Archives For Political Theology

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.

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