist justifications for the welfare state rarely, if ever raise people up. These justifications come undone, when welfare dependent citizens like my father, are paid in similar ways to an aristocrat. They enslave, rather than liberate. One person is chained to the state for their livelihood, while others are condemned to a life of servitude in order to provide for it.

Like an aristocrat, in order to provide for a particular standard of living, the wages of workers are garnished. The only social contractual obligation is loyalty to the political party who pays the most, and asks the least amount of questions.

Thus the government takes on the role of patron. The worker takes on the role of serf. The welfare recipient takes on the role of aristocrat. This benefits bureaucrats, politicians and political parties because through government dependency they can create voters dependent on them for everything. Through the generational welfare dependency cycle, government takes over the role of extended families, and church charity. By default the government becomes a god.

I’m not advocating against social welfare safety nets. I believe in hand-ups, not hand-outs. Work for the dole, TAFE, tax offsets like the family tax benefit, pensions, or a basic Medicare system all have reasonable justifications for their existence.

Any program proven to be helpful, as opposed to harmful, should be given an attentive eye, complete with the checks and balances of review, and reform, for the sake of empowering successful initiatives.

No true conservative fits the uncaring, heartless straw man created by greedy Marxists, whose own sense of entitlement rivals that of those they seek to tear down.

Compassion and good government demand a manageable, life affirming answer to the perilous, unsustainable bubble of the welfare state. It should remove itself from enabling the cycle of welfare dependency, with the aim of liberating the people they’ve made dependent on it. This is Magna Charta, where economics and civil liberties go hand in hand.

The popularity of Donald Trump is largely because he looks to empower people, not his political party. This is proven by the way in which his own party seems to always be playing catch-up, unsure of what to do with him. He challenges the status quo, and has been able to keep himself beyond the bipartisan, stagnated swamp of cozy “business-as-usual”, governmental control.

Trump understands that there are times when the government needs to get out of the way.

In contrast, Australian politicians seem clueless. Labor leader, Anthony Albanese wants to extend Scott Morrison’s Job keeper and Job Seeker COVID-19 lockdown compensation, way beyond the initial six months allocated for it.

This isn’t a policy that helps Australians. It’s a policy that benefits the federal Labor Party. What Albanese really means is that Labor plan to politicize any COVID exit, shifting the language, and purpose of Job Seeker/Keeper from “covid countermeasures compensation”, to a pay rise for people on welfare benefits, who don’t have a legitimate exemption.

In his first major public appearance in months, Anthony Albanese should have been insisting on the return of civil liberties. He should have been calling for a way out of the police state, instead of advocating the kind of welfare dependency that benefits the welfare state.

Scott Morrison doesn’t get off easy either. Add China’s chest beating to Leftist calls for COVID-19 countermeasures to be permanent, and the Prime Minister is facing a damaging political storm. If Scott Morrison thought that he could avoid having to make Trump-like decisions, he was wrong. How he answers China’s belligerence, protects Australian sovereignty, and how he restores civil liberties post COVID-19, will be the defining of his Prime Ministership. If he fails here, and Labor continue to remain tone deaf to the Australian public, Morrison may not see a second term as P.M.


First published on Caldron Pool, 13th May, 2020.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister will meet with Australia’s Covid Cabinet in a bid to discuss, and secure a plan, allowing restricted travel to and from New Zealand into Australia, and vice versa. They’re calling the plan a “trans-Tasman bubble”.

The idea is designed to help reestablish contact with other nations, and give New Zealand’s COVID-19 counter-measure shattered, tourism dependent economy a reboot.

Nine reports that the heavily policed measure should be operational in time for New Zealand’s September ski season. According to the report, ‘almost 40 per cent of international arrivals to New Zealand are from Australia, heavily contributing to the country’s greatest industry – tourism.’

Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison will also be trying to sell his “breakthrough” COVIDsafe app idea – and is ‘expected to suggest that Jacinda Ardern develop a similar app for New Zealanders.’

