Archives For Theological Reflection

Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison has rejected identity politics and cancel culture in a speech delivered to the United Israel Appeal Dinner, in Randwick, NSW.

Morrison’s April 29th address wasn’t a thunderous “no,” but it was an encouraging reiteration of comments he’d originally made during an informal speech at the Australian Christian Churches conference held on the Gold Coast the previous weekend.

One that inadvertently triggered a meltdown amongst the radical leftist vanguard because a) he seemingly didn’t ask their permission, b) didn’t officially schedule it on his Prime Ministerial calendar, and c) a Christian Prime Minister giving a speech at a Christian conference, was a bridge too far for the “Australia is supposed to be a secular country” blusteringly bigoted, anti-Christian belligerents.

The essence of his speech reinforces a commitment from the 3rd highest office in the land, after God and Governor-General, that Australia won’t be led by extremists on the left, who are demanding total conformity to their divisive ideological agenda.

This all sounds promising, but there is a caveat. Morrison’s words are dimmed by the Liberal National Party appearing to follow the direction of Australian Labor’s virtue signalling vote grab, by implementing gender quotas.

With this in tow, we’d be fools to not ask whether the Prime Minister was fully committed to his convictions?

If the Prime Minister’s commitment to tackling the toxins of identity politics and cancel culture is an authentic “hell no – full stop!”, we are seeing a watershed moment in Australian politics.

Morrison’s boldness wasn’t a Menzies sonic boom, heard when the Liberal founder, and Prime Minister, stood in the gap for all Australians with ‘The Forgotten People,’ and his perceptive, if not over-the-top-at-times, consistent defence of Australia’s [Classical] Liberal Democracy, against the totalitarianism of Communism at the height of its insidious power.

This said, Morrison’s address was, in many ways, a Menzies moment.

Scott Morrison, drove home the message of community, and individual responsibility; of offering grace towards our neighbours through the Biblical Christian emphasis on an ‘inherent dignity’ handed to humanity by way of the being made in the image of God (Imago Dei).

Liberty, the Prime Minister said, ‘is not borne of the state but rests with the individual, for whom morality must be a personal responsibility.’

He adds,

‘This is not about state power. This is not about market power. This is about morality and personal responsibility…That is the moral responsibility and covenant, I would argue, of citizenship. Not to think we can leave it to someone else. ‘

‘Community begins with the individual, not the state, not the marketplace…to realise true community we must first appreciate each individual human being matters.

Then Morrison qualifies his meaning stating that,

‘In this context, we must protect against the social and moral corrosion caused by the misuse of social media, & tendency to commodify human beings through identity politics.’

‘We must never surrender the truth that the experience and value of every human being is unique and personal. You are more, we are more, individually, more than the things others try to identify us by, you by, in this age of identity politics.’

‘You are more than your gender, you are more than your race, you are more than your sexuality, you are more than your ethnicity, you are more than your religion, your language group, your age.’

Finally, and with justification, Morrison solemnly nails the fascist nature of identity politics, cancel culture, and by extension Critical Race Theory/Queer theory, asserting:

‘Throughout history, we’ve seen what happens when people are defined solely by the group they belong to, or an attribute they have, or an identity they possess. The Jewish community understands that better than any in the world.’

Cancel culture and identity politics are birthed from same DNA found in Communism, Nazism, and Islamism. They are totalitarianism proper.

That Australians have a Prime Minister publicly moving against this new authoritarianism, is, to lean on the sentiment expressed by CDP leader, Lyle Shelton, a gift.

This, Shelton said, ‘has been Morrison’s finest hour as PM. For a politician who is known more for his pragmatism, this is a welcome and necessary shift.’

I’m a little more cautious. At the moment Morrison’s words are just that, words.

They come from the same Prime Minister whose Communist Chinese inspired anti-COVID counter measures hurt civil liberties, and came without any promise of preserving those liberties, hand-in-hand with his Government’s fight against the Communist COVID virus.

They also come from a P.M. who entertains the hysterical dogma of apocalyptic climate change catastrophisers.

Hopefully, Morrison’s new speech suggests a new direction.

Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister that no one seems to be able to box in, pin down, or label, no matter how hard they try, has gone into bat, shouldering his fair share of the burden for the sake of our civil liberties.

As such, Morrison has delivered one of the best speeches of his time in office, and is to be commended for it.

WATCH.


First published on Caldron Pool, 5th May 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Chuck Colson saw in advance the contradictions of a society guided purely by the sexual revolution.

In the late 1960s feminist sexual liberation was celebrated as a utopian moment; the elevating of an oppressed “class” through the seizing of power from both men and women, to achieve biological equality.

The great feminist cry against misogyny, through “equality with men” become a misandrist war against men. Its high point was the sexual revolution, and its war-cry ever since has been “choice.”

Respect for women was never the goal. The movement’s primary motivation was the impossible goal of irradicating natural inequalities, through the equality of biological choice.

Raising woman in the eyes of man, for him to see woman as being of equal value, was, at best, a bonus. Not necessarily desired, but welcomed as a consolation prize, should the great feminist war be lost.

Respect for women wasn’t a core virtue. Feminists tended/tend to disrespect other women, and show contempt towards them for not making pro-feminist choices.

Illustrated by author, political scientist, and early feminist, Jean Bethke Elshtain, who, after choosing to join a feminist group with a friend in the 70s, found that being married, and having children appeared to exclude them from being allowed to express an opinion.

Elshtain said, ‘my friend and I left, for we could not treat our children as abstractions, as nuisances to be overcome, or as evidence of our “sad capitulation” to the terms of patriarchy.’

The group’s facilitator had ‘abruptly and publicly’ cut off their discussion declaring, “We will have not diaper talk here. We’re here to talk about women’s liberation.”

Feminists won battles, not just with their ambivalence towards respect, or ignorance of their own hypocrisy, but with their dismissal of restraint, and revelation.

Restraint was considered repressive, and God’s revelation, which included the objective moral law, was demonised as archaic, oppressive, and patriarchal.

According to the thought leaders of the day, such as Simone de Beauvoir, restraint and revelation didn’t liberate women from being a ‘parasite’ on man. They protected, and were used to propagate the parasitical condition of woman, by equally oppressed man. [i]

The feminist bible peached that the human condition wasn’t oppressed by sin. It was oppressed by objective morality, and the shackles of Christendom’s institutionalisation of marriage. Marriage was no longer a vocation, or Godly union where man exists for woman, woman for man, both free before God, but as matrimony –marriage reduced to a woman becoming a mother. [ii]

While feminists got the latter partly right, they got the former spectacularly wrong.

The condition of the human heart is ‘deceitful above all things, desperately sick, outside understanding.’ (Jeremiah 17:9) Without God’s revelation empowering restraint there is no genuine liberation.

Which is why Colson’s brief analysis finds relevance with concerns about reactionary feminist protests today, and the over-reactions to them by Governments.

In observations he’d made about the ‘self-refuting nature of the post-modernism social model,’ Colson wrote: ‘the irony of removing all restraints of shame and modesty is that women led the charge. The feminists thought this was great: women could be “equal” to men, sexually speaking.’ [iii]

It was, he said, ‘the great liberation movement that would lead us to nirvana, freedom, equality.’

Colson added, ‘feminists [haven’t yet] realized [that] they’ve sold their constituency down the river, because the only people who profit from “no restrictions, no limits” philosophy are men’, who are encouraged by this way of thinking to look at women ‘as objects of gratification, and pleasure.’

The ejection of restraint and revelation has ‘reverted culture back to the ancient Greeks, who viewed women as property – as chattel.’

For Colson, the rejection of ‘radical Christian doctrine that considers all human beings to be created in the image of God, with innate dignity’, has created the ‘ultimate post-modern impasse.’

Society wants ‘total freedom [from objective morality] (nihilism), but then, all of a sudden, when it begins to hurt and be untenable, people scream.’

They then turn to big government to solve the problem.

In other words, feminists are running to government, after running away from God, to bring in moral restraints on sexuality, that they’re advocacy for nihilistic, no-restraints, free-sex pandemonium has birthed.

