Archives For Political Theology

Back in August 2016, in an article called, “Why Trump is not Hitler, & Why Evangelical Americans are Not German Christians”, I argued that the more pressing danger was Turkey’s, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the fanaticism surrounding him. His recent decision to use the tragic pro-Communist, eco-Fascist attacks in New Zealand, as a political whip, particularly against Australians, only furthers the point I attempted to make.

The piece was written in response to the large amount of naysayers who were predicating another Holocaust if Donald Trump was to win the 2016 United States Presidential race. Equating Trump with Hitler was all the rage.

Well. Trump won. There hasn’t been a Holocaust yet, neither are there any significant signs that suggest the predicated, diabolical conversion of Trump, into one of history’s most famous, and vile tyrants has occurred.

As I wrote then, instead of focusing in on Donald Trump and American Evangelicals, there is a spate of more relevant events to choose from.

The loudest come from Islamism and the growing militancy of the Left.

Both of which do violence to classical liberal rights, such as free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of association.

I was concerned that academics were falling over themselves to denounce Trump. Yet, were failing to acknowledge the more pertinent historical parallels which shared a closer affiliation with a Nazified Germany, and the compromised German Church of the 1930s-’40s.

One of those examples is the Left’s fierce advocacy of blank cheque abortion. Families and thousands of unborn children every day are literally torn apart in the service of an ideology. Abortion, even up until birth, is dangerously close to the Nazi doctrine of “life unworthy of life” (Lebensunwertes Leben). More so if we take into account the deliberate abortion of down-syndrome babies. Then the link between Nazi Germany and Leftism’s fanatical support for abortion becomes complete.

The next example is the targeted call to implement laws banning “hate speech”. This ban is nothing other than intellectual terrorism. It’s a front for the more sinister goal of picking and choosing to exclude people because they disagree, or show dissent towards those currently in power.

Exhibit 1: Turkey warns tourists: criticize Erdoğan and we will arrest you;  Tourists suspected of opposing President Erdogan’s regime will be arrested as soon as they set foot on Turkish soil. (The U.K Times).

Exhibit 2: in Turkey, a Turkish journalist was sentenced to prison over an investigation that reported on some dodgy activity involving the former Prime Minister. (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists)

The other parallels between now and then, are Islamism’s closeness to the doctrine of “blut und boden – blood and soil”, or ethno-nationalism, and Leftism’s selective outrage. By which I mean the kind of rage that often involves advocating one selective set of issues, and the dismissal of others, equally as important.

There is no real difference between the Nazi practice of dehumanizing the Jews, and the dehumanizing of those, who are deemed as being not worthy of having an opinion. Just as there is no real difference between the blasphemy laws of Islamists, and the increasing demands from minority groups to ban so-called “hate speech”.

The pattern is clear. Leftism and Islamism, as Erdoğan (et.al) and the naysayers against Donald Trump, have consistently shown, only allows criticism if it does violence to the people, and things, both the Leftist and Islamist hates.

The secular and sometimes Christian left, for example, are quick to write-off and then propagandize any dissent. Anyone who shows dissent is automatically treated with suspicion, and is, as a consequence dismissed as a racist, or ridiculed after being diagnosed as having a “phobia” of some kind.

As is well established, the pattern of behavior is to denounce any disagreement and then shame anyone who raises honest questions about serious social, theological or political issues.

Such as, the use of a politics of diversion and evasion, when it comes to the dangers of Islamism and the bizarre placating of it, from those whose own self-interests lie in controlling the debate over immigration, abortion, and gay marriage. This includes the ability punish, those who oppose the Leftist construct of “gender fluidity.”

I get the criticisms of Trump, but as far as historical parallels go, only the deliberately myopic, would choose to ignore the relevance of those historical events and their echo found in the many examples of intolerance and violence which stems from Leftism, and Islamism.

Erdoğan exemplifies this by deliberately invoking the emotion associated with the tragic event in New Zealand, in order gain political traction, turns that event into political whip.

As with most adherents of the LGBT religion, so it is with a large portion of Islamists, you’ll never be caring enough, tolerant enough, or loving enough[1], until you’ve been converted to their ideological view of the world. It’s written in the radical feminist textbooks, Marxist manifestos and the peer reviewed blueprints for their promised utopia, with man/woman-ruling-as-god at the helm.

One dark example is American and Radical Feminist, Mary Daly’s belief that “true tolerance can only be achieved through conversion.” (paraphrased)[2]

When compared to the examples of history, it’s not Donald Trump or conservatives who appear on the horizon, as this century’s very own gathering storm, it’s the militant expansion of Islamist ideology and the Left’s appeasement of it.

It must be said, then, that the path to the resurgence of fascism doesn’t begin with Trump, or the rhetoric of Donald Trump. Nor does it rest in the endorsement of American Evangelicals. The responsibility falls on the individual who fails to discern for themselves the distinction between fact and fiction.

