Archives For March 2021

Former ‘Dancing with the Stars’ host Daryl Somers was slammed on social media this week for calling out cancel culture.

The Australian entertainer, and comic, also famous for the successful, Aussie larrikin vaudeville Saturday night regular, ‘Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday,’ (1971-2010) lamented the new morality, its Iron Curtain hecklers, and Soviet-era thugs, telling the Daily Telegraph,

“You couldn’t get away with half the stuff you could on Hey Hey now, because of political correctness and cancel culture. It’s a shame because showbiz doesn’t get much of a chance.”

The 69-year-old added,

“’A lot of comics can’t work much because what would have been just tongue-in-cheek previously now can easily get them into trouble. I can’t say I am enamoured with it, but it is a changing world in which we live and you just have to work around things.”

Somers’ comments were met with a deluge of hate on Twitter, as Jack’s goons – behind their morbidly heavy chairs, lattes, and expensive Apple computers, with their “everything is racist” CRT crusade, hiding their dissatisfaction with their own achievements in life – in true Red fashion, gave Somers’ “the gong.”

Then, and not without irony, the perpetually angry, run-of-the-mill, unsatisfied radical leftist jihadist, fighting imaginary Nazis online – heaped insults, ridicule, and “hate speech” at a man they don’t personally know, at a show, they don’t understand, and have probably never seen (other than selective ‘Hey, Hey it’s Saturday’ clips designed to stir up anti-Israel Folau level animosity to fever pitch), because of humour that goes over their immature heads.

With one such Twitter loudmouth claiming the cast “bullied Kamahl” (an Australian legend in his own right), reviving Kamahl’s grievances aired on ‘A Current Affair’ in 2011, about ‘Hey, Hey’s’ ‘ethnic comedy,’ while overlooking Daryl Somers telling ACA that he was ‘very fond of Kamahl, had the greatest respect for him and always will.’ Adding, “I think this is all rather silly.”

To add, what Australia’s version of America’s race-baiting racists didn’t bother mentioning, is that Kamahl made regular appearances on the show.

Kamahl joined hundreds of other musicians, who benefited from the cast’s ability to draw a crowd.

Far from delegitimising him because of ethnicity the “Hey, Hey” platform legitimised Kamahl, and made him a respected, household Australian name; helping him sell albums, and increase his fan base. (Noted by the fact that I’m writing about him 11 years after the show was cancelled.)

That’s the real “Hey, Hey” legacy. Not racism. Not sexism. Not homophobia. [Insert the long list of apparent phobias those of us are not on the Left are continually being diagnosed with, by those on the Left.]

The poor decision to include a blackfaceJackson Jive Show” in Red Faces during a 2009 reunion show, shouldn’t be the “Hey, Hey’s” defining moment. Irrespective of the joyless, graceless, and cold bony finger of Karl Marx reaching through his humourless, Cultural Marxist disciples today.

It’s a well-established fact, that without Daryl Somers, Australian artists, and the Australian music industry would never have achieved what it did. It’s no coincidence that the Australian music industry’s life support was pulled around the time ‘Hey, Hey, It’s Saturday’ ended.

Somers is a dead-set Aussie legend.

It’s good to see him speaking out.

Examine the claims. The problem isn’t Somers. It’s the hate-anything-Australian leftists, beating up Somers, tearing-down-others in order to make themselves famous.

The problem isn’t an Australian entertainment icon, who had the balls to put his face to an always controversial, vaudeville variety show with an original Aussie larrikin flair.

They often mocked themselves along with everyone else.

It’s worth repeating the words of Karl Barth,

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

Cancel culture is fascism proper.

(You can watch some of the Hey, Hey It’s Saturday episodes at their website here.)


First published on Caldron Pool, 24th March, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Wednesday’s front page of the Australian has exposed government proposals that would lower the Warragamba dam level (Sydney’s water supply) to save homes from dam overflows.