This is the great feminist contradiction, born from legitimate feminist criticisms, that were taken too far by people high on the myth of man created by De Beauvoir, Daly and Greer.

Feminism hasn’t delivered a utopia for women, it’s in fact bought them a ticket on the Titanic. A gargantuan enterprise in the pitfalls of good ideas, corrupted by human arrogance.

It is, as Karl Barth wrote, ‘the myth of man, built up without respect to man and woman’s relationship to the Divine command, which, ends in the negation of real man.’ (paraphrased)

Freedom cannot be maintained where virtue isn’t flourishing, asserted Colson; and he’s right: ‘Moral chaos will lead us to lose our freedoms. The inevitable consequence of the modern project of complete liberation from all restraints is slavery.’

Women’s liberation cannot be achieved through humiliating man, in order to exalt woman, humiliated by man.

The crux of liberation is God on the Cross, who, in, through and, with Jesus Christ becomes our only way to freedom from sin.

It’s the choice between a House of Freedom, and a House of slavery.

It’s the essence of the Easter message, reminding us that it’s not man’s humiliation of man that saves, and exalts, but the humiliation of God, and His exaltation of humanity. [iv]

‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ – John 3:16, NIV

God is true to His Word. Restraint and revelation will never lose its relevance, because the liberating, living God, commands it, and still speaks through it.

References:

[i] Beauvoir, Simone de. 1949. The Second Sex Vintage Books

[ii] I’ve merged Kierkegaard’s critique in ‘The Instant’ with Barth, K. Man and Woman, Church Dogmatics: Doctrine of Creation KD 3:4, (p.127)

[iii] Colson, C. 2015, My Final Word: Hook Up Culture, Zondervan (pp.89-90)

[iv] See Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q. 27), Dietrich Bonhoeffer DBW 12 (p.343) & Karl Barth, Respect for Life, KD 3:4 (p.397)


First published on Caldron Pool, 31st March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

I became a Darrell B. Harrison (DBH) ‘Just Thinking For Myself’ (J.T) blog fan about four years ago.

When DBH teamed up with Virgil Walker (Omaha) to do the J.T podcast, DBH took Just Thinking to the next level.

Since then, I’ve been as avid a listener, as my to do list allows.

This isn’t just the Walker-Harrison podcast, this is the Walker-Harrison University.

My appreciation for their insight is the reason why I wrote ‘Genuflecting to ‘Black Lives Matter’ is Straight-Up Idolatryin September, 2020, discussing their infamous analysis of the ‘Church of BLM.’

They said what needed to be said, when others were too afraid to say it.

Their latest three-hour-long exposition on Critical Race Theory is no different.

The dynamic duo agreed that “CRT (created by Marxist legal scholars in 1989) promotes an unbiblical anthropology, hamartiology, soteriology, and eschatology.”

In other words, CRT preaches its own gospel. The “amen and a-woman”; a false “gospel” of race and identity.

All of which are antithetical to Christianity’s Imago Dei (image bearers of God), original sin (all have fallen short), Jesus the Christ (The Gospel), and God’s promised judgement. The end goal of justification where, through His own humiliation, He lifts His creature to be covenant partners, through undeserved and unmerited favour (grace).

The “sufficiency of God’s Word is the battleground,” but instead of challenging ideology with theology, many in the Church appear to bind theology to CRT through a policy of surrender; correctly viewed as accommodation.

CRT is added onto the Gospel under the presupposition that the Gospel isn’t sufficient enough to answer sin. Especially the sin of racism.

Thus, accommodation is surrender. CRT is “a new religion preaching a false gospel. Its adherents seek to remove God as King. They desire to remove His Word as sufficient, and they desire to remove His Gospel as the power of God unto salvation.”

Harrison explains that Critical Race Theory is the progeny of Critical Theory. CT is the opposite to analytical theory. Full of “subjective reflexes, unconcerned with empirical evidence” and “never satisfied with facts.”