In discussing the effort it took in order to awaken people to the reality of World War Two, Dwight Eisenhower wrote:

‘The handicaps were many. The greatest obstacle was psychological— complacency, it still persisted! Even the fall of France in May 1940 failed to awaken us— and by “us” I mean many professional soldiers as well as others— to a full realization of danger.’[3]

Eisenhower identifies a key complaint about, and eventually from people who were warned, but failed to hear.

Weaponizing the self-confessed pro-Communist, eco-fascist, attack in New Zealand, against non-Muslims, and all people with white melanin, does not do any justice to the victims of the attack, or the millions of non-Muslims, who’ve reached out to support them.

 


References (not otherwise linked):

[1] Sahar Ghumkhor, The Hypocrisy of New Zealand’s, ‘this is not us’ claim, Aljazeera sourced 21st March 2019

[2] Jean Bethke Elshtain, 1981. Public Man, Private Woman, Princeton University Press, p.209 (et.al) {paraphrased}

[3] Eisenhower, D.D. 1948 Crusade in Europe: A Personal Account of World War Two Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Ed. (Loc. 251-256; 260-262).

Travel advice is current as of the 21st March, 2019. For an update see Smart Traveller.gov.au

(Originally published on Caldron Pool, 22nd March, 2019)

Photo by Manu Sanchez on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2019

Freedom of the press requires a societal framework that empowers free speech. So it’s rare to witness the Australian media unite together in order to tear down an Australian politician for speaking his mind.

However, what most in the Australian media expressed to the world in their dealings with Fraser Anning this week, is that free speech is only available to a select, and authorized few.

It would appear that Senator Fraser Anning’s biggest sin wasn’t his poorly timed press release; but the fact that he spoke out of turn about things that should not concern him. In other words, Anning is not “approved opposition”.

Had Senator Anning been a woman, or someone of minority status, the 17 year old perpetrator, who filmed himself physically assaulting an elected Australian official, would have been toast by now.

He’d have been dragged through the mud, and beaten until he, his friends, his parents and some fifth cousin, in some backwards town (someone, living somewhere, he rarely ever saw), were all forced into admitting he did the wrong thing, and was consequently made to attend mandatory cultural sensitivity “classes”.

Those well acquainted with the globalist media, and the Leftist cult of modern liberalism in general, know this is exactly how it would go down.

Instead, the crime was applauded, the perpetrator hailed a hero, and Senator Anning, was further driven towards the guillotine, by a Leftist lead mob, hell-bent on his destruction.

This same mob, who were right to condemn the premeditated, internet streamed, Eco-fascist terrorist attacks in New Zealand, now seem only too happy to give applause to premeditated, internet streamed, physical assault.

The condemnation of Anning also included ridiculous attacks on the 69 year old Queensland senator for exercising his right defend to himself.

Anning’s reaction was slammed as unbecoming of a statesman, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison, saying, ‘the full force of the law should be applied[1] to the Senator – presumably because Anning hit back.

In addition, Seven news ran an online poll which showed significant support for the Senator’s arrest. It also showed a poll which suggested support for, what amounts to the police turning a blind eye to the actions of the assailant.

It doesn’t take a security expert to know that Anning would have a long list of death threats already made against him. Those are bound to make anyone giving a public appearance reason enough for concern for their own personal safety.

Prime Minister’s have a security detail for this very reason.

The largely Leftist controlled media cannot have it one way, then another.

For example, when in July 2010, ‘a 55-year-old small business owner was charged by police for throwing an egg at Julia Gillard in her first visit to WA as Prime Minister.’ (WaToday)

If a 55 year old throwing an egg at an elected politician is considered a crime, why isn’t a 17 year old smashing an egg into the head of a politician treated differently?

None of this has been taken into consideration. Suggesting that thinking rationally about why a high profile politician would defend himself is counter-productive to the group-think used to suck in the gullible.

Anning stuffed up with the timing of his press release, but demonizing him, just because he doesn’t hold to the globalist views of most in the elitist Australian media, is opportunistic.

The same can be said for not showing any level of fairness, or understanding. It feeds the self-interest of Anning’s enemies, to selectively use some of Anning’s points to further build the “white supremacist” narrative they appear to be determined to construct, not just around Anning, but everyone who doesn’t side with them.

This determination to link what happened in the New Zealand with everyone not of the Left was exemplified by the violent mistreatment of Pauline Hanson[2], when she was interviewed on Sunrise, by David Koch and Darryn Hinch. Yet, there was no outrage from the usual quarters, accusing Koch and Hinch of “mansplaining”, “toxic masculinity” or “misogyny”.