The Guardian, true to its usual gaga for both socialists, Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews and Jacinda Ardern, expanded on this, implying there was no need for Morrison to bother “mansplaining”, because the ‘politics of kindness princess’ had ‘already been in contact with officials in Singapore, the originators of the contact-tracing app that Australia has largely replicated.’

In the same article, The Guardian also managed to raise Labor up by tearing down the Liberal National Party. Squeezed into the article was a defense of Victorian Labor Premier, Daniel Andrews and his refusal to open schools. Despite a lowering of the curve, and Federal government advice that states and territories were clear now to do so. The Guardian used one example of teacher being reported to have Coronavirus, and a clash between Andrews and the Federal Education minister, as evidence of the soft on China, tough on Australians, Premier’s insightful and “benevolent” leadership.

The obvious politicking ingrained in the response of Governments to the Coronavirus should speak volumes about the Covid-19 crisis. I’m not suggesting that the COVID-19 crisis was created to serve politicians, but I think it’s fair to say that the crisis is being used, perhaps even exaggerated, in order to serve the interests of the political class. Sadly, many, especially those adopting the COVIDsafe app without question, are oblivious to it.

The Coronavirus crisis is a unique opportunity for politicians. They get to seize absolute power, and we applaud them for doing so. Only the naïve would think that government is benevolent enough; that the behemoth bureaucratic caste is holy enough, to willingly hand back power, once it’s been placed into their hands.

The warning signs should have been obvious enough already. Bar Mark Latham, and Pauline Hanson, not one Australian politician has reassured Australians of how civil liberties are being protected under the totalitarian COVID-19 counter-measures.

Simone Weil knew this, and it formed the backbone of her critique in Oppression & Liberty (1958),

‘the bureaucratic machine, though composed of flesh, and well fed flesh at that is none the less as irresponsible and as soulless as are the machines made of iron and steel. Instead of a clash of contrary opinions, we end up with an “official opinion” from which no one would be able to deviate. The result is a State religion that stifles all individual values, that is to say all values’ (pp.13, 15 & 16).

As you watch Jacinda Ardern soak up the hagiographic adoration, and take her bows, alongside Scott Morrison, Daniel Andrews and co. take note of how our politicians removed our freedoms, without debate and consultation with the legislative body.

Also note how fear is being used as a stick, and the promise of giving back those freedoms as a carrot in order to keep you on side with the narrative. Notice how those politicians are being lauded over as heroes, for returning some semblance of freedom, under their one party government – Covid cabinet – rule.

Then notice how that freedom is conditional. The first condition being that we denounce any neighbour we suspect of being not on board with the fiats, all sign on to a government program, and obey the strict rules ordered by that one-party government, without question.

Take note of how much this benefits them, and only them. Then ask yourself, are the COVID-19 crisis counter-measures more about saving, boosting and empowering the political lives of the political class, than they are about saving the lives of the people they’re paid to represent?

There’s two sides to the Coronavirus, folks. The actual crisis, and the one manufactured by bureaucrats for the cameras.

#bewaretheauctioneers


Related reading:

It’s Not a Sin to Be Cautious of the COVIDSafe App

Answering Cancel Culture with Unconquerable Joy

The Tyranny of the State Is a Denial of the Right to Life and a Livelihood

Despite Fear and Powerlessness Good Friday Remains Good News

Nigel Farage’s Coronavirus-Era Warning: “Say No To House Arrest”

New Zealanders begin to devour each other while Jacinda Ardern smiles and waves at the nation she’s put under house arrest

Are oppressive totalitarian measures necessary in order to fight against coronavirus?

War-time Crises Require War-time Speeches: How Scott Morrison Can Win the Battle for National Morale

First published on Caldron Pool, 6th May 2020.

Photo by Paweł Czerwiński on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

In a 2016 Global Times hit piece on Australian swimmer Horton Mack, China’s ruling Communist Party echoed anti-Western sentiments straight out of the Tokyo Rose, and Hanoi Hannah, playbook, stating,

1. “We think Australia should feel embarrassed with Horton’s remarks. Otherwise, we would be surprised by some Australians’ sense of collective self-esteem.”
2. “It’s not a big deal to us. In many serious essays written by Westerners, Australia is mentioned as a country at the fringes of civilization. In some cases, they refer to the country’s early history as Britain’s offshore prison. This suggests that no one should be surprised at uncivilized acts emanating from the country. We should think the same way.”