Overflows, that well paid government advisors, like Tim Flannery, from as far back as 2007, said, we’ll never see again because the rain that did fall wouldn’t be enough to fill the dams – due to “apocalyptic climate change.”

When it comes to this latest overflow, (thanks to unexpected rainfall) it would seem that Australia’s bureaucratic caste would rather dump a precious resource, leaving an infamously dry continent with less drought resilience, rather than increase storage capacity, which would a) bring infrastructure up to speed with population expansion b) help drought proof the city.

Why would they even consider ditching water?

Because the “apocalyptic climate change” narrative buys them votes from citizens they’ve scared into submission, and floods their coffers with money; and maybe advance their tax-payer funded career with a cushy position on the UN Climate panel.

In all fairness, bureaucrats appear to be conflicted about whether to dump water, or raise Dam walls.

According to The Australian, the New South Wales LNP State government has ‘been pushing for years to raise the Warragamba Dam wall by up to 14m,’ which would ‘aid in flood mitigation.’ As well as add to Sydney’s water storage capability.

The problem with this is (predictably) ‘the plan is opposed by environmentalists and Indigenous groups who argue it would damage unique ecosystems, and [first Australians] heritage sites.’ [i]

Salvatore Babones, whose book on Trumpism, and the Left’s New Authoritarianism was the focal point of an article a few weeks back, penned a piece for the same Wednesday edition.

Babones describes an apathy within our bureaucratic system, that hinders the better management of water drawn from rainfall.

He argues, for example, that our knowledge of how much groundwater Australia has, such as the ‘Great Artesian Basin,’ is 60 years out of date. There’s a general assumption that rain provides ‘2% of all groundwater, and although the basin is in decline,’ above average ‘rainfall can recharge water naturally stored underground.’

How much groundwater is left, asks Babones?

No one seems to know, and the data from NGIS system for measuring it is suspect, because ‘there’s been no co-ordinated effort to drill new’ bore holes to investigate it. [ii]

To add, Water storage, and management is a national security issue.

It’s beyond the pale that Australia’s bureaucratic caste would major in chasing the apocalyptic climate change fairy, by entertaining apocalyptic climate change fever, rather than major in securing, cultivating and better managing our most important natural resource.

Humans ‘are not the enemy’ said Chuck Colson, expressing his views on the clash between eco-totalitarians and Christians.

‘Our job is to cultivate, and till; making the fullest use of the resources God has given us, to enhance life, God’s supreme creation, which is the human being. But we must do it in a way that is productive of the earth’s resources, free from despoiling it.’ [iii]

This, he said, ‘is where we part from the “green” movement, which puts the earth first,’ and views humanity as a virus.

Concern about a loss of tribal heritage, or the environmental impact caused by raising the Warragamba Dam wall, does not overrule arguments, and the practicality of doing so.

Storing more water, means more water can be used to protect, sustain, and cultivate the environment, as well as be a life affirming resource for the decedents of Gundangara people, and their neighbours. It’s a win-win.

In addition, the Gundangara ancestral legacy is also affirmed, noted by how the Gundangara people recognised Warragamba’s significance, and the impact rivers attached had in sustaining life on one of the driest continents on earth.

Increasing a dam wall cannot, and does not erase that legacy.

The other aspect to all of this is that the “Apocalyptic climate change” bandwagon is a lucrative cash cow, and eco-fascist evangelists know it.

Which is why Bjorn Lomborg said in a piece cross-posted by The Australian,

‘the easiest way to get societies to authorise the spending of tens of trillions we don’t have is to scare us. The academic and activist faction that sets the threatening tone in the climate conversation wants dissent eliminated, leaving themselves the only ones authorised to tell you how scared you should be.’ [iv]

As Chris Smith inferred on Sky News, the idiocy of some in our current bureaucracy is only outdone by the self-interest of bureaucrats profiteering from fear.

References:

[i] Rice, S. ‘Cabinet eye proposal to Reduce Dam Level’, sourced from The Australian, 24th March, 2021.