Qantas joining the press posse[3] looking to lynch Anning only goes to prove my point. Qantas management jumping on the virtue-signaling bandwagon, are doing so because they see a profit in capitalizing on a shell-shocked and angry public. Adding the Australian corporation to the list of globalist voices trying to not only to somehow link Fraser Anning to the New Zealand shooting, but label him a terrorist, gets them publicity. Cui Bono? (Who benefits?)

Don’t miss the irony. Carrying out a premeditated act of violence is a crime. Whether it be committed via egg or gun; dismissing the former, gives quiet approval to the latter. It’s hypocritical to laugh at the former. Then condemn the latter.

If the media and celebrities can get away with their attempt to destroy Fraser Anning, and get away with justifying the actual crime committed against him, don’t think they wouldn’t do the same to you.

As warned by ex-leftist, turned Conservative Philosopher, Roger Scruton,

‘Once again I was forced to acknowledge that crimes committed on the Left are not really crimes, and in any case those who excuse them or pass over them in silence always have the best motives for doing so […] From the beginning, labels were required that would stigmatize the enemies [of the Communist movement] within and justify their expulsion […] The success of those labels in marginalizing and condemning the opponent fortified the communist conviction that you could change reality by changing words […]The purpose of communist Newspeak, has been to protect ideology from the malicious attacks of real things.’[4]

For Leftism to gain total control, it requires Leftists to seek the total destruction of anything not of the Left. Any crime or injustice committed, by the Left, in the process of achieving this, is not considered to be unjust or a crime. It’s simply a means to an end, and the end justifies the means.

Anning isn’t completely innocent. He often appears reactionary, not all that unlike the late, Bruce Ruxton. Is there a place for some of Anning’s points, absolutely! Is there a place for hotheaded, reactionary politicians, no.

One of Anning’s strengths, however, is that he is no mediocre politician. He doesn’t come off as self-serving, and he has the balls to say what many think; or are concerned about, but fear speaking. He can do better and should aim to do better.

However, given the activism, diatribes and vitriolic standards set by Leftism, will the Leftist dominated society we now live in, take notice of anyone else? They haven’t so far. And they’ve successfully silenced those who have sought to dialogue with the Left on fair terms.

When you send smart delegates into a diplomatic meeting between two camps, and one camp all-but executes the other, the time for “niceness” is probably at an end. A new strategy of diplomacy and communication needs to be applied.

I don’t condone all of Anning’s words, or approve of the timing of them, but when is the right time to discuss the discomfort many Australians feel about having new cultural laws imposed upon them?

The Leftist doesn’t want coexistence, they are out to destroy, control and dominate. Not just the Right, but the traditional Left as well. It’s unjust, naive and senseless, to sit back and let that happen.

If that means not beating about the bush with the truth, and hurting a few feelings in the process, so be it.

We all would benefit from keeping in mind the words of Margaret Thatcher in her 1984 address to the United States Congress:

“Let us not forget the 1930’s […] from good intentions can come disastrous results.”

Appeasement only serves those being appeased. It rarely serves those doing the appeasing.

We would also benefit from keeping in mind the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who said,

‘the ultimate possible rebellion, is that the lie [of the serpent] portrays the truth as a lie. That is the abyss that underlies the lie—that it lives because it poses as the truth and condemns the truth as a lie [and we fall for it].’[5]

This is the dark precipice we are being guided towards by many of our leaders. It’s a precipice that few will survive, if the socio-political trends of the past two decades are allowed to continue, unchallenged and uncorrected.

In the process of pushing back against this, may we ALL be drawn back towards the words of Jesus Christ, as he lowered himself in the defense of a woman facing a Pharisaic death squad, “let he who is without sin, throw the first stone” (John 8:7, ESV).


References:

[1] Paul Karp, The Guardian, 17th March 2019

[2] Pauline Hanson’s Official Facebook page sourced 19th March 2019

[3] As reported by Radio FiveAA, and the Australian, 18th  March 2019

[4] Roger Scruton, 2015. On Marxist Newspeak in Fools, Frauds & Firebrands Bloomsbury Publishing

[5] Bonhoeffer, D 1937, Creation & Fall, Fortress Press (pp.109-116)

(Originally published on Caldron Pool, 19th March 2019)

Photo ‘Chains’, by John Salvino on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2019

The attack on Masjid Al Nor and Linwood Mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand was horrific.

The loss of life, the changed lives and the many painful years of grieving to come for the victims involved – all of it heartbreaking.

The world, as we’re told, now stands in mourning for the innocent lives taken.

Social media is saturated with comments from those in disbelief, to those looking to show solidarity, or outrage, and those who see the attack on the Mosque in New Zealand, as an opportunity to further their own self-interest.

We are witnessing, and no doubt will witness, great shows of solidarity and grief, and rightly so. But selective outrage only feeds self-interest.

It should be remembered that many of those brandishing badges of sympathy, and anger, are often silent when massacres are carried out almost annually in the name of Allah and his prophet.

