Archives For Leftism

One of Australia’s rising political stars, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price lead a small contingent of young, concerned Indigenous Australian women to Canberra last week, to raise awareness about high rates of Domestic Violence in Indigenous Australian communities.

Nampijinpa Price arrived in Canberra with Cheron Long, the cousin of 15-year-old Layla Leering, who died in 2017 after being sexually abused.

The initial police investigation recorded the cause of death as suicide, but was disputed.

An inquest in 2020 found grounds for further investigation since police were ‘unable to confidently determine the circumstances’ of Layla’s death, and that of two other young girls.

Thanks to pressure from Layla’s family, the inquiry into her death, has been reopened as a murder investigation, with Layla’s family (according to Advance Australia) ‘proving that the police and government had ignored several warnings about Layla’s wellbeing, bringing rise to the opening of a long-overdue review into police and child protection agencies.’

While Nampijinpa Price hit the Canberra bubble with the goal of shining a light on D.V issues, she ended up exposing the infamous double-standard-shuffle found among Australia’s leftist elite, whose favourite target is usually white, heterosexual, Caucasian Christian men.

This is the elitist class who went from being on the “all men are dogs” offensive, to being on the “don’t marginalise gay men” defensive, after facts about men recording themselves committing sex acts in the workplace, and ‘defiling’ an employer’s desk in Parliament house, turned out to involve male staffers who identify as Homosexual. [i]

It’s the same elitist class, who praised the recent women’s ‘March 4 Justice’, flaunting it as a liberating voice for the ‘sisterhood’, preaching loud, and proud, about the evils of the “patriarchy”, sexism, and so-called ‘toxic masculinity’, but stopped short (presumably for fears of appearing racist by “marginalising Indigenous Australian men”) in giving a voice to Australia’s Indigenous women suffering much higher rates of D.V. within their own communities.

All good reasons that justify Vikki Campion’s (Barnaby Joyce’s partner and former staffer’s also somewhat defensive) scathing remarks in the Saturday Telegraph:

 ‘We are so powerfully sucked into salacious stories of sex that the desk involved in the act got more than 1200 media mentions at the time of writing; the rape and death of 15-year-old, Layla, got only 10, three being in her local paper.’

Campion added,

‘Instead of hearing Layla’s story, the media reported more clumsy advances, such as Annastacia Palaszczuk’s encounter with someone who shook her hand too hard.’

Including, notes Campion, hype over the LNP entertaining the introduction of a quota, where women will be put before men for candidacy.

On which Campion spoke of identity politics hysterics, and concluded,

‘Instead of bringing in quotas, support the perfectly capable women like Nicolle Flint, who did turn up and listen to Layla’s cause, who is leaving parliament for good because of how she was treated at the so-called top of the political tree.’

Her criticism is backed by the actions of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, who cut away from Nicolle Flint’s speech in the house while Flint was pointing out Jacinta and Cheron’s concerns about a Domestic Violence, and rape culture within Indigenous Australian Communities.

This prompted Cheron Long’s Facebook response,

‘I’m fighting back tears writing this; today I have lost all trust and respect for the ABC. I am in shock, that the ABC has shut down and censored Nicole Flint MP, when she was giving a direct quote from a speech that I delivered earlier.’

These victims, Long said,

‘Have no voice, they have no support. The ABC have no heart for the silent victims of abuse in the bush; they rather champion the Left, then listen to real stories, and when a real story comes along, the ABC CENSOR IT!!’

In her own criticisms Jacinta expressed dismay at the selective hearing amongst the “elitist” class, stating,

‘It’s trauma enough that as an Aboriginal woman under threat of violence for speaking out against ‘Aboriginal rape culture’ Cheron travelled all the way to Canberra to publicly share the tragic story of her murdered cousin in order to get justice, but then the trauma is exacerbated by being deliberately ignored by the ABC.’

Ignoring Credlin, Campion, Flint, Cheron and Nampijinpa Price’s concerns further encourages a politically correct paralysis that perpetuates a culture of silence, stifles freedom of speech, and enables abuse.

Instead of addressing an alleged ‘Aboriginal rape culture’, or the downgrade of professionalism in Parliament House, by way of Post-Modern, “love is love” anything goes nihilism, legacy media and politicians are playing political football with its victims.