[ii] Babones, S. ‘Let this sink in: we need to stop wasting our groundwater’ sourced from The Australian, 24th March, 2021.

[iii] Colson, C. 2015. My Final Word; ‘Dominion & the Environment’ Zondervan

[iv] Lomborg, B. ‘When Climate Alarmism meets cancel culture’ sourced from The Australian, 24th March, 2021


First published on Caldron Pool, 25th March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

In a controversial move, Australian Liberal Nationals Senator, Amanda Stoker is asking for concerned citizens to support her petition aimed at preserving ‘objective truth,’ ‘basic biology’, parental rights, and ‘common sense,’ against proposed, weaponised legislation packed inside the LGBTQAAI+ trojan horse transgenderism.

Stoker argues that ‘when you get to the heart of the transgender debate, you realise that you and I are being expected to abandon objective truth.’

Adding, ‘for too long now, the Left has told you what you can and cannot say, the time for action is now.’

She’s right. Biology isn’t a social construct. Everything about the “LOVE IS LOVE” mantra pivots on forcing people to believe a lie, and forcing them to deceive others.

Telling a child, for example, that they don’t have a father or a mother, only a parent, and or, birth parent. (And other examples can be added to this one).

There’s a distinctive line between tolerance, and intolerable tyranny.

Acknowledging this, the Queensland senator wrote,

‘Australians are polite people.  If a grown man chooses to wear women’s clothing and change their name, we are generally content to live and let live.  No one wants to make anyone feel ‘less than’.

Most people agree that adults are free to live their life the way they want.

But that doesn’t mean we abandon truth.  It doesn’t mean we abandon common sense or our understanding of basic biology.

The transgender agenda’s list of demands is completely unreasonable and it’s time you and I stood up for common sense.

Stoker joins Tasmanian, LNP senator, Claire Chandler, whose pro-women opposition to queer theory’s invasion of women’s sport, is a popular target for Cancel Culture’s hungry Radical Leftist Jihadists.

Despite the Left’s manipulation of anti-discrimination law, issuing their usual threats, and intimidation, Chandler has, with significant credit to her, remained unmoved.

If not more determined, posting to Facebook on International Women’s Day,

‘remember that ‘woman’ is not a feeling, a political movement, an identity, a fashion or a trend. A woman is a female. The more people who acknowledge that fact, the more chance we have of making the world a better place for women.’

Chandler and Stoker’s pro-woman platform deserves our support.

We have a right, as Amanda worded it,

‘to know what your child is being taught about gender and sexuality in school. You do have a right to keep women’s sport for women. You do have a right to protect children from hormone treatment and surgical procedures. You do have a right to teach your children they are born as either a boy or a girl and that gender isn’t something we can choose.’

This isn’t “slippery slope” anti-marriage equality, homophobic, transphobic, right-wing supremacist, “you’re all Nazi’s and Trumpists”, hate speech.

This is genuine representation on a political level; an invitation for stakeholders, which include the unconcerned, and concerned voter, to stop the new Barbarianism before it removes the right to life, light and liberty, replacing it with servitude, and subjugation.

Chandler and Stoker’s have, and are, voicing concerns about the totalitarian weaponization of legislation by the LGBTQAAI+ lobby, and the movement’s perpetually angry, jackboot wearing foot soldiers.

Something that might already too late for some Western nations, such as Canada, but not yet here in Australia.

Demonstrated in Ben Davis’ latest article, where, in essence, a Canadian father has been charged with “family violence” and then imprisoned, for refusing to bow to the LGBTQAAI+ religion because he chose to affirm his daughter’s biological sex, instead of lie to her, and participate in her LGBT conversion indoctrination.

Another example is Twitter’s lockout of Binary’s, Kirralie Smith, for asserting the male and female scientific, binary distinction, alleged by Twitter to be “hateful conduct.”

I’ve followed Kirralie on Twitter for a few years. She’s never posted anything close to the kind of hate I see vomited up, and out by the propaganda wing of Radical Leftist Jihadists.