OF 1

They are silent in the midst of global condemnation, and when featured on countless analytical panels, filled with experts unpacking the event, they dismiss the actions, by way of quiet approval with the slogan, Islam is a “religion of peace”, or by reminding people that any massacre at the hands of an Islamist is not representative of all Muslims.

We are quickly told to disassociate any blame from Islam that all such questioning is “hate speech”; all critique is written off as Islamophobic.

Yet, when an event happens that involves a non-Muslim attacking a Muslim, the guilt-by-association runs thick and fast. The opportunity to attack “the enemies of Islam” (which under Islam, is all non-Muslims) becomes far too great a temptation to resist.

Javad 1

Consequently, the generalizations begin. Those under Islam, end up doing exactly what they accuse non-Muslims of doing, when an Islamist sets a bomb off in crowded arenas filled with civilians, quite often a church [most recently, Nigeria and The Philippines] all in the name of Allah and his prophet.

The individuals who perpetrated the attack are the ones to be held accountable. Anyone who demands otherwise is auctioning off the innocent, turning the victim into a political commodity. Placing guilt on an entire group of people only furthers, wherever possible, a self-serving political narrative, at the expense of victims caught up in this tragic event.

If the attackers’ manifesto is legitimate, as is currently assumed to be the case, then the facts don’t match the political maneuvering of opportunists, who jumped on this event for quick political traction against Donald Trump, Candace Owens, Conservatives and those with white melanin. [i]

As Peter Sweden and others are now reporting [ii]. The ideological motives and attachments of the attackers aren’t as clear cut, as some would have us believe.

Sweden 1

The political maneuvering isn’t just isolated to those on the Left. Right-wing, Australian Senator, Fraser Anning, will now find it very difficult to avoid the accusation that he also chose to use this tragic event for quick political gain.

Anning didn’t wait. The timing of Anning’s press release is way off, but some of his reasoned points aren’t all that out there.

Though poorly timed, dismissing some of Anning’s points is tantamount to applying a band-aid to a broken bone. Such as, dismissing concerns about the consequences of “Open Borders”, and how this policy paralyses all help offered to genuine refugees, by way of importing the very crisis and form of government those refugees are fleeing from.

Add to this the concerns of many Westerners who question the challenge of importing a people, who can find, and have a place in the West, but who have among them, people who insist upon holding, and in some cases imposing, a political ideology that is very limited in its compatibility with Western Civilization, Judeo-Christianity and Classical Liberalism.

Those parts of Anning’s statement suggests, that he was making an attempt to communicate that the tragic, calculated attack at the Mosque in New Zealand is perhaps, as much a symptom, as it is a sin.

As dumb as the timing of Anning’s statement was, it’s an expression of frustration; written for all who refuse to listen to those who feel their views are underrepresented in the major political parties; those who have real, and rational (and, yes, some irrational) concerns about the trajectory of their countries and communities.

After the necessary period of mourning, politicians need to take the time and listen to those concerns, instead of instantly dismissing them and the people who express them, as “unwelcome”, “offensive”, “racist”, “Nazi”, “phobic”, or “unChristian”.

To refuse to do this is to continue to ignore the storm that’s been darkening the horizon, but has been dangerously dismissed, by far too many, for far too long.

It’s telling when one incident is picked up and widely carried as the tragedy that it is, and yet MANY others, like the constant harassment of Coptic churches and Christians in Egypt [iii], who face things like what happened in N.Z on close to a monthly basis, are shrugged off and dismissed.

Just as the attack in the Philippines [iv], back in January was and still is; very few paid ANY attention to it, others probably still have no idea it even happened. Just as the dismissal of attacks on white farmers [v] in South Africa, and the dismissal on anyone who criticizes those attacks.

There is no denying the fact, that the ‘eco-fascist terrorist attack’ on these Mosques in New Zealand, was a tragedy.

It is a time to mourn. We comfort the suffering and seek justice for the innocent victims involved, but this should precipitate a much needed to time listen and talk.

If you choose to mourn, and make a public display of it, choose also to mourn for North African, Nigerian, Middle Eastern and Asian Christians, who face this kind of vicious, selective slaughter on a regular basis.

Many are ‘facing growing persecution around the world, fuelled mainly by Islamic extremism and repressive governments, leading the pope to warn of “a form of genocide” and for campaigners to speak of “religio-ethnic cleansing”. (The Guardian, 2015) [vi]

There wasn’t, nor has there been any Worldwide mourning for them.

If you mourn, mourn also for these.


References:

[i] NBC News, New Zealand mosque shooting: attackers apparent manifesto probed, sourced 16th March 2019

[ii] Taylor Lorenz, 2019. The Shooter’s Manifesto Was Designed to Troll. The Atlantic sourced 16th March 2019

[iii] Michael Oduor, 2016. Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Christian minority facing attacks AfricaNews.com Sourced 16th March 2019

[iv] BBC News, 2019. Jolo Church Attack: Many Killed in Philippines Sourced 16th March 2019.