We know the Left has a voice. Their boisterous, persistent, divisive, “Invasion Day”, and “genocide”, anti-Australian rhetoric, gets shouted from the streets every January.

If it seems that this matters more than Layla Leering’s death, it’s because the anti-Australia virtue signalling is a quick injection of political capital.

It’s a comfortable protest; armchair activism powering a paper-thin narrative based on manufactured grievances, dressed up to look like the real thing.

Platitudes of justice for (alleged and factual) “historical wrongs” cost less, than loving those in the here, and now, by helping them help themselves through the messy task of healing wounds, tending scars, changing culture, untangling battered communities, and defending the defenceless.

Layla Leering’s legacy was a chance for the Left to put their heart where they say it is.

Instead, what the Left has shown, is how uninterested they are in helping real people, with real problems.

If their real stories don’t pad the fake Woke (and racist) Critical Race Theory party-hotline, it’s the proverbial, “don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

This isn’t an example of Right vs. Left, or Black vs. White, it’s an example of truth vs. falsehood.

Substance will always, always trump appearances.

Cheron and Jacinta stand in a similar place to Trugernanner (Truganini; 1812–1876). I think she’d be proud of what they’re achieving, and as dismayed as they are at the rot among elites, and the cycle of abuse that their selective silence still perpetuates.

References:

[i] Credlin, P. ‘I stand by every decision I made to clean the place up’ The Sunday Telegraph March 27, 2021

[ii] Campion, V. ‘Rape, murder ignored in favour of salacious pollie sex stories’ The Saturday Telegraph March 26, 2021


First published on Caldron Pool, 29th 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.

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.

World Council of “Churches” (WCC) Commission moderator of International Affairs, Frank Chikane equated Israel with demons in a recent online address.

Chikane told those in attendance that he was “convinced that [Palestine] is dealing with the same demons we dealt with in South Africa. Except that in their case the demons have invited other demons to make their struggle much more difficult…It’s almost like the whole world is against the Palestinians; nobody cares.”

He then asserted his belief that “the whole world seems to be conspiring against them. Trump’s administration came with what was called the deal of the sanctuary; which was really an entrenchment of the oppression and brutalisation of the people of Palestine, permanently robbing them of their rights.”

As The Algemeiner’s Dexter Van Zile retorted,

‘Chikane levelled a hostile incendiary assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish State, and an implicit threat against those who support it. Chikane, who offered not one word of criticism toward the Palestinians, made it perfectly clear that he is devoted to using his position of influence within the WCC to portray the Jewish state as a singular source of violence and sin in the Holy Land.’

Algemeiner explained that ‘the list of participants on the Zoom call included anti-Israel activists and anti-Zionist authors.’

According to Van Zile, Chikane’s address was organised by Christian organisations who have a ‘well-documented history of singling Israel out for condemnation while downplaying Palestinian hate, incitement, and violence towards Israel’ Such as ‘Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Christ at the Checkpoint, Kairos Palestine, and the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation.’

In response, the much-respected Jewish human rights organization, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre called on Christians to show their disagreement, writing on a Facebook link to The Algemeiner,

‘Wanted: Christians who will declare to WCC “not in our name!” Medieval Christendom Jew=Devil dehumanized our people, paved the way to blood libel pogroms and Auschwitz. Now WCC declares Israel=Devil as the Jewish state is threatened by Genocidal Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah?’

The WCC’s ambiguity about where it stands when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict is renowned. Specifically, the WCC’s clandestine support for BDS – The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions protest movement designed to pressure Israel into conforming with its stated ideals, by ending international support for Israel.

Van Zile was right to state in a February 18 follow-up piece, with Frank Chikane voicing support for the misleading, and emotionally charged widespread claim, that “Israel is practicing Apartheid” there’s no doubt to where the World Council of Churches stands.

He adds that WCC advocacy against Israel, while not speaking out against ‘actual crimes against humanity in China and Syria’ – only adds to Jewish suspicions about Christians.

I flat-out agree. The caveat being that the WCC left Christian Gospel orthodoxy for the social gospel of progressive leftism years ago.

It’s best not to equate Leftist “Christianity” with Biblical Christianity.

To qualify terms, Leftist “Christianity” generally rides the Liberation Theology victim train, replacing God’s justice with social justice, and Christ with Marx.