Proving one thing: Twitter may protest against accusations of bias and partiality, but it’s clear by their behaviour that they are NOT a politically neutral organisation.

We can be thankful that the Senate passed a ‘motion banning’ the use of radical queer theory language, such as “Chest feeding” and “Lactating Parent”, but the march towards affirming it, is still moving forward.

As the imperfect, anti-Nazi theologian, Karl Barth wrote,

‘The incontestable truth that male and female as such are together man [humanity] becomes a lie when it is not significantly counterbalanced by the recognition that man as such is male or female and not a third term.’ [i]

So goes objective truth, so goes humanity, and with it, civilisation.

Where civil rights are exalted over civil liberties, hell on earth is sure to follow.

You can support Amanda’s pro-science, pro-common sense, pro-truth, pro-man and pro-woman, petition here.

References:

[i] Barth, K 1951. CD.3:4 Man & Woman p.159


First published on Caldron Pool, 22nd March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Fearmongering shadows the so-called “apocalyptic climate change emergency“.

I realise that in saying this, I’m breaking the kind of taboo that’ll get a scientist fired, the average citizen harassed, and any celebrity with a mind of their own, cancelled.

Defining terms, and questioning narratives don’t appear to be the highest priority for those sucked into the emotional vortex of double C hysterics.

Which is why the debate is smashed to pieces; disallowed by quick appeals to oxymorons like “believe the science” or “the science is settled.”

Global climate patterns are complex, and fluid; rain and temperature fluctuate, it’s much more powerful than humanity, and it’s in constant movement. We could say it’s perpetually adjusting and readjusting. It’s what makes life possible.

‘Climate Change’ seems to be a misleading term that ignores the micro-level plural, “climates”, in favour the macro singular, “climate.”

When in conversation with a CC fanatic, it’s worth asking then, which of the five climates are in crisis?

1. Subtropical/Temperate

2. Alpine/Continental

3. Desert/Dry

4. Rainforest/Tropical

5. Ice-cap/Polar

Why has the language moved from theoretical anthropogenic Global Warming negatively impacting an alleged [Global] Climate, to the fanatical alarmism of “climate crisis”, “climate emergency” to “climate justice”?

Which of the five climates that make up the global climate need “climate justice”?

One climate naturally changing, doesn’t equal an emergency.

Furthermore, what is “climate justice”?

What do activists really mean when they sayclimate change is war”?

You won’t get a definitive answer.

The popular response will be polar. They’ll quote Al Gore’s cash cow propaganda films, something about sea levels, Ice Caps melting (which they tend to do naturally anyway), and polar bears dying (which they also tend to do naturally).

Then they’ll fog up, and drift into some vague warnings about how asking these kinds of questions makes one a “climate change denier.”

The real answer is they don’t really know. They just say so because it’s catchy, popular, and feels right to do so.

Evidenced by the quagmire of emotional responses, filled with panic, hatred of opposing viewpoints, asinine “follow the science” religious assertions, and ambiguous catch-phrases built on conjecture.

All of this suggests that “Apocalyptic climate change” isn’t about the environment, Global climate, nor the climates.

It’s about money, politics, and power. It’s about changing patterns of behaviour to stimulate automatic responses, not changing weather patterns.

Not science. Not people, not the climates, and most certainly not about preserving the environment from deliberate, and accidental pollution.

Swaying public opinion to profit from fear is easy. Fear is more of a motivator than freedom.

Activists – those among the fray who are more akin to eco-fascists than genuine environmentalists – know this, and that’s why they milk every dollar, and vote they can from it.

Australian Geologist, Ian Plimer agrees. ‘It’s a game of power. There is no climate emergency. Climate always changes.’

In his ground-breaking book, ‘How to Get expelled from School’ he adds, ‘human induced global warming has nothing to do with climate or the environment. It’s a method to take money out of your pockets.’ [i]

“Climate Change” is about who holds power, and how much power they can harvest from it, not what powers our electricity.

