Archives For Leftism

Political correctness in its excessive form is the secular equivalent of Shari’a law. It might not have the full judicial weight of Western law behind it yet, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t trying to manipulate the system so as to implement it.

I used to think that the only thing wrong with political correctness was the excesses that went along with it. Take the good, reject the bad. However, the more I learn from those who practice and enforce the ideals of political correctness, the more I arrive at the conclusion that political correctness is the secular version of Shari’a Law. The power base for this is the cult of modern liberalism which currently rules the Left side of politics.

Adherence to political correctness is fanatical. It’s designed to control what and how you think, making sure you comply with the laws outlined by modern liberal overseers. These overseers are most often professionals who say that they don’t believe in absolutes, but issue orders in absolute terms: “You are what we say you are, you will speak and think as we tell you to or else!” Professionals, who have, as we’ve witnessed since Trump was elected, sought to wage a jihad against conservatives and those allied with the concerns of conservatives.

Throughout the years I’ve had three personal encounters with professionals along these lines. Each encounter has given me an insight into how excessive political correctness is having a negative effect on society, trust and relationships as a whole.

The first involved a co-worker who assumed that I was being racist when I used the phrase “these kinds of people’’ in response to being hammered by telemarketers from India. Though it was clear that I was voicing frustration at telemarketers taking up work hours, (called time theft), this didn’t stop my co-worker from trying to find some hidden racism in my quick reply. He was more concerned about my phrasing and what possibly laid behind it, than he was with the complaint that wages were being spent answering unsolicited phone calls unrelated to customer service.

Over the process of an hour and a few email exchanges with management, who had now gotten involved, things were clarified and sensitivities were appeased. Even though my phrasing of “those people” meant unsolicited calls from telemarketers, and not a racist remark towards Indian people, I was, through the event, forced to be anxious about, and super-sensitive with my words.

The second incident involved a foreign-born medical professional on a routine visit. He took a disliking to the fact my wife and I homeschooled. He had no grounds for this, but took it upon himself to hound me for forty minutes about socialisation, ignorance and yes, racism. He proceeded to tell me that kids teach kids, they learn and should learn from one another. He argued that they can only learn about differences between cultures, and religions from being in the education industrial complex.

I was uncomfortably on the defensive. Although I informed him that we have a NSW board of studies representative and are registered with them, he was determined to be right; adamant that I was wrong. Although I made every effort to help him understand that our curriculum was in line with the Australian Curriculum standards, this medical professional assumed that because I was white, and a Christian, we were being prejudiced and teaching our children to not only be ignorant of the world, but to hate those who are different.

The third, most recent incident was when another medical professional lightly scolded me for using the politically incorrect term, “colour blindness”, instead of the politically correct term, “colour vision deficiency”. This professional made a point of telling me, with conviction, that the term “colour blindness” wasn’t “kosher”. Despite the terminology being widely used, it was considered offensive and insensitive for not applying the “authorised version”; the “correct” or allowable terminology.

This, however, begs the question. If I was so wrong, why does Google return 3.91 million hits under the term “colour blindness”? Why is a website, which says its aim is to raise awareness about “colour vision deficiency”, actually called “Colour Blind Awareness”?

My position here isn’t reactionary. It’s an attempt at a well-considered expositional brief of a reactionary position forced on society. I say forced, because it hasn’t arrived by way of democratic consensus, nor has it arrived by scientific reasoning and rigorous debate. It has arrived by way of emotionalism, where feelings come before facts and seeming to be doing is the only thing necessary to prove whether someone is guilty or innocent.

All of this suggests to me that people are making political correctness up as they go. They acquire a form of consensus from like-minded individuals who then punish, or ridicule into submission, those who aren’t aware of the rules. This isn’t science or logic, its law by whim of the ruler; in other words, it’s a regression back into absolute monarchy. The only difference is that the absolute divine right of kings becomes the absolute divine right of the individual, through which the individual is either deified or deifies themselves.[i]

It’s a lot like school. The law of the playground applies. One minute the sports shoe trend is Nike, the next it’s Reebok. After that it’s this band. The next day, it’s another band. Any and all who disagree are ostracised or treated as ignorant and irrelevant for not being up to date on the latest and greatest.

In other words, political correctness isn’t something that has been freely accepted and rationally agreed upon. It’s not in line with common law [ii]. The politically correct are a law unto themselves. As such, the politically correct impose new cultural laws on society, at the whim of those creating them. Everyone is assumed to have been acquainted with these new cultural laws. Anyone found to be unaware of them pays the price by being reeducated, or embarrassed in front of others. They face unnecessary hostility, or ironically, abuse, condescension and some times, insensitive correction.

Political correctness in its excessive form is the secular equivalent of shari’a law. To be outside political correctness is to be outside the religion. Those outside the cult of modern liberalism, that currently rules the Left, are considered “deporable”.  These “deplorables” are insensitively accused of insensitivity. With abuse and disrespect, they are abused and disrespected.