[v] Lauren Southern, 2018. South Africa’s Farm Murders: Jeanine’s Story, sourced 16th March 2019.

[vi] Harriet Sherwood, 2015. Dying for Christianity, The Guardian

(Originally posted on The Caldron Pool, 16th March 2016)

Photo by Tim Marshall on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2019


Addendum 1: Although I’m stating the obvious, I’m aware that the Mainstream media do report these attacks against Christians. I’m grateful for that. My point in this article is that there is a noticeable absence of global lament and outrage when such attacks are reported.

Addendum 2: in response to accusations that there is no evidence of massacres of Christians, all sourced, 16th March 2019:

Exhibit a) http://www.auscma.com/2018/12/another-bloody-christmas-for-egypts-coptic-christians-as-copts-protest/

Exhibit b) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47018747?fbclid=IwAR27hl6oW981USdQYsxEuu9hPlIjFb-jp9miVe8501gxs6HkD-Z8_WIQuFc

Exhibit c) https://www.africanews.com/2016/07/28/egypts-coptic-orthodox-christian-minority-facing-attacks/?fbclid=IwAR0GmXxvoJ6_nAl-CGjLa7CPEpt6a4PyxkNAjx91j4_VWmArHSus4XSrxag

Exhibit d) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/dying-for-christianity-millions-at-risk-amid-rise-in-persecution-across-the-globe?fbclid=IwAR3uLp1oEXAcBBZM6EnvzytSvCvxZDtsg0G9QJduFwLlX5yu3YUic8ogPE0

Exhibit e) https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/24/africa/nigeria-church-attack/index.html

Exhibit f) https://www.eternitynews.com.au/world/christian-workers-in-somalia-worship-in-secret-fear-al-shabab/

Exhibit g) https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2018/october/hindu-attacks-against-christians-on-the-rise-in-southern-india

 

The tear in the Belle Epoque (beautiful age) began in 1912 with the criminal, and avoidable, loss of lives on the Titanic.

The whole veil of the Belle Epoque was ripped apart and exposed for what it was, when the first shells fell in 1914, and when the Bolsheviks, violently resigned Europe to 72 years of socialist hell in 1917. The age of the Übermensch; the age of man conquering mountain, myth, monster and supposedly, God, came crashing down.

Bill T. Arnold sums it up:
‘The 20th Century proved to be the most violent century of world history, dispelling the myth of humanism that things are improving and that the human spirit is gradually evolving into greater and better things. The statistics tell the story. Though scholars who study such things are not agreed with the specifics – as far as total numbers are concerned – most estimates range between 160 million and 200 million deaths in the 20th Century are related to war and genocide. About half of these are war related, while the remainder are credited to politically motivated carnage, typically communist oppression.’
(On Violence & Hatred in 2 Samuel 13-14, NIVAC 2003, p.570)

So, it’s encouraging when something like this seven day poll run by the satire Facebook page, Journalist Excellence Worldwide, probably didn’t go where some people might have hoped it would.

Out of 56,000, 35,840, said stick with Capitalism, and 20,160 said we should try socialism. 15,680 vote difference. That’s what some might call a landslide win.

Still, the 20,160 (36% in support of Socialism) is an alarming number. That’s 20 thousand people who are either ignorant of the hatred, division, bloodshed and violence which follows Socialism, or they simply don’t care about the MILLIONS of victims of the socialist/Communist oppressive, and murderous, economic platform. What’s worse, it’s probably safe to assume that most of those who voted in favour of Socialism, believe themselves to be loving, highly educated, and tolerant individuals.

However, polls aren’t everything, and given that the pollster is a parody account, it’s not all good news.

The seduction of socialism continues to grip the hearts of young people, who’ve been taught that Socialists are freedom fighters – upstanding citizens who kill, steal and destroy, all supposedly for the greater good. It is assumed that a socialist is, and can never be, sinful [i].

The false dawn in promises of a Utopian society appears to be too much of an allure for the young and impressionable.

As Caldron Pool’s, chief editor, Ben Davis noted back in February:

‘They say those who won’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. And narcissistic, selfie-obsessed millenials are proof to the veracity of that claim. Almost two-thirds of individuals born between 1981 and 1996 view Socialism in a positive light.’

The allure of socialism doesn’t just involve youthful defiance, it involves the kind of ignorant conditioning that Psychologist Irving Janus called group-think.