Just like Critical Theory, CRT ejects evidence based reasoning, and objective verification. Hence, CRT “doesn’t allow itself to be critiqued.” As an ideology “it refuses to submit itself to the scrutiny of objective evidence or logic.”

Quoting Thomas Sowell, “CRT is not a testable hypothesis.” Meaning that CRT’s accusations, are not supported by empirical evidence.

CRT holds itself to be the determiner of truth, right and wrong. Not a seeker, or subject of objective truth. Nor a hearer and receiver of God’s transcendent morality spoken to humanity from outside itself.

This is imperfect men and women calling the perfecting of the Gospel, imperfect.

They believe that The Gospel is in need of an ideology born from man’s imagination, superstition, and (when left Logosless), corrupted ideas.

CRT is a tower of Babel. The Creature asserting itself arrogantly, over its Creator. In sum, the Social Justice Warrior is the brethren of Iscariot, not Christ.

Ergo, perpetuating the myth of race is preferred over the more accurate term ethnicity when referring to biological differences.

Advocates of CRT can blur distinctions between disparities and differences. From here CRT adherents can claim that “all social and economic disparities are the result of racial discrimination.”

And in their Marxist zero sum game assert that “equality of outcomes must triumph over equality of opportunity,” if real justice is to be achieved.

As Harrison explained, this puts “the pre-CRT civil rights movement at odds with the CRT “civil” rights movement. The latter isn’t concerned with equality of opportunity, but with inequalities of outcome, which it attributes to “racial” power structures.”

For this reason, Walker states, “CRT is a dangerous game, it actually destroys those it claims to help. It cries “racism” while clinging tightly to the same racist hatred it claims to despise and hopes to eliminate.”

As Harrison asserts “the propositions of CRT rest on words of woe and victimhood.”

These are force fed by Marxists to a gullible audience through the five conduits of:

 1. Interest convergence.

2. Unconscious discrimination

3. Intersectionality.

4. Narrative analysis and storytelling.

5. Revisionist history.

In practice these conduits manifest in demands for reparations such as the call for black votes to be counted twice, and the idea that “all white people are racist.”

Walker drops the mic:

“The greatest proponent of White Supremacism in our current culture is Critical Race Theory, and its myth of the almighty, all knowing, all powerful, all seeing “White Man.”  (Slightly paraphrased).

Then kicks the door in:

“Critical Race Theory is culturally accepted racism.”

In concluding, Harrison and Walker explain how CRT is about resetting the West on Marxist terms, replacing Christianity with critical social theory.

The nexus for which is the de-Christianisation of the young through Marxist dominated Universities.

CRT is “a moral proposition that seeks to subjectively tell others what truth is.” This means that “CRT’s Achilles heal is subjectivism and the sin of partiality.”

Critical Race Theory is “a worldview based on vindictive and prejudiced principles that are subjective and changeable depending upon what direction the winds of white supremacy and black oppression happen to be blowing.”

Hence the tendency, says Walker, to “use racism to argue against racism.”

The answer to CRT is, therefore, the unfiltered, unadulterated Good News (Jesus Christ in the flesh) and the Biblical understanding of sin, justice, and the impact of Gospel.

If we embrace the latter, we can answer the former.

As Karl Barth once quipped,

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

By embracing the doctrine of the Imago Dei, not doctrines of racial hate, we can reject both the Marxist Critical Theory’s protectionism of CRT and CRT, which “keeps alive dissentions and animosities of the past; where there is no forgiveness, redemption, only anger, vengeance, resentment and revenge.” (Thomas Sowell).

Listen:

Further reading:

See also Kurt Mahlburg’s excellent outline of CRT in his recent ‘A Common-Sense Guide to Critical Race Theory,


First published on Caldron Pool, 27th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is kelly-gvl-caldron-pool-2021.png

Australian politician, Craig Kelly’s Facebook page has been suspended over at least four quotes he’d posted in February. Each post gave expert opposing viewpoints to the accepted expert narrative over treatments for C0VID-I9.

The Liberal Party member for Hughes told The Australian’s Richard Ferguson that ‘Facebook went through thousands of my posts and only found five that led to the ban.’