If one is not politically correct, (by politically correct, I mean, living in line with whatever Leftist activists say it is)[ii], then that person isn’t trendy enough to be friends with, to be included in, accepted, respected, tolerated or loved.

In fact, as has been seen since Trump was elected to the presidency in the United States, it’s considered acceptable by the politically correct to hate anyone outside of their religion. “Deplorables” are infidels. The only choices are convert, keep quiet and pay a tax, or die.

Actions speak louder than words. For as long as the politically correct preach from the political narrative of “love trumps hate”, yet continue to unreasonably hate on Trump, responsible Trump voters[iii] and anything they perceive as being a threat to their power; the lip service the politically correct give to love will remain a confusing enigma, fused with dissonance, exclusion, prejudice, deification of self, partisan politics,manipulative propaganda and logical fallacies.

“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”
(Roger Scruton, 1994) [iv]

Notes:

[i] For more on this I recommend Jean Bethke Elsthtain’s 2008 publication, ‘Sovereignty: God, State and Self’.

[ii] ‘The goal of the common law is not social engineering but justice in the proper sense of the term, namely the punishment or rectification of unjust actions.’ (Roger Scruton summing up a point made by Friedrich Hayek. Fools, Frauds & Firebrands, 2015)

[iii] This isn’t saying that the far-right don’t do this. Historically we know they do and have done so. However, in the current socio-political climate, the Left dominate this arena with their own vile version of tyranny masked as good intentions. Such as libertarians who believe people should have the freedom to drink and drive.

[iii] By responsible Trump voters I mean those who think before they vote; the average citizen, not the far-right or alt-right.

[iv] Scruton, R. 1994 Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey Bloomsbury Publishing

Photo Credits:

Abuse of Power...’  Samantha Sophia.

Razor Wire‘, Robert Hickerson

Last year I posted a quick response to the hysteria surrounding the election of Donald Trump. I headlined that post, ‘Why Trump is Not Hitler, & Why American Evangelicals Are Not German Christians’. My aim was to counter a lot of what I was seeing posted on social media by people who were usually level-headed and intellectually responsible.

It was disappointing to see normally sane individuals suddenly join the ranks of anti-trump – which really were I’m angry because the Leftist power structures and its monopoly on power, were diminished – riots. (It’s safe to say, that after twelve months, they’ve started to lose their shine as well.)

Worse still, were some Christian conservative academics who took to social media to virtue signal to the all-powerful Left in what I can only describe as a sycophantic attempt to validate themselves in the eyes of those on the Left. Even I felt pressure to censor my view of Trump and the current political scene, so as to not fall foul of the power brokers in my field of academic work and study.

Generally balanced academics picked up Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, forged both into anti-Trump weapons, and started swinging them around in unison with the “Trump is Hitler” chorus. Despite the intimidation, I decided to work a way back towards unity; shared ground.

Informing my post at the time, is the fact that both Barth and Bonhoeffer, who were anti-Nazi theologians, would be unlikely to leap before they looked, when it came to the political scaremongering surrounding Trump. They weren’t fans of labels, generalised slogans, and false doctrines. Nor were they supporters of the imposition of new cultural laws, restrictions on freedom of speech, inciting the mob, Nazi flags in churches and, collective conformity to party-lines. That’s part of what made them anti-Nazi theologians.

Did some Christians commit the blasphemy of looking to Trump as though God Himself had been elected to the White House? Sure, but no differently to how people deify celebrity, or in the relevant political arena, how people fell apart when President Obama was moved on and Clinton lost.

I also agree that there are similarities between the power structures in the 1930’s and today. However, where I disagree is where we draw those parallels. The similarities, as I’ve pointed out many times in my writing, fall parallel with socialism, repression and control of the universities by the Left. Among other points of constancy such as dehumanising anyone who disagrees them. For more on my thinking about this, take for example this quote from an article I published in October:

The danger should be clear enough. From a psychological point of view this rampant ad hominem is recognised as emotional manipulation. Recklessly calling someone a Nazi is a shaming technique designed to control the opponent in an attempt to discredit and silence them. The same goes for those who would paint all white people as racist.
Link both the reckless labelling of people as Nazis and the slogan “all white people are racist” together and the cocktail of hate is complete. All that’s needed are chambers filled with the pesticide Zyklon B, cyclone fencing, and all those determined by the Left as having “life unworthy of life”.
Any well-informed reader who knows the history behind the genocidal rampaging in Rwanda, of the Tutsis against the Hutus, will see that there is good reason for concern […]
Since the Left give us permission to do so, if a group of people calling other people Nazis are doing exactly what Nazis did, shouldn’t those being called Nazis have the right to punch a Nazi?
The answer is a tentative “no”. Those who stand opposed must do better than employ the same tactics used against them. Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Thatcher didn’t bring about an end to the Cold War by feeding the status quo.
(Let the Pharaohs of our Age also Learn: Pride comes before a fall, 18th October 2017)

Another similarity is the indoctrination of those on the Left by their ideological masters. Some may say that this is ridiculous. That those on the Left aren’t indoctrinated. That there is no, as I call it, leftist cult of modern liberalism. If that is true, then why has the past twelve months show the Western world that something is amiss and, although the man has his moments, it’s not Donald Trump or the “Christian right”.