To be blunt about it: Liberation Theology is not a theology of Christian liberation.

As was brilliantly explained by Karol Wojtyla (Pope JPII) in his 1979 Address to Latin American Churches, and Joseph Ratzinger in ‘Theology of Liberation’ (1984) and ‘Christian Freedom & Liberation’ (1986).

All three remain vitally relevant to a Biblical Christian framework of true Christ-centred liberation. The context of which is the self-revealing God, who, in, through and with Jesus Christ, makes Himself known, and makes clear His existence, along with the important distinction between God setting humanity free from sin, not setting humanity free to sin.

Although, WCC members have in the past called their apparent, Marxist “upgrade” of the Gospel, and observable strands of apostasy, “a myth” (see ‘National Council of Churches Faces a New Type of Critic,’ NYT, 1982), they are open advocates of asinine movements such as “Climate Justice,” calling it a ‘the focal point of the WCC advocacy’ in its participation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Chikane accusing Donald Trump of protecting Israel’s ‘oppression and brutalisation,’ along with there being no mention of peace deals that the Trump administration orchestrated between Israel, and some predominantly Muslim countries, also shows that the WCC has taken a hard lean to the Left. Many of whom mock those peace deals, laughing them off as ‘dodgy.’

In an op-ed for the Christian Post Rabbis Cooper and Alderstein responded, saying,

‘The WCC’s moral blindness means that it serves as an expression of Christian love about as successfully as ISIS can raise the banner of Islamic compassion…‘the time has come for Christians to declare “Not in our name.” For their good, more than ours…The WCC’s moral failure is not limited to Israel, however, and that is why it is a danger to those who take their Christianity more seriously than something to use as a political football.’

Fall back on what Eric Metaxas suggested this week and see the dangers for what they are: Americans (and I’ll add Australians) turning-a-blind-eye to CCP human rights abuses, in exchange for cheap Chinese made, Communist Chinese owned, tech – like Hisense big screen TVs and white goods – is in the same ball-park as German society conveniently ignoring the smoke stacks, trains, and violent removal of Jews.

Tack onto this any leap-before-you-look support for dubious schemes like BDS, “Climate Justice,” and support for equating Israel with white supremacy; the concerns of Van Zile, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and the Jewish community find sound justification.

It’s right to stand with Israel, on the proviso that Israel maintains its gracious humanitarian outreach to those who identify as Palestinians, hand-in-hand with Israel’s right to self-defence.

The WCC supporting a one-sided political narrative demands the strong rebuttal: not in my name!


First published on Caldron Pool, 19th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

The second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump has ended in an acquittal.

The charge of ‘incitement of insurrection’ concerned the January 6th security breach in Washington D.C., when a mob participating in a MAGA rally broke from the majority, and forced their way into the Capitol building.

The mob, described as rioters by legacy media, carried out acts of vandalism, which culminated in the tragic deaths of two people.

9News reported that Ashli Babbitt, a female veteran was ‘fatally shot by police’ as she entered the building. In addition, The Guardian reported that Officer Brian Sicknick, died due to head injuries inflicted by Capitol Hill vandals, who are alleged to have struck Sicknick with a fire extinguisher.

Three other people died during the incident, in what 9News referred to in speech marks as “medical emergencies.”

According to The Guardian, 50-year-old Benjamin Phillips, a computer programmer and huge Trump fan, died of a stroke. 55-year-old Kevin Gleeson, died of an ‘apparent heart attack, related to a history of high blood pressure’; and Rossane Boyland, 34, who had a ‘criminal history, including possession and distribution of heroin,’ lost consciousness, due to what 9News alleged was the direct result of being ‘crushed by the crowd.’

The Democrat push to pin the security breach, and subsequent vandalism from both known, and alleged MAGA supporters, on Donald Trump, as “insurrection at the Capitol”, was supported by big government Democrats, big media, big tech and big business.

The Guardian were quick to label the tragic event a ‘planned insurrection,’ joining legacy media’s chorus of buzzwords such as “invasion,” “attack,” and “incitement.”

Joe Biden called it ‘an assault on the citadel of liberty’; and Nancy Pelosi (speaker of the house) – among others – laid the blame on the then sitting President Trump, calling for him to be removed from office.