Kelly, who isn’t an “anti-vaxxer”, said he “supported the Morrison government’s message on vaccinations,” and that all he is only “advocating for treatments in concert with the vaccine.”

According to The Australian, Facebook declined to comment, but said ‘that social media giant would crack down on any COV1D misinformation on its site;’ [quote] “We don’t allow anyone to share misinformation about C0VID-I9 that could lead to imminent physical harm.” [unquote]

Kelly has been a strong advocate for civil liberties throughout the COV1D-I9 crisis.

He is one of the few politicians with the moxie to tell it like it is. Up until his public confrontation with Labor’s Tanya Plibersek, and a subsequent ‘dressing-down’ by the Prime Minister, Kelly took a strong stand for Australians to have the right to “weigh the evidence” before taking the vaccine.

In a blunt explanation for Kelly’s ban, Rebel News explained that he was “booted” for one week for ‘touting the benefits of hydroxychloroquine.

The Guardian, outlining reasons for the social credit score reduction to Kelly’s page stated that

‘The three posts related to: unproven claims about hydroxychloroquine by professor Dolores Cahill; a profile of professor Thomas Borody in the Spectator which includes advocacy of ivermectin to treat coronavirus; and claims by pathologist Roger Hodkinson that masks are “useless” for children and “paper and fabric masks are simply virtue signalling”.’

In response, Kelly told the Guardian that,

“The points are a legitimate point of view. I’m not posting my opinions; I’m posting the opinions of medical experts. “whether [the views are] right or wrong is a matter of debate, but their views should be debated”.

When asked for comment, Craig Kelly told Caldron Pool that “it was a sad day for free speech and public debate.”

He explained that,

“the four they’ve identified are actually not my opinions but opinions of highly ranked medical professionals, which I’ve put direct links to. In fact, one of them was nothing more than a cut and paste job from a story published in the Spectator magazine, on Australia’s professor Thomas Borody, and how he was suggesting Ivermectin could be an effective treatment against C0VID.”

The minister commented on the leap-before-looking, heavy-handed nature of the ban, stating

“The real danger of this is, Facebook argue, ‘It’s against our Community Standards – it’s dangerous stuff. With the studies that are coming through, it’s very likely in the next couple of weeks that the World Health Organisation will actually recommend Ivermectin, which Borody tried to do six months ago; now that debate has been shut down and over a million and a half people have died.”

Speaking directly about the mounting number of reckless bans, and blocking of reasoned content providing an opposing viewpoint, Kelly added,

“The effect of censoring [of] debate on these early treatments could have possibly been responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

So, where we should have been having more open debate and more free debate, shutting down debate is likely to have killed people. Not just one or two people, but probably hundreds of thousands. This is why throughout the last 250 years people have said free speech is so important. This is why people have said, ‘I may not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to my death your right to say it.’”

Cancel Culture’s COV1D-I9 fanatics may have scored a temporary win over Kelly, but in doing so they’ve added to further erosion of civil liberties.

Noting the word, “crackdown” used by Facebook, a better headline here would be:

Fascistbook suspends truth-teller for advocating the right of informed consent.

 


First published on Caldron Pool, 17th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021

Earlier this month, Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison announced that his Government had made the surprise unilateral decision to adjust the Australian national anthem by replacing the phrase “for we are young and free,” with “for we are one and free.”

Although Scott Morrison has claimed the adjusted phrasing had the support of the majority of Australians, his claim of majority support doesn’t appear to be backed by any clear formal consultation with Australians.

Breaking the news, The ABC appealed to the overused, ad nauseum click-bait term “historic”, quoting Morrison as saying that the change was about ‘recognising the timeless land of ancient First Nation’s people.’

The 1-billion-dollar tax payer funded national broadcaster reported that ‘Indigenous leaders welcomed the new wording’, but (as is easily predicted) others complained that the “for we are one and free” isn’t representative of the socio-cultural fabric of Australia.

As cited by the ABC, Indigenous Australian Composer, Deborah Cheetham, stated that changing the anthem “one word at a time is probably not the right way to go. It may be time to write something that captures the spirit of the nation.”