The 2016 verbal attack was triggered by Horton’s criticism of the Chinese swimmer, Sun Yang during the Rio Olympics. Horton accused Yang to his face of being a drug cheat, and the accusation wasn’t without justification. [i]. Yang isn’t a stranger to bans for using questionable substances or hindering drug tests. [ii]

The reactionary outburst from China’s propaganda wing was to be expected. As The Guardian’s Stuart Leavenworth observed, Sun Yang’s wins are propaganda wins for the Communist Chinese Party. It stands to reason that they’d do everything they can to maintain the appearance of superiority over “evil Western capitalists.”

Criticism of Yang was received as criticism of China. It serves the interests of the regime to conflate criticism with racism, and conflate ideology with ethnicity; the Chinese Communist party with being Chinese. There’s political capital in discounting, and filtering all criticism of the Communist Chinese party down to the Chinese people as hate speech, and xenophobia.

This manoeuvring doesn’t just create political capital within China. It’s a magnet for the money, mouths and mandatory hatred afflicting many in the West, who’ve been taught, through the lens of cancel culture -Marxist critical theory – to hate, and doubt themselves, Western civilization, capitalism, Biblical Christianity – their own culture and history.

Take away the ‘Rocky IV’ melodramatic parallels, and what’s left is evidential proof of institutional disdain for Australia from within the Communist Chinese government. Sure it’s just rhetoric, but it’s also an insight into an obvious contempt, and racist-by-contemporary-standards, view of all Australians. Luke 6:45: ‘out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.’ When emotions are high, true intentions and inclinations are often laid bare.

Add this to China’s bullying and intimidation of the Australian government in regards to Australia’s just criticism of the C.C.P about COVID-19. Along with espionage, and its infiltration of Australian universities, the by-passing the Federal government through side deals with territory and state premiers (N.T and Victoria), and we don’t just have reason for concern, we have a problem with China, with an established negative pattern of behavior from the Communist regime as evidence of it.

China’s apparent breach of Australia’s national sovereignty, hostile posturing, and tactical maneuvering, is a clarion call, screaming out for an urgent redefinition of Australia’s relationship with the Communist regime.

LNP Senator Jim Molan stated yesterday, while this won’t involve

‘turning ourselves into “Fortress Australia”, isolating ourselves from the rest of the world and seeking self-sufficiency in every conceivable area: becoming the North Korea of the southern hemisphere.’ It would mean an ‘urgent and overdue correction of the excesses of globalisation from recent decades. COVID-19 has been a big wake-up call. We need to heed its lessons, to ensure that Australia is prepared in the years to come.’

To borrow the words of M.P. Andrew Hastie, we need action on protecting Australia’s sovereignty. We don’t need more politicians, ‘muddled and asleep at the wheel when it comes to Beijing.’

The Chinese communist party’s belligerent behavior speaks against the ‘cosy’ assertions of some in Australia’s Labor party, such as dubious Daniel Andrews, and his insistence that China is benevolent, not belligerent; a friend, not just a customer. Its belligerent behavior mocks the soft politics of Labor’s Madeleine King who acknowledged the need for a debate, but castigated Hastie, and discounted China’s tactics.

The cosy assertions from within Labor don’t gel well with Communist China’s bullying and intimidation of Horton Mack. The hate for Horton intensified last year when he reignited the ‘feud’ with Yang by refusing to share the podium with the Chinese swimmer.

Horton not only won overwhelming support, but a reprimand from authorities. It also earned him a great deal of harassment from who are presumed to be Communist Chinese operatives within Australia.

