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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledging this, the Queensland senator wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have a right, as Amanda worded it,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 22nd March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Subtropical/Temperate

2. Alpine/Continental

3. Desert/Dry

4. Rainforest/Tropical

5. Ice-cap/Polar

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

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

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

Furthermore, what is “climate justice”?

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

You won’t get a definitive answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit (A):

Exhibit (B):

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote Caldron Pool writer, Matthew Littlefield,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think so.

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

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

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

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

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

Silence, and appeasement, strengthen tyrannical despotism.

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

For those who already support us, thank you.

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

https://caldronpool.com/support/


First published on Caldron Pool, 12th March 2021. 

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where were Oprah’s cameras?

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

Where was Harry’s sympathetic endorsement?

Where was the focus of the world?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll give Clarke Pinnock the penultimate word,

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

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

References:

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

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


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Popular author, public speaker and Evangelical, Beth Moore has officially removed herself from the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Washington Post, in an article copy and pasted from Religion News Service, added their weight behind the insinuation that Moore’s departure was the result of Trumpism, sexism, and bullying.

As part of a longish biographical sketch, the RNS/WAPO piece described Moore as an ‘unlikely celebrity Bible teacher’, who was a threat to those within the SBC because her ‘outsized influence and role in teaching the Bible have always made some evangelical power brokers uneasy, because of their belief only men should be allowed to preach.’

Faithwire appropriately added that ‘the “Beth Moore brand’s” partnership with the SBC was over’ (slightly paraphrased). Then stated that Moore’s departure was due to how she ‘no longer felt at home’ there, hence her announcement on Religion News Service that she was “no longer a Southern Baptist.”

While the RNS/WAPO article gives a well-deserved glowing rendition of Moore’s noteworthy calibre as a ministry team leader, and evangelist, there was little mention of Moore’s move towards accommodating Social Justice ideology, in an appeal to the Social Justice Warrior mentality.

To fill in the gaps WAPO left behind, it’s Moore’s slow embrace of Critical Race Theory, and apparent watering down of the Bible that has some in the SBC concerned. Not Moore’s gender, success and popularity.

As Black Lives Matter critic, Darrell B. Harrison, dean of Social Media at Grace to You, has articulated at length since 2018 about what he sees as Moore’s move to syncretise Christ’s liberation, with Marxist Liberation Theology:

‘Beth Moore is a self-centered, cowardly opportunist. She is a woke fraud. Only when this current wave of social justice/CRT became the cause du jour within the SBC did she begin to conveniently, and disingenuously, comment on it. Prior to that—crickets!’

With his extensive list of credentials and experience, it’d be hard to argue that Harrison’s observations (however harsh they may appear to be) of Moore’s political theology were wrong. Worth noting, in response to his early criticisms expressed on Twitter, Moore blocked him.

Her own concerns might be more complex and nuanced, (like SBC member’s fragmented support for Donald Trump), but blocking out concerned stakeholders from engaging with her journey through those concerns, only appears to back claims that Moore’s public displays of concern, especially for black America are, in the end, self-serving.

There’s no way around ignoring how Moore has positioned her brand, and with her departure from the SBC, is perhaps repositioning her theology. She is fast becoming the Oprah of the Evangelical world. Not entirely a bad thing, unless there’s an empire to maintain. Ears to tickle. Fame to be had, drama to capitalise on, and fast money to gain.

Moore appears to have done everything she possibly could to push others away, and herself out. Removing herself from the SBC is akin to a celebrity tantrum. Thrown because the majority refuse to entertain virtue signalling, or surrender to Critical Race Theory, and compromise the Gospel by removing Christ, and coronating Marx in His place.

This isn’t unfair criticism when viewed in the context of her appeal to unfair, bandwagon hysteria.

While the Pauline view is that only men should hold the office of pastor. Nowhere does Paul say women aren’t entitled to a voice, or having an opinion. Regardless of its clumsy nature, Moore was given a platform for the latter, tolerated, celebrated, promoted, critiqued, and embraced.

Her decision to leave isn’t a betrayal, or abandonment, but many may see it as just that.

Despite the SBC’s flaws, it’s not Beth Moore’s theology that’s outgrown them, it’s her apparent compromise with the zeitgeist, allowing the post-Christian culture, not Christ to determine The Way forward for the Church.


First published on Caldron Pool, 10th March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021

“The English Language is Racist” would have been a better title for academic, Asao B. Inoue’s obscure 2019 book, ‘Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate.’

Inoue is a self-styled “antiracist” whose literary history, and Twitter feed, reflects an obsession with race as a subject.