Examples of how the culture of repudiation and its dehumanising has taken hold in the psyche of the average individual are magnified by social media, and those examples are incriminating. Such as the comment to this YouTube video.

This person is a victim of the times. So rather than argue with them online, I decided to write a general response outlining five reasons why their statement was flat-out wrong:

1. Unlike, North Korea, People aren’t risking their lives to escape America into Mexico, Cuba or Canada.
2. Unlike Zimbabwe, North Korea or Turkey, soldiers aren’t defecting from the United States, nor are America’s defences forces attempting a coup.
3. Unlike Syria, the United Nations is not monitoring the Government because of previous gas attacks on the Syrian people.
4. Unlike Turkey, the media and academics, despite their vicious and continued harassment of the Trump administration have not been rounded up and arrested.
5. It’s a logical fallacy, involves a poor reading of theology and it’s reckless labelling. One just doesn’t name-drop the anti-Christ or Hitler without qualifying the accusation in order to say why.

The real tragedy in all of this is that by crying wolf about Nazism, the Left desensitises people to the heinous crimes of Nazism. It reduces Nazism to the absurd and reduces the ability for anyone to call out the real thing, when and if it, or an equivalent, God forbid, rises once more.

False accusations turn the blood brother of Communism into a joke, potentially doing great damage to the legacy of the millions who fell and suffered at the hands of both their Nazi and Communist oppressors. The meaning and reverence in the words “never again” and “Solidarity” are not the battle cries of cultural Marxists, Antifa, Leftists or Trump haters.

Those words are prayers, and their meanings are forged in the fires of hell on earth, something far removed from the Nike Air, Apple iphone, iMac, ivory tower professors, millennials, and anyone else, sucked in by those on the Left who feed them lines about oppression, privilege, the need for safe spaces and all manner of pejorative phobias used to conveniently dismiss opposing opinions.

Like its Marxist brother, Nazism is pure evil. We cannot allow these attacks on the legacy of its victims. We must not let their memory fade at the hands of those who would rather use the fallacy of moral equivalence, for cheap applause, or to maintain the power structures of the Left, than think through what it really means when they accuse Trump of being Hitler, and most Trump supporters of being fascists.

Perhaps the best statement about Trump, I’ve read so far, comes from Mark Landsbaum,

‘Yeah, his style is rude, crude and clumsy, to say nothing about childish. But we’ve tried polite, considerate and grownup and guess what – that’s what got the country where it was a year ago. I don’t much care how crude and clumsy he is as long as he continues on the trajectory he’s charted: millions of babies saved and 150 victories in 10 months. He’s not my pastor. He’s my mechanic.’

I am, when it comes to President Donald Trump, as I have been from the beginning, a cautious optimist. I see him as a diamond in the rough. I’m not yet a fan, but the person and thousands like them on the internet, who are quick to call Trump another Hitler, should be called out for what they are mindlessly repeating. Word for word, Leftist dogma and its party-line propaganda.


References:

Artwork otherwise not tagged: author unknown

Some Western Leftists, coddled by revisionism in the Universities, protest under the banner of Communism. On the border between North Korea and South Korea a man risks death to escape it. They couldn’t be more ignorant about Communism and what a dictatorship of the proletariat actually means. This North Korean soldier doesn’t just deserve his freedom, give the man a book deal and make it a core text for University students.

Amanda Prestigiacomo, of Daily Wire:

“Oh is the third member of the North Korean army to defect this year. It is estimated that some 30,000 North Koreans have fled the oppressive country since the Korean War in 1953.”

Kyrie Eleison.

19th-december-2016-023Here’s how a committee meeting between Herod and his advisers might sound, if such a meeting were to take place in a Western context today.


This baby foretold is a threat to us! We the undersigned hereby, agree with Herod’s genocide of all new born male Hebrew children. For by this child’s very existence in this world, all the power structures that surround him stand unprotected. He is a threat to our safe spaces, our glorious revolution and its leaders.

This nativity; the event of the Christ-child’s birth is nothing but a conservative conspiracy, comrades! It is violence against everything we stand for, which is surely justification enough for its violent suppression.

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

This blasphemy toward the State must not go unpunished. We’ve heard of the academics; how these so-called wise-men cheated you. Traitors to our glorious academic industrial complex, all of them. Therefore, any who refuse to give up this child’s location should be tried and tortured. Treated like the vermin, we say they are.

It’s their kind that hinders us from completely implementing the way of our glorious leaders. The way of our glorious revolution. We should continue to seek to replace structures we deem oppressive with our own. Tear them down. This child is a threat! He challenges us and our people.

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

Our collective’s survival rests on our ideas dominating the higher ground in the hearts of the people. Those who still have sway with the young, and yet betray us must be purged!