According to the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, boxer and Indigenous Muslim activist, Anthony Mundine, wasn’t happy either.

Mundine called the change ‘tokenistic.’ Then played the mythological race card, and ranted about how the Australian National Anthem was white supremacy.

So much for the “spirit of unity.”

So much “for we are one and free.”

It appears Cheetham, and Mundine were just as surprised by the change, as the majority of Australians who are said to be in “support of the change.”

We see and hear this every Australia Day. Mostly summarised as Black = sinless, white = sinner; never the two shall meet, until the sinners have been either obliterated, or made subjects of the sinless.

Activists are telling us it’s not enough. They want more.

Which is why the arbitrary anthem change is also one further step towards implementing the myth of race into the Australian constitution – under the label of Indigenous recognition – which would not only codify a protected minority class in law, but segregate citizens, apply preferential treatment, not measured by need or merit (as is currently the case with Abstudy, and a whole range of social outreach programs), but by a man or woman’s shade of melanin or ethnic heritage.

As the somewhat insightful SBS documentary ‘First Australians’ could not avoid concluding, while racism existed, there was no clear-cut white vs. black oppression that fits the narratives of genocide spewed forth every Australia Day.

Indigenous tribes were not a nation. Though tribes congregated, had a degree of similarity in mythological beliefs, they were not an organised, united, advanced entity, or civilisation with towns, roads, common government, and a shared common law.

As clumsy as European settlement was in seeking to live amicably with those tribes, European settlement united those tribes with the birth of the Australian nation.

As SBS’ ‘First Australians’ and atheist Robert Kenny’s ‘The Lamb Enters the Dreaming’ documents, Christian Europeans (although flawed in many ways), were a vanguard for Indigenous languages and survival.

Christians stood with Indigenous communities against the rise of Social Darwinist secularism, which with rise of the 19th Century’s popular ‘survival of the fittest mantra,’ had relegated Australia’s Indigenous people to extinction, largely through secular humanism’s embrace of evolutionary ethics.

We should be cautiously willing to accept the Prime Minister’s call. Purely on the grounds that “for one and free” from “for young and free” does a lot for national unity.

The caveat to this is highlighted by the outrage from a minority of privileged urban activists, who want to not just rewrite Australia’s national anthem, but rewrite European Australian history with revisionist Cultural Marxist black vs. white, us vs. them, cognitive distortions.

These are often applied using the vicious lens of the Stasi like, Leftist intersectional rubric, which makes McCarthyism, The Inquisitors and the Salem Witch trials look like a day at the fair.

I’m fully aware that my argument here will be lost on many people. I accept this. In fact, I know I’ve lost the argument before even stating it.

Not for lack of good reasoning, but for the fact that like Malcolm Turnbull’s dodgy, 2017 Gay Marriage plebiscite, (one that was used to change the definition of marriage, on the claim that it had majority support, but saw over 2 million Australians abstain from participating in), 2020 has revealed a willingness among Australians to accept what they’re fed, without question; bear false witness against their neighbour, and throw hate on dissent by demonising any reasoning that might form part of a valid opposing viewpoint.

Allowing a change to the National Anthem without first hearing the national voice via a referendum or formal consultation, isn’t the same as the governed leaving the Government to decide on fixing a road, or building a much-needed dam or bridge.

Allowing the Government arbitrary rule over changing items essential to national identity without the voice/debate/approval of the people is civic negligence.

Referendum isn’t a plebiscite. Referendums are the voice of the people. It’s what gives Australians their united voice, and keeps the power of Government at bay. Referendums are a key part of our God given and constitutionally ratified Democratic rights. The moment we allow bureaucrats to bypass that voice, all is lost.

To quote Professor of Law at the Sheridan Institute, and Caldron Pool contributor, Augusto Zimmerman,

‘Regardless of whether you agree with the substantive nature of this change, surely this effectively opens a dangerous precedent for further arbitrary behaviour.’

If we’re going to boot this essential public voice in the name of convenience or financial cost, given the lawfare pandemic against Christians post SSM, and the COVID-19 totalitarian shift towards greater dependence on a nanny state, we may as well boot the word “free” along with the word “young”!

