Archives For Political Theology

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

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

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

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

Trump’s next move should be to:

  1. Fund replacement media.

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

2. Establish an election integrity foundation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As John wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyrie Eleison.


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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entering 2021, be sure not to overlook the hypocrisy.

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

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

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


First posted on Caldron Pool, 30th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academics took to Twitter hashtagging in anger that their

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

“I concur!” said another.

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

I have an idea, boasted yet another,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Others screamed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The poets and theologians then sang,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References:

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

First published on Caldron Pool 24th December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References:

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

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

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

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

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

[vi] See Karl Barth CD.II:1:328-350

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

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

©Rod Lampard, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Wilkie, Assange is innocent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posting on Facebook, George Christensen upped the ante:

‘How to annoy Killary.

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

2. Send a message to Donald J. Trump

asking him to pardon Julian Assange.

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

In an exclusive for Sky News, Christensen explained,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

That Andrew Klavan wisdom shines through once again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highlights:

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

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s worth pondering:

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 11th December 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.