First of all, this birth represents heteronormative oppression and we must rally people to take up arms against it. He who says that God became man is guilty of hatred towards women. It is said that the husband, one carpenter by the name of Joseph, has wed this woman, Mary, under strange circumstances. As it has been told to us by reliable sources, this Joseph is said to have been given the task of caring for the child by Angels. If this gets out, it will reinforce the evils of patriarchy and it will perpetuate the lies that claim healthy child rearing at its best, involves both a man and a woman; a father and a mother.

This male Christ-child and the nativity scene itself, must be painted as an evil idea, constructed to further the chains of bigoted societal norms.

That is why this strange birth; these chosen people; these breeders, are an assault on our humanity.

At its heart is a war against phobic misrepresentations empowering archaic social constructs, designed to unhinge us from progress. For the betterment of humanity; for our evolution, we must have control and influence of hearts and minds, which as we’ve agreed, has to happen first with our educational institutions. Our science is the only science. What we say is scientific fact, is scientific fact. After-all, we fund our scientists well, and they’re loyalty to our agenda is off the charts.

Secondly, how dare this woman, Mary, choose to keep her unexpected pregnancy! Worst of all, she claims to have been chosen by God!

This must not go unpunished!

Their religious beliefs are phobic, sexist and irrational. So, we the committee applaud your decision.  We’ve even lined up celebrity endorsements to back us on how necessary and just this action is. This woman’s pregnancy and this prophecy is a farce, therefore this child’s life should be deemed not worthy of life.

If only she could’ve seen the freedom we offer her, the same freedom we’ve given all women, you wouldn’t have had to act as you have. Mary is to wear the blame for forcing your hand, dear Herod, not you.

Therefore, let nothing sway you. Your decision to wipe out males up to the age of two, will save us and make certain we have eliminated this threat to peace and our civil order. It is a surgical act of great compassion, liberating your people from impostors.

We are the victims here!

This young woman’s choice disempowers women. Her choice undermines our choice for women. If she gets away with it, what does our lack of response say about our pro-abortion policies and how will that negatively impact the millions in funding flowing into our abortion on demand factories? We must at all cost uphold our feminist ideals.

Social media polls suggest support for reinforcing or commitment to feminism. Killing every Hebrew male under the age of two, is the only way to reassure those people that, you Herod, and your council, remain committed to social justice programs that favour those we deem to be the oppressed, and eliminate those we deem to be the oppressors.

This nativity and its proclamation before everyday people is a threat to us. It will inspire ignorant non-conformists and counter cultural activists to disobedience. Worst of all it will inspire unity and solidarity amongst those we seek to control for their own benefit.

Make no mistake, this child will work against us! He will stand as a threat to our factories, our causes, and he will take away our ability to convince the people about how necessary it is for them to have us in power. Only you can be called King. There can be no other!

The raising up of anyone against the glorious progressive collective must be met with ridicule, shaming, or gaol time. This rise of a King of kings, must not be allowed to happen.

Thirdly, we want our ideas to reign. We want a peaceful society in harmony with the peaceful religion we’ve created and authorised. We want our people to be thankful for the live-life-our-way programs. We have no room for a Prince of peace, we have a religion of peace; there is no room for a “King of Kings” who commands us to live life His way.

This is what real violence looks like! It is violence towards the collective. Violence against the state!

All who disagree with this are traitors, haters and infidels! Anyone not thinking along with us, is against us.

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

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

If not stopped, this manger baby will lead a revolution. This Christ-child is a threat to us all.

We must not stop showing a unified stand against this blatant display of contempt for our leadership. Our glorious revolution depends on it, and our glorious leaders command it to be so!

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

How will we survive, if the people are encouraged to think for themselves?!

You must act. Remember all who oppose you are tyrants!

Long may our party, its leader and its ideas reign.


Notes:

This is a hypothetical response created for the purpose of highlighting how some in the West respond to Jesus Christ. How within that response rests a resistance to Him who still confronts us in our own positions of power.

For the recount of an historical response of someone in power to the birth of Jesus Christ, see Matthew 2:16-18

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

for-sale_rl2016According to the Oxford Dictionary, a Social Justice Warrior is ‘a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.’

The online Urban dictionary offers a more substantial explanation:

“A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will “get SJ points” and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are “correct” in their social circle.” [i]

In case you’re doubting the credibility of the Urban Dictionary, take as further evidence, examples highlighted by The Observer in an article called, The Totalitarian Doctrine of Social Justice Warriors’.

Their standout point:

“Since new “marginalised” identities can always emerge, no one can tell what currently acceptable words or ideas may be excommunicated tomorrow.”

I’m not in full support of every claim made by The Observer in that article, but the majority of it makes sense. It’s a poignant observation and it draws a line in the sand between S.J.W’s, their bulldozers, and those they’re told it’s trendy to hate.

The Observer points out the monstrous maelstroms of confusion that S.J.W’s create.

Such as:

14211981_10207200359993677_3581726635356224817_n

We get that S.J.W’s like to protest. Their right to protest is respected, but what it is that their protests are trying to achieve? What is the end goal? Who benefits? If asked the majority probably couldn’t give an adequate answer.