No referendum. No change to the national anthem.


Also published on Caldron Pool, 8th January, 2020.

Note: Precedent for referendums being held outside constitutional changes, were held in relation to national identity and national service in 1916 and 1917. 

‘Referendums, other than for purposes of constitution alteration, were held in 1916 and 1917. These referendums related to the introduction of compulsory military service and were rejected by the people. The first was authorised by an Act of Parliament[174] and the second was held pursuant to regulations made under the War Precautions Act.[175]‘ (APH.gov.au)

©Rod Lampard, 2021

I have respect for the talents of Wanda Sykes. I don’t have any patience for racists, or time to devote to writing a 1000 word essay on why I consider her most recent tweet to be passive aggressive nonsense.

So I summed up a 280 character response, which was met with a speedy backhanded reply when Wanda blocked me.

Wanda isn’t the first celebrity to hide behind passive aggressive statements. This platform of hate and division has been the Democrat platform since 2016.

Evidenced in large part by Celebrity leftists who ride the hate either demanding or implying a desire to see Trump supporters (most of whom are mild mannered working mums, dads, and students) rounded up, punished, and purged.

Those celebrities either are Radical Leftist Jihadists themselves, or are fond of keeping in good with them, and see immediate personal gains in upholding the four-year-falsehood groupthink which asserts that Trump supporters are “racists”, “bigots”, and “Nazis” – (the list of gaslighting pejoratives conjured up by the us vs. them mentality of the Radical Left, goes on and on.)

Since the beginning of the year I’ve held stronger to the notion that our battle, and the ones ahead for Western Civilisation, if not also the world, are grounded in the theological task of choosing between myth, superstition, man’s imagination and God’s Word. Sifting fact from fiction and balancing feelings with objective opinion.

To risk sounding like a broken record, I’m convinced that the battle isn’t black vs. white, Left vs. Right, it’s Truth vs. Falsehood.

This is the battleground and individuals like Wanda Sykes, emboldened by legacy media’s half-truths, lies, and the Hollywood echo chamber, characterise its front line.

Many in the West, having enjoyed relative peace under the shared values of Classical Liberal freedoms, framed as they are by Biblical Christian objective morality, have fallen asleep to how easily those freedoms can be lost, and are clueless to how much protecting those freedoms and healthy traditions cost.

We’ve collectively forgotten, and in some cases deliberately abandoned the barricades which hold back the Abyss, applauding, even participating in their destruction.

Every Advent I’m reminded of this through a tradition theologian J.I. Packer held.

Each year (so I was once told by one of my Professors at college who studied under him) Packer, a fan of Puritan literature, would make an effort to read through Pilgrims Progress. Taking up this tradition for Advent, (usually reading it with my kids for homeschool) I’ve come to see why Packer revisited the book every year.

Among the numerous insights released by Bunyan’s allegory is the reminder that truth when coming to blows against falsehood, always involves the persecution of those seeking to buy truth in an unavoidable Fair filled with people who see truth as a threat to the profit they make off selling falsehoods.

As Bunyan told it:

‘One chanced mockingly, beholding the carriages of the men, to say unto them, “What will ye buy?” but Christian and Faithful, looking gravely upon him said, “We buy the truth.” At that there was an occasion taken to despise them the more; some mocking, some taunting, some speaking reproachfully, and some calling upon others to smite them.

It’s almost four hundred years since these words were written, and they still hold a prescient grasp on the way of the world.

To quote Packer,

‘For two centuries Pilgrim’s Progress was the best-read book, after the Bible, in all Christendom, but sadly it is not so today. Yet our rapport with fantasy writing, plus our lack of grip on the searching, humbling, edifying truths about spiritual life that the Puritans understood so well, surely mean that the time is ripe for us to dust off Pilgrim’s Progress and start reading it again.’

For Wanda and company’s victims or potential victims (not saying that I am one) , any psychologist worthy of their degrees would say: “if the hat fits wear it, if it doesn’t, hand it back.”