Not unusual, considering the wave of profits flowing in for the likes of ‘White Fragility’ author Robin DiAngelo, and Critical Race Theory advocate, Ibram X. Kendi.

Milking white guilt from the gullible is a cash cow.

Most agree that racism is sinful. Few deny historical wrongs happened by way of the rejection of the Imago Dei Biblical Christian Doctrine, and the subsequent embrace of the social Darwinian mythos of race, but there’s still hard cash to be won from it.

Labelling people racist simply because of the colour of their melanin translates into big dollars. Making racism, big business.

Granted, there’s room for the honest critique of any ethnic majority. There isn’t when the context of that critique is built on poisoned presuppositions that measure a white person as sinful or evil, just for having white skin.

It’s clear that Critical Race Theory replaces a culture of silence with a culture of suspicion. Thus, throwing society from one form of racism into another.

Through his conclusions Asao Inoue appears to be guilty of both.

According to The Daily Wire’s Chrissy Clark, Inoue (an associate Dean at Arizona State University) believes ‘English is derived from white people, which means it’s inherently white and racist.’ 

Inoue (who believes ‘he lives in an explicitly racist world’) claims that grading English isn’t done so by an objective rubric, but through the lens of white supremacism.

For example, ‘ranking is rooted in racism; grading is a form of ranking, grading must also be a racist idea.’

(Note the circular reasoning.)

Clark writes that Inoue’s ‘main argument is that grading calls for student uniformity and high-quality completed assignments, both of which are allegedly racist ideas.’

Inoue’s solution is to ‘get rid of grading systems’, which would remove what he calls a ‘slave making mechanism.’

By removing the system that ‘requires children to speak and write proper English during English and literacy classes’, society can fight ‘white language supremacy.’

In other words, cancelling grading a student’s understanding of correct syntax, grammar, vocabulary, and conventional linguistic standards within the English language is quintessential “antiracism” that will end the ‘white racial habitus’, and it’s ‘racist status quo.’

His reasoning rests on the assumption that white people have an “unearned privilege”, because they’re taught to speak English at home, which for Inoue translates as systemic racism, and the reason why he never received an “A” in English class, only a “B.”

Clark explains that Inoue, born in Hawaii, to a father who is ethnically Japanese, and mother who is Eastern European, holds a Doctorate from Washington State University.

Following the necessary facepalm, two reactions to Inoue are justifiable. First, serious prayer. His conclusions appear to be drenched in victimhood, and rooted in resentment. Second is exasperation for those who buy into the victim mentality.

In particular, Bureaucrats, who, keen for some virtue signalling P.R, would sacrifice academic standards on the twofold racist idea that all “white people are racist”, and the presumption that non-white people need English language standards dumbed down for them, because “antiracists” consider those with a darker shade of melanin, incapable of understanding, or mastering the English language.

The consequences of Inoue’s conclusions are a downgrade of professionalism.

Would you trust your family or your own healthcare to institutions that give potential professionals degrees based on their skin tone, gender or sexual preference, not the quality of their performance/acumen/merit?

The kind of degree-by-where you land on the intersectionality scale, will create higher risk, further division, and racism, because those who’ve been elevated by virtue of their skin colour, or sexual identity, aren’t actually capable of doing the job entrusted to them, and therefore can’t be trusted in the role their degree/doctorate is supposed to prepare them for.

Sadly, it won’t be “WOKE” unis who get the blame. It’ll be you. Just like all bureaucrats, the buck will be passed. So will the blame. As the WOKE mob pins racism on anyone who decides to steer clear of those sold out to this Cancel Culture trend, and those whose academic credentials are questionable, because “WOKE” unis were more interested in virtue signalling quotas, than the quality of academic achievements.

English isn’t racist.  Today’s “antiracism” is, and today’s “antiracists” are.

Inoue isn’t a product of racism. He’s a product of a racist victimhood industry.

For those fed-up with this endless rule-by-idiocracy, it’s a reminder of the dumbing down of Western Societies.

It’s also indicative of the fact that while a civil war is still avoidable, a schism in the West, is, now, all but inevitable.

On one side stands those who side with Truth over falsehood. On the other, stands those like Inoue, who embrace the Radical Leftist totalitarian phantasmagoria.

The best outcome the leftist ideological hegemony could hope for is that the majority turns towards self-preservation; switches off, and tunes out, while holding their breath, and hoping, that the gathering storm doesn’t hit them in the same way it is hitting others.

To quote Churchill,

“World War 2 was preventable, but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again…We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.” – (1946. ‘The Sinews of Peace’)

Related reading: Taking the White Supremacist Narrative Too Far


First published on Caldron Pool, 9th March, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.