Danish author, and sceptic, Bjorn Lomborg came to the same conclusion. Not once, but twice.

In January 2020, Lomborg accused activists of ‘exploiting the tragic Australian bush fires’ by using the word “unprecedented” in order to falsely claim that the bush fires were ‘near-proof of a climate emergency.’

Lomborg’s well referenced source material showed that burnt areas from 1997-2020 was in decline.

Hence Lomborg’s refutation of CC hysterics: “[this graph] suggests two things. First, that the area burnt in Australia is not increasing and likely decreasing. This result is similar to what we see across the world — lower, not higher burnt area. Second, the current Australian fire season in terms of area burnt is not unprecedented compared to the recent past.”

Lomborg revisited the data this year; updating it with new information that refuted claims from activists and vindicated his original scepticism. The conclusion: the 2019-2020 Australian bushfires were not unprecedented.

‘The biggest Australian fire is the 1974-75 fire, mostly documented by satellite.

It burned 117 million hectares in Central Australia, or 15.2% of Australia in one year

Almost 4x the area burned in 2019-20.’

Reflecting on a reading of Global Fire Data analysis Lomborg said,

“Fires burned 10% of Australia’s land surface on average every year in 20th century. In this century, it burned 6% (2001-19)

We now have the data for 2019-20, the year with “Australia ablaze”: 4% (3.95%) Yes, tragedies: Much more fire close to where people live (NSW and Victoria).

But we were told “Australia burns” and “this is what a climate crisis looks like.” No. Australia had one of its lowest areas burned in last 120 years.

[The area of] Australia burned in 2019-20 [is] inconsistent with climate change. The total burn should have been *larger* — when in fact it was *much smaller*…’

Lomborg also highlighted the climate crazy propaganda, writing that the ‘fires [were] inconsistent with climate impact.’ The data doesn’t back ‘bad media coverage, and misleading graphics [that] pushed the idea that the Australian continent was ablaze.”

Exhibit (A):

Exhibit (B):

Lomborg’s proof that we’re being manipulated by activists, within, and outside, both government, and Legacy Media, is staggeringly blatant.

These organisations are complicit in orchestrating a shared narrative that conditions the reflexes of gullible citizens to cry “wolf”, hate on their neighbour, and dehumanise those with an opposing viewpoint, when so commanded.

The “apocalyptic climate change” political narrative is built on an organised myth.

Social engineers clued into behavioural science, know that people will choose order over chaos, even if the cost of order is the absolute surrender of their personal freedom, and individual responsibilities; i.e.: civil liberties, and civil rights.

Weather patterns are as dynamic, as the climates they support. How the climates interreact, and change, is a natural phenomenon.

Using the 80/20 rule, in general, speculative science, the science of approximation, only gets weather predictions right up to 80% of the time, it’s an easy to conclude that they could be wrong about “Apocalyptic Climate Change.”

To quote Caldron Pool writer, Matthew Littlefield,

‘Just a reminder for all you east coasters here in Australia, that climate experts predicted drier warmer weather. As we enjoy this cooler wetter weather let’s remember that climate experts have about the same batting average with their predictions as doomsday prophets from bad churches:

Taking in the advice of Plimer and Lomborg, by all appearances “Apocalyptic climate change” is a tool, and idea, preached with the aim of wresting control of constitutional democracies away from the people.

When our politicians start sounding like beauty pageant contestants, citing “fight climate change” in the same way as “world peace,” you know they’re signalling towards virtue, not science.

Building legislation on this, in order to score easy political points is reprehensibly irresponsible.

Hell isn’t a climate change apocalypse, hell is an activist induced inferno triggered by reckless, and reactionary legislation, written on the run, in the ink of hyperreactive climate change hysterics.

References: [i] Plimer, I. 2011, How to Get Expelled From School: A guide to Climate Change for pupils, parents & punters, Connor Court Publishing (p.18)

UPDATE: Since posting this, Eastern Australia has had record rainfall. With many dams overflowing, and major floods. The opposite of predictions posted by News.com.au on 9th, December 2020. (see headline screenshot above).