The symptoms of which include the following:

1. Self-deception; ‘a shared illusion of invulnerability which leads to overoptimism and causes planners to fail to respond to clear warnings of danger […] along with an aversion to taking extraordinary risks’

2. Pride; ‘Ignores all warnings and construct rationalisations in order to discount them’

3. ‘has an unquestioning  belief, inclining members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions’

4. ‘holds stereotyped views of the leaders of enemy groups. Those leaders are seen as so evil that there is  no warrant for arbitration or negotiation; the enemy leaders are viewed as too weak or too stupid to put up an effective defense.’

5. ‘where direct pressure is piled onto an individual who momentarily expresses doubts about any of the groups shared illusions or questions the validity of the groups arguments.’

6. ‘where ever unanimity has become an idol; displaying avoidance of anything with deviates from what appears to be the group consensus.’

7. ‘a culture of silence’. [i]

This is the warning of sign of Voltaire’s indictment on the Catholic Church, “écrasez l’infâme” (crush the loathsome thing); the battle between reason and regression (Emil Brunner, 1954).The toxin that is group-think overrules the ability for supporters, and members, of the Socialist religion to comprehend the suffering caused by it.

As Jesus’ warned,

“See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray…” (Mark 13:5-8, ESV)
“…brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mark 13:12-13, ESV)

If social media polls are to be believed, it’s encouraging to see that people are not quite yet sold out to the idea of ditching the Capitalist economic model.

Because, history dictates, when it comes to fun facts about Soviet Russia, and Communism in general, apart from Sputnik,  Yuri Gagarin, and Glasnost there are none.

 


References:

[i] ‘One of the most deceptive illusions about sin is the fact that even the worst sinners are often such “nice people.” (Psychiatrist, Karl Menninger, Whatever Became of Sin? 1976, p.126)

[ii] Irving Janus, cited by Karl Menninger in ‘Whatever Became of Sin? 1976, (pp.112-113)

Brunner, E. 1954. The Misunderstanding of the Church (p.117)

While most of us are fans of ‘The Hobbit‘ and ‘Lord of the Rings‘ novels, some of us probably aren’t as up to date on the rest of J.R.R.Tolkien’s work and thought. The majority would know that he was friends with C.S. Lewis, and was part of the Inklings. An Oxford circle of writers, who would meet on an informal basis in order to compare and critique each others’ writing.

The group informally (and unconventionally) included the straight talking, Dorothy Sayers, and is said to have centred around the groups’ shared Christian faith and Christian values [i]. Though Sayers apparently never attended the Inking meetings, she was a close friend of C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams (British Poet and Theologian); it’s for this reason that Sayers is considered a satellite member of the group.

When it comes to Tolkien, in particular, most would know that he was a professor with a passion for Nordic history. What few would know is where Tolkien stood politically.

In a somewhat convoluted letter to his son, Christopher, in 1943, some of Tolkien’s political views come to light. Tolkien appears to give his support to what Jacques Ellul later called, Christian Anarchism [ii].

According to Ellul, Christian Anarchism is a paradoxical, ‘anti-political political position’, which,

a) acknowledges that ‘the presence of God in His revelation in Jesus Christ is the necessary condition for human liberation.’ (‘Jesus & Marx’, p.162)

b) understands that ‘power is dangerous and devouring; participating in political action and reflection on behalf of the [big G] government is an undertaking that inevitably  puts  true faith in danger. For example, Jesus was perfectly acquainted with the resistance party, but refused to join it.’ (Ibid, pp.164-167)

c) promotes the fact that ‘political power only becomes acceptable when it remains on a humble level, when it is weak [read: small g, government], serves the good (although rarely) and genuinely transforms itself into a servant.’ (Ibid, p.171)

Ellul argues that even though Anarchism has been hijacked by Leftism, anarchism belongs to the Right. This is because ‘anarchism’s central imperative is freedom’ (Ibid,p.156)

‘Christians can take their place only besides anarchists; they can never join the Marxists, for whom the state is unacceptable only to the extent that it is bourgeois [and deemed to be the oppressor]. No constitution or ethic can prevent power from becoming totalitarian.
It must discover outside itself a radical negation – [such as the revelation of God in Jesus Christ] who is no gentle dreamer looking from the sky, but is instead a challenge to the validity of [all] earthly kingdoms’ (Ibid, p.173)

Whether Ellul is reaching too far for an alternative to a Conservative or Liberal-Progressive platform, is a fair question to ask. Is Christian anarchy a legitimate third alternative?

If by Christian anarchism we mean that the allegiance of the Christian remains with Jesus Christ (who is King of Kings & Lord of Lords), and not with an ideological preference,  the answer would have to include a cautious, but affirmative, yes.