For brevity, here’s The Wentworth Report’s David Evans list of attacks designed to bully and intimidate Horton:

  • “The family home in suburban Melbourne was broken into amid threats against their youngest son, Chad, who was preparing for his Year 12 exams.
  • At the Rio Games, Brazilian commandos shadowed Mack [and his parents] Andrew­ and Cheryl.
  • The computer system at Horton’s firm was hacked.
  • The family was targeted with death threats and vile abuse online.
  • For nearly four years the family has lived in a virtual state of siege. Supporters of Sun, most believed to be on student visas, regularly bang pots and pans late at night in the alley behind the back fence and abuse the family from the driveway.
  • Plants have been poisoned, dog shit hurled over the fence.
  • A man speaking broken English calls Andrew Horton regularly to threaten his daughter (he has no daughter).
  • Last year, after South Korea, Cheryl was cleaning the family pool when she discovered “a bucket load” of broken glass at the bottom.”

Craig Lord, editor-in-chief of Swimming World Magazine also joined The Australian’s Luke Slattery, in raising awareness about the C.C.P’s alleged attacks on Horton.

According to Slattery,

“While most of Horton’s attackers are believed to be on student visas…The family’s ordeal is believed to be well-organised and part of a systematic pattern of harassment and intimidation directed at perceived critics of China. “This is not an amateur operation,” says a nationa­l security analyst who decline­d to be named. “The Hortons’ story is very disturbing … It says something about the reach of foreign powers within Australia.”

With China’s poor track record on athletes and drug cheats from 1994, 1998 and 2000, Sun’s temporary ban, and suspicion over a Chinese government cover-up, the swimming community is right to be on its guard. With governing bodies in the swimming world seemingly too afraid to stand up and serve the interests of those within the swimming community, Horton’s protest stands as justified.

As far as the bullying and intimidation of Horton and his family goes. This next level breach of Australia’s national sovereignty, by what looks like Chinese apparatchiks, is a clarion call for an urgent redefinition of Australia’s relationship with the Communist regime.

Horton’s experience is red flag for the Australian government. It proves Andrew Hastie right. It shows Australians the reach of the Chinese Communist Party, and the treacherous influence they have on Australian politics. The regime isn’t beyond, or afraid of bullying and intimidating Australian citizens in much the same way that they bully and intimidate their own subjects.

This is a convert, pay a tax or die religion, acting out its ideology of “you will do, say, speak and think what we tell you too, or else!”

As György Lukács, one of the fathers of Western Marxism wrote, “You cannot just sample Marxism […] you must be converted to it.” [iii]

Westerner’s should heed this as a warning.

‘When new gods were chosen, then war was in the gates.’ – (Judges 5:8).


References:

[i] The ABC’s China correspondent, Bill Birtles, wrote “Horton has long been critical of swimming authorities for allowing the Chinese star (Sun Yang) to compete after serving a three-month suspension in 2014 for testing positive to a banned stimulant.’ According to Birtle, Sun claimed that he didn’t know trimetazidine, which makes better use of oxygen and energy in the heart cells, was on WADA’s blacklist (W.A.D.A: World Anti-Doping Association) In an attempt to clarify this, The ABC’s Tracey Holmes, wrote a sympathetic article in favor of Sun Yang. Holmes implied that Horton had an ulterior motive. Holding fire on accusing Horton of racism, Holmes’ infers that Horton is the one up to no good, not Yang, and certainly not the Communist Chinese Party.

Holmes defended Yang’s alleged innocence by stating that trimetazidine ‘has since been downgraded on the WADA banned list because it was found not to be performance-enhancing.’ The ABC contributor than calls out Horton for not being consistent, snidely remarking that although ‘Horton maintains his criticism of Sun is justified. His stance has left questions over why Horton took exception to Sun while overlooking others on the Australian team, who’ve also been caught up in doping controversies.’

In other words, for Holmes, Sun Yang has been unfairly singled out, because ‘Horton hasn’t vocally condemned these [other] swimmers’. Therefore, Horton’s issue is probably xenophobia or racism against Chinese people.

[ii] Sun was handed an ‘eight year ban for his second doping offence – in which he smashed blood vials with a hammer before they could be tested in September, 2018.’ (Holmes claims that only thing smashed was the case that held the vials). (Alisha Rouse, The Daily Mail).

[iii] Record of a Life

First published on Caldron Pool, 3rd May, 2020.

Photo by Johnny Cohen on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.