First published on Caldron Pool, 20th March, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

House speaker, Nancy Pelosi when addressing the avoidable humanitarian crisis unfolding on the southern border of the United States, blamed the ‘impact of climate change,’ not good border policy being ditched for bad.

Speaking straight from her hate-Trump-era playbook, Pelosi shifted the blame, acknowledged Central American “corruption, violence, and all that” as a factor, then insinuated that President Biden’s hands were tied because “they” inherited a ‘broken system.’

Pelosi apparently wrote the script for Biden, which was echoed by his White House Press Secretary on Tuesday, who also said, “the last administration left us a dismantled, and unworkable system.”

Heaping praise on Biden, Pelosi stated, that he’s assigned FEMA the task of helping resolve the developing crisis, by ‘transitioning [from] what was wrong before, to what is right.’

Democrat political doublespeak for attempting to deflect accountability for a human tsunami that their ‘policies and rhetoric’ invited. (Attested to by Julio Rosas for Townhall)

Commenting on Pelosi’s political manoeuvre, Australian journalist, Miranda Divine rightly called it, ‘Soviet level gaslighting.’       

In other words, manufacture a crisis, push the credibility of another manufactured crisis. Then blame others for it.

Melanie Phillips described as much in 2010, writing, ‘the left divides the world into two rival camps of good and evil, creating as the sole alternative to itself a demonic political camp called “the right,” to which everyone who challenges it is automatically consigned. Since “the right” is by definition evil, to dispute any left-wing shibboleth is to put oneself beyond the moral pale. There can be no dissent or argument at all. Only one worldview is to be permitted.’


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Published on the 24th February, and either missed, or overlooked by Legacy Media, China’s leader of the opposition-in-exile, Wei Jingsheng’s 魏京生 short treatise, ‘Why Praise the Tyrant?’, argued that silence, and appeasement, strengthen tyrannical despotism.

He isn’t new to the subject. Branded the father of Chinese democracy, Wei was imprisoned, then released in 1997, as part of a Clinton administration negotiation with then Chinese President Jiang ZeMin.

Wei served a total of ‘18 years in prison’ for non-violent, pro-Democracy opposition to the Chinese Communist Party.

In his February piece, Wei asks, ‘Why are there so many people liking the tyrant?’

He then provides two reasons: ‘First, people become accustomed, numb, they don’t know to be afraid. Second, no one dares to talk about tyrants at home.’

Wei said, ‘people are brainwashed by propaganda, people believe [what they’re told] that tyranny is inevitable [e.g.: for their own good], or at least cannot be overthrown.’

In other words, people are conditioned to embrace the tyrant as an altruistic patron of the people, and tyranny as their benevolent benefactor.

Under a false sense of security, as alluded to by Wei, the populace falls asleep, ‘they accept tyranny as reality – since resistance is useless, just as well lie down and enjoy.’

For his example, Wei uses the Chinese middle class. They ‘belong to this lying down, and enjoy being part of the group, [which is rewarded] with material living conditions which they can lie down and enjoy.’

Wei argues that ‘some people have developed a Stockholm syndrome, who would defend tyrants with tears in their eyes. There is no shortage of this kind of people in the elite class in China, including the elites overseas.’

Condemning manipulative propaganda, and revisionism, he links back to a recent TV series’ portrayal of ‘Qin Shihuang, the founder of the Qin dynasty, first emperor to unite China.’

Wei explains, ‘it is said the part of Qin Shihuang killing his two brothers was censored and deleted, which, for 2,000 years has been viewed by scholars as evidence of Qin Shihuang’s tyrannical character.’

This deletion, Wei said, ‘highlights’ the fact that the ‘core purpose of the censor, is to praise the tyrant.’

If I’ve read Wei correctly, the CCP approved period drama, deceptively revised the history of Qin Shihuang in order to falsely align the Communist Chinese Party with the Qin Dynasty in the hearts, and minds of the Chinese people.