Take the S.J.W’s support for a war on the rich; their counter-productive boycott of business. Movements such as Occupy Wall Street and the anti-Israel, Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS).

Poverty is to be challenged and real injustices responsibly corrected, but how does boycotting businesses, just because they don’t line up in total ideological conformity with something like same-sex “marriage” fight poverty?  Putting people out of work because they hold an opposing view on these issues seems to only create poverty, not remedy it.

There seems to be confusion in what and how S.J.W’s protest. For example, they’re either against poverty or for same-sex “marriage”. In the end one will trump the other. As we’ve seen in well documented court cases, where Christian businesses have been sued for making a conscientious objection to same-sex “marriage”. It’s logical to conclude that putting people out of a legitimate business, in order to support same-sex “marriage”, means supporting poverty.

Take, for instance, the costly interference in the long standing business relationship between Coopers Beer, and The Australian Bible Society.  S.J.W’s protested that relationship, simply because of the position the Bible Society took on same-sex “marriage”. The precedent that event set is this: businesses can only be friends with those whom S.J.W’s approve of.

The manufactured industrial process of “boycott, hashtag, hashtag… people lose their jobs. Company shuts down. Capitalism is blamed [24hrs passes]. Next victim”. Is a radical cycle that only pads ego, wallet and blog stats. It’s not only narcissistic, it’s exactly what fascists do.

What real purpose does this manufactured “outrage” serve, other than to boost approval ratings, celebrity funding drives or ignite social media with a feel-good fifteen minute hashtag movement, that may live longer if (and that’s a big if) it s attractive enough to go viral?

Is the real concern of S.J.W’s, the marginalised, the minority and the poverty-stricken, or is it their own personal level of “social media influence”?

The militancy of all progressive ideologies are not about “…and justice-for-all.” They stand above, over and against us. They raise themselves to a sinless plain of existence. Sinners are those who’ve been accused of opposing, are being a threat to the prevailing ideology.

Militancy like this rejects original sin. There is no recollection of the equality spoken about by the Apostle Paul when he said, ”for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:23-24).

S.J.W’s forget that there is only one who is sinless, and His name is Jesus Christ. They raise themselves to godlikeness, and operate from within a sphere of sinlessness, and by doing so they place Jesus under humanity, and raise themselves up as saviours of it.

From within this sphere the S.J.W can feel justified in calling for the punishment of those they deem sinful. Failing to comply is an act of treason or blasphemy. Such is the pressure applied to State, Church, business or community groups, who are forced to sign onto the S.J.W agenda without question.

S.J.W militants hand justice over to pseudo-politicians who judge from people’s courts, controlling popular opinion with image, idea, internet, and an index-finger pointed in judgement against blasphemers who speak out against idiotic statements, double standards and the toxic ‘isms which encourage them.

The S.J.W therefore tends not to ask ‘…what can they do for their country?” (John F. Kennedy). Instead they demand that their country do for them what their free country tries to empower them to do for themselves. The power of state and church is wielded in whatever direction the S.J.W commands it to go.

It’s reminiscent of the Soviet leadership who, in the early 1980’s, sort to remind Poland’s Communist leaders that any hint of counter-revolutionary blasphemy among Poland’s largely Christian population, should be suppressed:

“…You should say openly that the law forbids any statements against socialism”
 (“Theses For Conversation With Representatives of the Polish Leadership“, 1980. Vladimir Bukovsky, 1995)

This was not affirmative action. It was bullying through fear, suspicion and threat. The type that coerced people to support the Nazis. It incites the same self-serving action as ‘Judas Iscariot, who went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I deliver Jesus over to you?” Who in return paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment sought an opportunity to betray him.’ (Matthew 26:14-15/ Mark 14:10-11/ Luke 22:3-6) [ii]

The same ‘Judas who protested, after seeing Mary take a pound  of expensive ointment , anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair:

“Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the money-bag he used to help himself to what was put into it.’ (John 3:6)

The same Judas who, as the anti-Nazi theologian, Karl Barth wrote:

‘Perverted his office [of Apostle] into the exact opposite; placing Jesus under humanity, instead of humanity under Jesus – to deliver Jesus to sinners, not sinners to Jesus…Judas prepared for Jesus the fate of John the Baptist.’ [iii]

Because Iscariot thought that:

“Jesus was for sale.
He reserved to himself the right to decide for himself, in the face of Jesus, what the way of apostolic discipleship really involves.
It is an indication that his nature and function are those of the apostle who ultimately regrets his own devotion and the devotion of others to Jesus, who would prefer ultimately to use the power of this devotion for something which his own judgement considers to be better […]”
(Barth, [iv])

These statements form Barth’s critique of a people who, in their rejection of Christ, reject themselves; suffering a similar fate of self-destruction that consumed Judas:

‘The one who kills Jesus also kills themselves […]’ [v]

S.J.W’s, by placing Jesus under humanity, make Jesus a slave of ideology. There is no acknowledgement of His Kingship as LORD over all lords, the one who is and was, and is to come! In this way, the power of state and church is wielded in whatever direction the S.J.W commands it to go.