Tolkien leans in the same direction:

“My political opinions lead more to Anarchy (understood as meaning, abolition of control and not whiskered men with bombs) – or to ‘unconstitutional monarchy’. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, nor mind); and after a chance at recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!” [iii]

And Tolkien’s words would seem a little too totalitarian, if they weren’t followed up by the gob-smacking brilliance which qualifies them:

“If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to King George’s council, Winston & his gang, it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into theocracy.” [iv]

Tolkien is taking aim at an impersonal collective; or as Soren Kierkegaard called it, the “untruth of the crowd“. In other words, Irving Janus’ critique of ‘group-think'[v] – The ‘desperate drive for consensus at any cost, that suppresses honest discussion; and where general agreement  becomes so important that it tends to override the realistic appraisal of alternatives’ (Menninger, 1976) [vi].

Ellul, Tolkien, Kierkegaard, Janus and Menninger all acknowledge the limits of politics, and the faceless tyranny of big government;  the dishevelled horde identified by Simone Weil as the bureaucratic caste.

By Christian Anarchism, we can take Tolkien and Ellul to mean people taking individual responsibility seriously, and living that out in freedom under the grace of God, in Jesus Christ (John 8:36; Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:1)

This means moving past the collective identity, towards an individual one. It means on longer being dehumanized and subsumed into a faceless mass, by the faceless would-be lords and kings of big bureaucracy. It means getting “woke” to the manipulative propaganda that herds people into collectives in order to control them and maintain their vote.

As Tolkien so aptly wrote,

“I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water.” (1943)

So it is with freedom; not just in knowing what true freedom is, but where our liberation comes from. The Western world has taken freedom for granted. We’re failing to pay attention to the lessons of the gathering storm that our Great-grandparents and Grandparents were forced to live out from 1939 to 1945. What exists with relative ease one day, may have to be hard fought for the next.

Whether it’s Christian Anarchy, or something else, the first step to recovery begins with acknowledging that ‘the presence of God in His revelation in Jesus Christ is the necessary condition for human liberation.’ (Ellul, 1988); that Jesus Christ is the radical negation who challenges the legitimacy of ALL kingdoms. Freedom comes from God, not the [big G] government.

Any political party, or politician who dismisses this, deserves dismissing. Chances are, they view their position, not as a servant of the people, for the people, but as a Lordless power, who would rather take for themselves, than leave anything of value behind for anyone else.


References (not otherwise linked):

[i] As presented by Humphrey Carpenter 1978. The Inklings: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams & Their Friends George Allen and Unwin Publishers

[ii] Ellul, J. 1988. Jesus & Marx: From Gospel to Ideology Wipf & Stock Publishers

[iii] The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien #52, 29 Nov. 1943.

[iv] Ibid, 1943

[v] Irving Janus, 1971

[vi] Menninger, K. 1976 Whatever Became of Sin? Bantam Books, (p.112)

Photo by Samantha Sophia on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2019

 

This week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that well known, and trusted, Australian media royalty, Ita Buttrose, would be taking on the chair of the Australian Broadcasting Company (The ABC).

Her appointment to the chair provides hope for many of Australia’s tax payers who want to see a return to a fairer, more representative ABC; one that represents Australia, Australian culture, and Australians.

In other words, having a National broadcaster, that upholds a healthy Australian nationalism. Buttrose’s statements during the press conference point in this direction.

“[The ABC] is a voice of the Australian people. I think it reflects our identity, it tells our stories not just here in Australia but to the rest of the world, and I have grown up with the ABC.”

Adding weight to this, Scott Morrison reminded people that the ABC, needs to do what Ita has always done, put the viewers, the listeners, and their readers first.

“..It’s about the viewers, it’s about the listeners, it’s about the readers, and the services the ABC provides to Australians”[1] […] “Australians trust Ita. I trust Ita and that’s why I have asked her to take on this role and I’m absolutely thrilled that she has accepted”[2]

For the growing majority of Australians who consider the ABC to be an echo chamber for urban Leftist elites; or a propaganda machine for the radical Left, Ita might well be a false dawn, but given her professionalism, service to the community, real change is not just possible, but likely.

Buttrose is a hard worker and comes from the private sector. Having been in the media industry since the early 1970s, her long management experience puts her in a position to not only be blunt in pointing out the bad, it also means that Buttrose isn’t afraid to ask questions that might lead to necessary reforms which will correct imbalances, cherish and preserve the good.

For all those concerned with the ideological, and cultural, direction of the ABC in the past two decades, Ita Buttrose’s appointment might just be the rekindling of a light long extinguished by a collective, who are hell bent on sentencing Australians to the shackles of globalist imperialism, and the leftist cult of modern liberalism.

In the past two decades the ABC has undergone a gradual takeover of its mandate, through its soft treatment of, and pandering to the ideas, and apologetic preaching platforms of Leftist ideologues.

Nowhere is this witnessed better, than the weekly Q & A program, and the unforgettable, infuriating, Howard-hating, Kevin07 fanaticism that made an over-excited, Kerry O’Brien, of the ABC’s 7:30 Report, jump with joy, on live television stating, “We’ve got him! We’ve got Him!” the night John Howard lost the 2007 election.