(The article’s translation from Chinese into English isn’t particularly well done, but it’s good enough to get the gist.)

Wei concludes, ‘tyrants have one thing in common, that is, they ignore basic rights, and dignity of the people. For their great goals, they enslave the people, and sacrifice their power.’

This is done by ‘stripping the power away from the people, and imposing severe penalties. In order to implement severe penalties to deter the people, one must ignore human dignity. This includes grooming villains, and cruel officials, corrupting social morality, and creating social unrest.’

China has come a long way financially because reforms embraced a market economy. For Wei, however, when ‘compared with Democratic systems that manage market economies, a Communist managed market economy is a backward system. It can’t adapt to economic development, and technological progress, nor can it adapt to modern people’s pursuit of freedom and dignity.’

Wei then writes, ‘people in the West have now come to realise that continuing to infuse blood into authoritarian countries not only endangers their own interests, but also endangers their own living conditions and values.’

Referring perhaps to the West’s widespread adoption of Communist Chinese C0V1D-19 authoritarianism, Wei said, ‘the Chinese model can no longer be maintained.’

To paraphrase Wei, this means that ‘the tyrant model of cruel repression, that strengthens despotism to save shaky vested interests’ is a fool’s errand.

The ‘blood transfusion diplomacy’ with the CCP is a toxin to Civil Liberties, and Classical Liberal, constitutional democracies.

Can we say this about Cancel Culture, and its alphabet mafia, where the real oppressors march, not with the oppressed, nor for the oppressed, but as the oppressed?

I think so.

As I firmly stated last year, the culture war isn’t between left vs. right, black vs. white, it’s between truth vs. falsehood.

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

At CP we aim to fight for truth over against falsehood by ministering through the vocation of speaking truth in love; informing, by being well informed.

A Christian who isn’t Missional, isn’t a Christian.

Wei is right. The ‘core purpose of the censor [propagandist and revisionist], is [indeed] to praise the tyrant.’

Silence, and appeasement, strengthen tyrannical despotism.

Engagement with the culture is an imperative; joyless defeatism dressed up as “losing graciously”, isn’t a Gospel centred stratagem for Christians in a post-Christian paradigm.

For those who already support us, thank you.

For those interested in supporting us, you can add your voice to that engagement by financially support Caldron Pool here:

https://caldronpool.com/support/


First published on Caldron Pool, 12th March 2021. 

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Images from Myanmar of Christian Nun, Sister Ann Rose Nu Tawng, staring down police officers, pleading with them not to shoot protesters, exposes just how close the Western world is to the precipice of its own demise.

Tawng opposed the brutal crackdown asking the officers “not to hurt the protesters, but to treat them kindly like family members.”

She told Reuters, “I told them that they can kill me, I am not standing up until they give their promise that they will not brutally crack down on protesters.”

Her actions failed. Two protestors were killed, and according to Reuters, ‘several others were injured.’

If you missed this, it’s because, Nu Tawng’s selfless defiance was drowned out by a British Prince, an American actress, and an American talk show host.

The embarrassing, vain self-serving media frenzy, elevating two millionaires, and a billionaire, caused a news blackout.

It’s the tale of two cities. One (not without irony) speaks freely, claiming to be oppressed, while the other fights just to have its voice heard.

Yet the first sucks in the sympathy, and attention of the world, while the second, barely acknowledged, humbly kneels before guns, and the prospect of no freedom at all.

To understand Sister Ann Rose Nu Tawng’s fight, Myanmar commander-in-chief, Min Aung Hlaing, brought the country back under military control on the 1st February.

Arguing electoral fraud, he sided with the opposition, then booted the Democratically elected government, placing pro-Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, (a lifelong campaigner for Democracy in the country, and Nobel Peace Prize winner) under house arrest.

Suu Kyi is charged with ‘possessing illegal walkie-talkies, violating Covid-19 restrictions during last year’s election campaign and publishing information that may “cause fear or alarm”.