‘Neither man’s headship or humanity’s dominion (lordship) over the earth equals ownership of woman or creation. Humanity’s rule exists, as a gift. It exists in the light of God’s rule and therefore cannot be absolute.’ (Barth. [vi])

The Social Justice Warrior is in many ways the soldier for hire of the progressive ‘liberalist religion’, identified by Eric Voeglin in his 1968 work, Science, Politics & Religion. The Leftist ‘liberalist religion‘ preaches a gospel of ”self-salvation” through works-righteousness and blind allegiance to it’s sinless spheres.

The bloodshed of the 20th century shows that what lies behind this is pride. This coincides with the will-to-dominate, which is, today, masked by the veneer of social justice. This veneer hides the nature of its true intent.

Those who give in to pride, are determined to devour those who stand opposed to it. In this context, pride serves no one, and is guided by nothing, but its own lust for power. Its only interest in mercy, justice and love, is that which advances its own cause.

So goes the Social Justice Warrior and their banner: “peace, love and bureaucracy” [vii]. Preaching a confusing message between #loveislove and the more accurate, God is love.  Then moulding God’s throne of mercy and justice in their own image.

The late, political scientist, Jean Bethke Elshtain was on point when she stated that viewing Christianity As An Ethic Of Universal Niceness Misses The Point:

‘Misunderstandings of Christian teachings are rife. Christianity is not an exalted or mystical form of utilitarianism. Jesus preached no doctrine of universal benevolence. He showed anger and issued condemnations.
These dimensions of Christ’s life and words tend to be overlooked nowadays as Christians concentrate on God’s love rather than God’s justice. That love is sometimes reduced to a diffuse benignity that is then enjoined on believers.This kind of faith descends into sentimentalism fast.’ [vii]

As Paul the Apostle encouraged a young Timothy. Take heed, stand ready to answer with a loving “no”, those who would preach a different doctrine; a different Jesus Christ than the one the early Jewish Christians walked with, witnessed and spoke of:

‘If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.
He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.’
(1 Tm.6:3-5 & 20-21)

Jesus isn’t a Marxist rebel clad in olive drab. He isn’t a golden-haired, blue-eye, bearded, robe wearing guru, sitting on a cloud with rainbows coming out of His ears; sprinkling love dust, answering the lamp rubbing wishes of a group of “super-nice” people, who claim for themselves the moral high-ground [xx]*.

Any person who hands Jesus over to a corrupted, enslaving ideology; any person who chooses to measure Christian discipleship by allegiance to Leftism’s ‘liberalist religion’ , or any equivalent on the Right, are the brethren of Iscariot, not Christ.


References:

[i] Social Justice Warrior, sourced 29th August 2016 from urbandictionary.com

[ii] English Standard Bible, Crossway Publishers

[iii] Barth, K. 1942 The Doctrine of God: The Determination of the Rejected, Church Dogmatics, Hendrickson Publishers  (p.481)

[iv] ibid, 1942 (pp.462 & 463)

[v] ibid, 1942 (p.471)

[vi] Barth, K. 1958 Creation & Covenant: Creation as the External Basis of the Covenant, CD.3:1 Hendrickson Publishers (p.205, paraphrased)

[vii] O’Sullivan, J. 2006. The President, The Pope & The Prime Minister: Three Who Changed The World Regnery Publishing (p.4)

[viii] Elshtain, J. 2008, Just War Against Terror: The Burden Of American Power In A Violent World Basic Books Kindle Ed. (p. 100-101).

[xix] Voegelin, E. 1968 Science, Politics & Religion Regnery Publishing, Inc.

[xx] J. Gresham Machen: ‘The prophets said, “Thus saith the Lord,” but Jesus said, “I say.” We have no mere prophet here, no mere humble exponent of the will of God[…]Jesus here represents Himself as seated on the judgement-seat of all the earth[…] Could anything be further removed than such a Jesus from the humble teacher of righteousness appealed to by [the cult of] modern liberalism?’ (Christianity & Liberalism)

*Charles Spurgeon: ‘some two faced men are hypocrites by nature; slippery as eels, and piebald like Squire Smoothey’s mate. Like a drunken man, they could not walk straight if they were to try…They are born of the breed of St. Judas. The double shuffle is their favourite game, and honesty their greatest hatred. Honey is on their tongues, but gall in their hearts.’ (The Complete John Ploughman, p.115) [added, 23rd November 2017]

(Slightly edited 2nd Edition, updated 2nd November 2018)

©Rod Lampard, 2018

amphitheatre-1004396__180Some academic internet interlocutors recently tried to stick some historical parallels on Donald Trump and American Evangelicals. They were attempting to link the precedent set by the German Christian movement and its support for Hitler, to that of American Christians and their support for Trump.

While I don’t disagree that there are slight similarities within the rhetoric, their conclusions were too easily settled upon.

Hitler was a seducer with a total grasp on the passions and faith of a people. Trump on other hand appears incoherent and at other times inconsistent in his message. To put it simply, he’s proven more to be kryptonite than an advocate for any “Aryan super-race filled with the Übermensch – superman”. As most people would agree, Trump repels rather than attracts.