The worst kind of “comedian” is one who loves to dish out the heat, but can’t take it when it’s thrown back at them.

Taken in context with the background material, which includes four years of actual documented demented Democrat hate, we should note well how the real oppressors are masquerading as the oppressed.


©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Donald Trump’s Legal Team has issued a press release signaling that lawyer, Sidney Powell, was ‘not part of Donald Trump’s’ contingent of lawyers questioning legacy media’s coronation of Joe Biden as President-elect.

The official announcement from Trumps’ personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, blew a chill through the Trump camp online, like a long-lasting Artic blast does to advocates of Apocalyptic Global Warming.

Many were left speechless. Some were even bewildered by the news. Dinesh D’Souza, responded, stating ‘he didn’t know what to make of it.’

Others such as General Flynn, whose own case against fraud was won by Sidney Powell, said that Powell ‘understands the WH press release & agrees with it. She is staying the course to prove the massive deliberate election fraud that robbed #WeThePeople of our votes for President Trump & other Republican candidates.’

Politco called the press release an ‘abrupt shake-up’ stating that it ‘appears as though President Donald Trump has cut ties’ with the lawyer.

Citing Giuliani’s statements, Powell’s repeated “unsupported” ‘claims of voter fraud,’ and her use of the phrase “Release the Kraken”, Politico painted Powell as a Conservative nutcase.

They then plied that with concerns from fence sitting Republican Pro-D.C. status-quo apologists, to back its own speculation on why the press release was issued.

Providing some clarification on what Powell means by ‘Release the Kraken’, author, and Popular Twitter user, Praying Medic explained that election fraud has been around for decades. Trump’s win in 2016, and now his fight to question the bizarre spike on election night in support of Joe Biden, has given victims, and witnesses of electoral fraud, the courage to speak out.

Medic added, ‘I may be wrong, but I suspect that when Sidney Powell says she’s going to “release the Kraken,” she’s referring to an avalanche of first-hand, eyewitness testimony from hundreds of patriots around the country–evidence that cannot be disputed by anyone.’

Sidney Powell not being on the Trump legal team isn’t all that surprising.

Powell will be even more potent if what she says she has in the way of evidence is true.

It means she’s an impartial figure in the investigation. I.e.: not being played by the Trump team.

(Of course, there is a chance she’s playing the Trump team, or trying to do so.)

Regardless of whether Politico is right, and Trump has distanced himself from Powell, her independent role will make for a stronger stance against corruption, should her claims turn out to be exactly as advertised.

Releasing, ‘Release the Kraken’ Sidney Powell, could be the game changer many of us concerned about preserving Constitutional Democracy from an authoritarian Bureaucratic caste, have been hoping to see.

Turn the spotlight away from Powell for a minute onto the Democrats, and their many supporters within legacy media. It’s worth considering why there’s such an obvious absence of “go right ahead, we have nothing to hide” from Democrats, and a booming silence from Dominion’s creators when it comes to criticism of its voter software.

Most companies would be jumping over themselves to defend their product.

A lot of what we’re being told is just speculation.

As an Alexander Deme, a well-read friend of mine pointed out online, the Trump cases which have been dismissed are small.

Could the so many cases in itself be evidence of fraud?

He thinks it’s quite possible; possibly the ‘perfect crime.’

For ‘to be above the law, fraudsters combine multiple such smaller frauds to create a winning margin which the courts cannot overturn, unless all frauds are proven before the very short protest deadline! Fraudsters sit back and gloat that the courts reject all smaller fraud appeals so there is “zero court evidence” of voter fraud!’

This is why it’s important to let due process run its course.

Let every legal vote can be counted, every shady mail-in ballot dump, and computer “glitch” be investigated.

I’m still not convinced that the hate Trump, love trumps hate, “we’ll remove “Trump is Hitler” by any means” Democrats are above committing massive voter fraud so as to overturn the embarrassment of Hillary Clinton’s massive election loss in 2016.

Instead of feeding legacy media’s speculative kingmaking narrative, pray that the truth burns through to be seen.


First published on Caldron Pool, 24th November 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.