Suu Kyi’s governing hasn’t been without scandal. According to the BBC, her policies regarding the Muslim, Rohingya minority have been the focus of embarrassing international attention for the country. Many claim her 2017 crackdown on the Rohingyas, considered by the Suu Kyi government to be ‘illegal immigrants’, was ‘genocide.’

Supporting Suu Kyi is synonymous with supporting Democracy. Min Aung Hlaing’s overthrow strengthens this parallel.

In some aspects this shares a likeness to the shady totalitarian actions of the West’s militarised bureaucracy; through which many Governments have manipulated constitutional protections, and turned the “fight” against the Wuhan COVID-19 virus, into a fight against the people.

Exemplified in particular by Canada’s arrest, and imprisonment of Pastor James Coates.

Like Sister Ann Rose Nu Tawng, Coates’ story is sidelined in favour of “bigger things”, “better people”, and bigger ratings.

Harry, Megan, and Oprah’s, soap opera, took centre stage on social media, and dominated headlines.

One particular allegation, created a short-lived anti-Monarchy industry, filled with unthinking, banal netizens virtue-signalling a cult-like chant in unison: “Black Lives Matter”, “time for a republic in Australia!”, “the Royal family are all racists.

While the world obsessed over three excessively rich Westerners, decrying their alleged oppression at the hands of other excessively rich Westerners, a poor Christian nun from Myanmar was kneeling in front of real oppressors, asking them to turn their guns away.

Where were Oprah’s cameras?

Where were Megan’s tears, and concerns for the oppressed?

Where was Harry’s sympathetic endorsement?

Where was the focus of the world?

Though Tawng’s efforts didn’t succeed, at least she did something.

Though Coates is in prison, at least he did something.

We fail to be taken seriously if we fail to hear, and see, Coates and Nu Tawng.

They are an example of how life-affirming Christianity is in the face of oppression. They embody a rejection of the false doctrine that teaches defeatism behind the veil of “losing graciously.”

One not far removed from Chamberlain’s well-intentioned Munich agreement, which gave Hitler the Sudetenland in Western Czechoslovakia, to “seal” the promise of “peace in our time.”

Take in the observation of Czech philosopher, Jan Patočka, talking about the civil disobedience:  

‘Accommodation has so far never led to an improvement in a situation, only to a deterioration. The greater the fear the servility have been, the greater the lack of consideration been on the part of the authorities. There is no other way to make them lessen the pressure than show to them that injustice and arbitrariness are not ignored. People must always be dignified, refuse to let themselves be frightened and humiliated, say that which is true – behaviour that will make in impression just it will be such sharp contrast to the behaviour of the authorities.’ [i]

Knowing that we are not free from suffering, but free in our suffering, we live in Christ’s victory, not our victimhood.

It’s radical. Determined. Joyful, humble, and defiant in the face of tyranny.

The Christian has a Lord, and under, with and because of His Lordship, we can stand firm against the Abyss.

It’s on the plains of appeasement, and the back of “losing graciously” that Blitzkrieg was born.

This is why we must reject the false doctrine so often shoved down the throats of parishioners, by Christian leaders, who’ve abdicated mission to centrism, surrendered the uniqueness of Christ to pluralism, and applied “losing graciously” as a coping mechanism for the post-Christian context.

I’ll give Clarke Pinnock the penultimate word,

‘There is no future for liberal Christianity because it just listens to the culture and has nothing to contribute. It allows itself to be led around by the nose, while ruining churches and robbing the world of the Gospel.’ [ii]

Tawng’s defiance holds a mirror up to most progressive Churches in the West. What’s reflected back isn’t what many would expect to see.

References:

[i] Citizen vs. State, cited by Harry Jarv, Living in Truth: Tribute to Václav Havel, p.243

[ii] Clarke Pinnock’s rebuttal of John Hick’s case for Religious Pluralism. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralist World, 1995.


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.