I wont go into more precise differences because I believe that anyone with a basic education in social etiquette, even before its takeover by the parochialism of the excessively politically correct, knows the truth in the axiom, that “you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar.”

Hitler put this into practice and seduced a nation. Eventually bending that nation towards his, and his political movement’s libido dominande (will-to-dominate). The German Christian Movement utilised similar tactics in gaining support for the NSDAP, which was in turn used against the remnants of the German Evangelical Church, the Pastors Emergency League and their justly rebellious descendant, the Confessing Church.

Instead of Trump and American Evangelicals, there are a spate of more relevant current events to choose from. The loudest of which concerns Islamism and the growing militancy of Leftists.

Both of which do violence to classical liberal rights, such as free speech, freedom of religion, and, in the case of the Left, families and thousands of unborn children every day. It’s concerning that academics are falling over themselves to denounce Trump. Yet fail to acknowledge the more pertinent historical parallels, which share a closer affiliation with a Nazified Germany and the compromised Church of the 1930s and early ’40s.

The most significant parallel’s being Islamism’s closeness to the doctrine of “blut und boden – blood and soil” and Leftism’s selective outrage. Outrage that is often positioned between one selective set of protests and another. The targeted call to inclusion, for instance, shows up as a front for the more sinister goal of picking and choosing those who will have to be excluded; which is potentially those who disagree. It’s not far to jump from this to the assumption that such selectivity could result in the doctrine of “Lebensunwertes Leben – life unworthy of life.” (or in a more milder dosage, people unworthy of an opinion)

The secular and sometimes Christian left, for example, are  quick to write-off and then propagandise any dissent against its position. Anyone who does is automatically treated with the suspicion, or worse, the accusation, that their questioning is rooted in a “phobia” of some kind. As is well established, the pattern of behaviour is to denounce any disagreement and then shame anyone who raises honest questions about serious social, theological or political issues, that the Left would claim to be the only answer to.

The pattern is consistent. Shame into silence anything that challenges Leftism. Intimidate and then threaten all who speak out against its narratives. Such as, the use of a politics of diversion and evasion, when it comes to the dangers of Islamism and their bizarre placating of those who’s own self-interests lie in controlling the debate over gay marriage; and in controlling those who oppose the Leftist construct of “gender fluidity.”

The pattern is clear. The Leftist will allow all criticism and violence against those things Leftism hates, but will remain complacent in the face of more urgent historical parallels that demand fair attention.

I get the criticisms of Trump, but as far as historical parallels go, only the short-sighted, given the contexts, would be ignoring the relevance of those historical events to the intolerance of Leftism, ISIS, Islamism and the connection of the latter to these more recent developments:

1. Turkey seizes ALL Christian churches in city and declares them ‘state property (Express.uk)

2. Attacks on Christians in Egypt raise alarms (USA Today)

‘Democracy and Martyrs’ Rally’ on Sunday in Istanbul, marks the climax of three weeks of nightly demonstrations by Erdogan’s supporters.
Banners read ‘You are a gift from God, Erdogan’ or ‘Order us to die and we will do it’ […] [i]

If in mentioning the past we seek to passionately avoid its mistakes, we must answer the  storms of today by shining a light on the folly that enabled those mistakes.

As Churchill, C.S Lewis, and George Orwell pointed out in regards to pacifism and appeasement; and for Dwight Eisenhower, complacency:

“The handicaps were many. The greatest obstacle was psychological— complacency 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.
The commanding general of one United States division, an officer of long service and high standing, offered to bet, on the day of the French armistice, that England would not last six weeks longer— and he proposed the wager much as he would have bet on rain or shine for the morrow. It did not occur to him to think of Britain as the sole remaining belligerent standing between us and starkest danger. His attitude was typical of the great proportion of soldiers and civilians alike.
Happily there were numerous exceptions whose devoted efforts accomplished more than seemed possible.
Despite the deepening of congressional concern, the nation was so unprepared to accept the seriousness of the world outlook that training could not be conducted in realistic imitation of the battlefield.
We had to carry it on in soothing-syrup style calculated to rouse the least resentment from the soldiers themselves and from their families at home. Many senior officers stood in such fear of a blast in the headlines against exposing men to inclement weather or to the fatigue of extended maneuvers that they did not prescribe the only type of training that would pay dividends once the bullets began to fly.
Urgent directives from above and protest from the occasional “alarmist” could not eliminate an apathy that had its roots in comfort, blindness, and wishful thinking.” [ii]

It must be said, then, that the path to the resurgence of fascism doesn’t begin with Trump, or the rhetoric of Trump’s campaign. Nor does it rest in the endorsement of American Evangelicals.

Granted there are small similarities in rhetoric between Nazism and the German Christian movement, Trump and American Evangelicals. That link, however, if it can even be called that, is weak. No more so then when it is compared to the greater examples of Islamist ideology and Leftist militancy, which appear on the horizon as this century’s very own gathering storm.