The looming question is can Ita Buttrose reform the $1 billion dollar tax payer behemoth that is the state owned ABC? And can she do this without making the ABC more of a financial burden on Australians? I think she can. Her first order of business should be a cost-benefit review of staffing and infrastructure. Then start in on a review of how well the service promised in the ABC charter is being delivered to the Australian public.

With Ita Buttrose in the chair, we might see, not just the return of the ABC to its mandate, or its roots, but a return of the ABC to the Australian people.


References:

[1] Laura Tingle, Ita’s Message for Scott Morrison, 3rd March 2018

[2] The ABC, Ita’s Vision for the ABC, Sourced 28th February 2019

©Rod Lampard, 2019

(Published on The Caldron Pool 4th March 2019)

Media reports are confirming what many have speculated over the past week. American actor, Jussue Smollett has been charged with staging the anti-LGBT, race hate attack, which he claimed to be victim of back in January.

As this was breaking, Twitter users were worked up into frenzy over snippets of a John Wayne interview with Playboy magazine in 1971. This resurfacing of Wayne’s, “racist, anti-LGBT remarks”, strangely coincided with the breaking news about Jussie Smollett.

While some of the criticism is defensible, the timing of the “news”, and the “viral” reaction to it, is a convenient red herring.

Why the suspicion?

Wayne’s statements aren’t breaking news. People have known about them for some time. In 2016, ‘The Guardian reported California lawmakers rejected a proposal to create John Wayne Day to mark his birthday after several legislators described statements he made about racial minorities.’ (Fox News)

The Washington Post’s, Eli Rosenberg, makes special mention of Wayne’s statement, “I believe in white supremacy [until African-Americans are educated enough…I don’t feel guilt about slavery]”

Rosenberg also manages to “connect the dots” back to Donald Trump, stating that ‘it’s not the first time in recent memory that the remarks have resurfaced. They also circulated in 2016 after the actor’s daughter, Aissa Wayne, endorsed Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.’ (The LA Times)

Matt Williams, who originally posted Wayne’s comments on Twitter, said “he stumbled upon the interview while doing research”. Given that the interview was no secret to many in the mainstream media, why’d they run with it and give the “news” so much attention?

It would appear that some in the mainstream media saw an opportunity, and used it to shift legitimate focus away from one actor, by further crucifying another.

John Wayne and Jussie Smollett are products of the era they were born into. The difference between those eras was exemplified this week in two ways. First, we learnt about how one actor played the victim, and found it easy to exploit, and profit from playing to a culture of victim-hood. Second, we were reminded of another actor who, made some mistakes, but never sought to blame others for them.

As Ethan Wayne, President of John Wayne Enterprises, said,

“[John Wayne’s beliefs have been misunderstood over the years]. Somebody, a Latina representative up in Sacramento, shot down a bill for John Wayne Day because he was racist. [But] he was married to three Latin women. It’s just crazy how things get blown out of proportion because he was really an open, caring, loyal, supportive man […] He wanted to work with people who earned their place…He didn’t think anybody should get a job because he was a man, because she was a woman, because they were gay, because they were straight, because they were Chinese, African-American or Mexican. He thought you should get a job because you were the right person to do that job. Because you had skill and talent and you would show up and get the job done. He didn’t care what you were.” (Stephanie Nolasco, Fox News)

Adding to his defense, Wayne’s family issued a statement saying,

 “It’s unfair to judge someone on something that was written that he said nearly 50 years ago when the person is no longer here to respond […] “Regardless of color, ethnicity or sexual preference, [our] father taught us to treat all people the same, with respect.”

The outrage towards John Wayne is manufactured. It fits too comfortably within the “all white people are racist” line, and the hysteria drummed up by the very-likely-to-be-proven-fake story surrounding Jussie Smollett’s claims.

Recalling comments made by John Wayne in 1971 have no justification. The timing suggests a smokescreen, designed to shift media attention away from Jussie Smollett. The focus can then be brought back onto blaming Donald Trump, and the supposed racism pandemic sweeping America since Hilary Clinton lost the 2016 election.

If this new focus on John Wayne can be maintained, Smollet and his story will be pushed into the background and left buried.

The MSM can then stand up without concern for context or due process, (as they did with Brett Kavanaugh and the infamous, Covington School boys incident), and say that “racism, and the oppression of those who choose to identify as LGBT, is at pandemic levels in America. John Wayne’s words prove it! Blame Donald Trump. Hashtag:  all white people are racist!”

Not all white people are racist, nor do they believe in Social Darwinian race classifications. What the timing, and outrage, against John Wayne shows, is that the Leftist cult of modern liberalism and its members, need people to believe their lies, and they are willing to do anything, even, and up to, ignoring reality, in order to achieve it.

Long live the legacy of The Duke!