References:

[i] Erogden Stages Mass Rally In Turkey sourced August 8th 2016 from Skynews.com

[ii] 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 ).

Camus 2It’s widely held that Albert Camus was an outsider. He was and remains a non-conformist among non-conformists.

Alongside Camus’ cautious optimism about humanity is his willingness to break with collective intellectual and political trends. He was a fierce agnostic; critical of Christianity, yet still open to the feasibility of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ[i].

Although, to be fair, given Camus’ views on this and absolute truth, alone, it is debatable as to how far this could be stretched out and represented as him being open to seeing Christ as more than just a well-intentioned, but deluded revolutionary.

As far as Camus’ understanding of and lukewarm relationship with Christianity goes, Maya Angelou’s: ‘here then is my Christian lack, If I’m struck then I’ll strike back[ii]’ certainly finds legitimate traction.

Camus’ writings are sharp. His tone often influenced by the dire circumstances of his historical context and his targets those who claim one thing, yet project another.

Born in French Algeria, Camus later became a journalist, contributing to ‘Combat’; the left-wing media arm of the French Resistance, during Nazi occupation.

Camus, today, is pertinent because of is his open critique of the “Left”, and his ability to detach himself from any claim that could suggest he had sold out to the “Right”.

According to Olivier Todd, after writing ‘The Rebel’ Camus was hammered by critics and ostracised. This included being  labelled by Jean Paul Sartre as being ‘someone who had always been vain.’[iii]

Todd adds:

‘Camus went against the grain among members of the left-wing intelligentsia. Facing a mummified admiration of revolution per se, Camus was fairly revolutionary in response to much of the current thinking in contemporary Paris.’[iv]

Jean Bethke Elshtain also noted:

‘Camus was no naïf. He knew what it meant to fight fascism. He feared what fighting fascism unleashed, namely, counter-terror in the name of an abstract Communist utopia. He disapproved of any passion for unity that saw opposition as treason. For his efforts, Camus was virtually excommunicated from the French intellectual life by Sartre and his comrades’[v]

It’s easy enough to understand why Camus, now an estranged golden-child of the “Left”, caused such an upheaval.

In 1957, near the close of an interview where Camus gave support for the counter-revolutionary movement in communist held Hungary,  Camus stated that the ‘Left was schizophrenic and needed doctoring’:

‘We must hope for a common rallying. But first our Leftist intellectuals , who have swallowed so many insults and may well have to begin doing so again, would have to undertake a critique of the reasoning’s and ideologies to which they have hitherto subscribed, which have wreaked the havoc they have seen in our most recent history. That will be the hardest thing. We must admit that today conformity is on the Left.
To be sure, the Right is not brilliant. But the Left is in complete decadence, a prisoner of words, caught in its own vocabulary, capable merely of stereo-typed replies, constantly at a loss when faced with the truth, from which it nevertheless claimed to derive its laws.
The Left is schizophrenic and needs doctoring through pitiless self-criticism, exercise of the heart, close reasoning, and a little modesty. Until such an effort at re-examination is well under way, any rallying will be useless even harmful. None of the evils of totalitarianism (defined by the single party and the suppression of all opposition) claims to remedy is worse than totalitarianism itself.’[vi]

In sum, Camus fired a flare out from within the inner sanctum of Leftist elitism. Uncovering an oppressive movement that rides on the  coattails of a utopia built on totalitarianism, enforced by appeasement and maintained by the carrot of emancipation, which only ends up enslaving people behind a false promise to deliver absolute freedom.

For the thinking Christian, Camus’ work stands as a cautious ally in the burgeoning wilderness that is the partially sedated West.

Speaking to bewildered citizens paralysed by the tug of war between those politicians, theologians and philosophers who build fortresses on either side of the ideological divide; who overlook the corruption; who ignore, for fear of being labelled intolerant, the inevitable disorder of the repression and redefinition of some traditions; who seek to play into the self-interest of some NGO’s, their supporters or anyone that might preach bipartisanship and unbias, but choose to function as propaganda units of political ideologues and the parties that promote them.

For the commonwealth of Christ (the Church), this dark, but lucid writer inadvertently issues a warning. Be careful about where your allegiance resides because ‘no one can serve two masters…Where your treasure is, your heart will be there also.’ (Jesus, Mt.6:21-24)


Source:

[i] Evident in ‘The Rebel’ and partially highlighted within his statements made at a Dominican monastery in 1948 and included in the text ‘The Unbeliever and Christians’.

[ii] Angelou, M. 1981 Maya Angelou: Poems Bantam Books

[iii] Todd, O. 2013, Afterward in Camus, A. The Rebel (Penguin Modern Classics) Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Ed.

[iv] Ibid, Loc. 4134-4137

[v] Elshtain, J.B. 1995 Democracy On Trial Basic Books

[vi] Camus, A. 1961 Resistance, Rebellion and Death: Essays;Hungary: Socialism of the Gallows’, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1960 First Vintage International Edition

Image: Albert Camus, Camus Society FB page.