Silicon Valley joined the assault, using the constructed narrative of “insurrection at the Capitol” as an excuse to boot Trump from their social media platforms; killing off a competitor through the equivalent of a permanent D.O.S (denial of service) attack on Parler; which was justified through the distorted claim that the fervent freedom of speech, social media service, was a hotbed for ‘right-wing extremism.’

The January 6th tragedy involving between 500-800 people was a nexus for Trump’s nemeses.

Four-year-long “hate Trump because love trumps hate” campaigners, got in before a clearer picture emerged, and the dust settled. They called for impeachment, capitalising on the momentum of public confusion and concern.

The following weeks saw Trump’s enemies salivate over the possibility of connecting Trump, and Conservatives to the deaths, security breach, and vandalism.

This involved a ‘new rhetorical framing,’ or ‘rhetorical inflation’:

‘[Where] Trump supporters used to be portrayed as nationalists, as extreme patriots whose desire to “make America great again” was too laudatory of the U.S.A.  Now they are being portrayed as insurrectionists and [anti-American jihadist] terrorists who are trying to destroy America.’ – (Gene Veith/Jonathan S. Tobin)

Far-left Democrats are being true to their “whatever it takes to win” promise. It’s a zero-sum game and they know it.

Just like they knew what they were doing when they ‘played an edited video of former President Donald Trump’s speech on January 6, 2020, at the beginning of the impeachment trial on Tuesday, leaving out his call for supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” (Breitbart)

Tackling this ‘new rhetorical framing,’ CBN called out the hypocrisy of those citing Trump’s use of the phrase “fight like hell” as proof of incitement to insurrection. Stating that ‘several members of the impeachment team, have used similar rhetoric in the past.’

Such as, but not limited to, ‘Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., as well as Reps. Joe Neguse of Colorado and Eric Swalwell of California, [who’ve all used] “fight like hell” or similar phrasing in their past statements.’ (Fox)

Rand Paul (Rep.Kentucky) used the example of Chuck Schumer’s speech given during the Kavanaugh trial to a mob in front of the Supreme Court, when the leading Democrat said:

“you have unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price, and you won’t know what hit you.” – ‘the mob charged the door of the Supreme Court and they tried to tear it down. They stood on top of statues, they were confronting and belligerent.’

Paul, in Trump’s defence then appealed to context, saying,

“The thing [here] is [that] you have to look at the President’s actual words. What did he say? He said go fight. Let your voices be heard, and he said march peacefully and patriotically. How can you twist that into words that incite violence?…I think Democrats if they look in the mirror, they’ve been guilty of much more than they’re accusing Trump of.”

The far-left failing to secure a second impeachment against Donald Trump is a blow to their ‘planned’ “insurrection at the Capitol” narrative (new rhetorical framing).

Stakeholders should take note. This push for the impeachment Trump, on trumped up charges, also shows that the far-left’s libido-dominandi driving the hate-fest for anyone, and anything they deem to be unworthy of an opinion, is far from over.

Cancel culture is on full display here.

Breaking down the votes for, and against impeachment, The ABC revealed a well-organised (“pre-planned?”) co-ordinated approach from the Left, with some on the Right supporting the motion (seven in total).

The Left were unanimous. ‘Senators voted 57-43 not guilty on the charge of incitement of insurrection’, which is 10 numbers below the 67 ‘required to convict’ Trump.

The far-left’s real loss here, is the failure of cancel culture to cancel out Donald Trump’s chances of running for President again in 2024. Which was, according to a wise American friend of mine, “the whole reason for the push for impeachment in the first place.”

The far-left engaging in ‘rhetorical inflation’; the twisting of words, facts, and events, in order to carve out a self-serving narrative, is a greater threat to Constitutional Democracy, and civil liberties, than an imperfect man, who for four years served for next to no pay, in the office of President, but sometimes posted mean tweets to his personal Twitter account.

Trump’s second impeachment trial was a fake charge, based on fake news.

I stand by my statements made earlier this year: The real oppressors are masquerading as the oppressed. Cancel culture is fascism proper.


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th February 2021.

© Rod Lampard, 2021.

Like Iron Maiden’s pro-life, Cold War protest song, ‘2 Minutes to Midnight, truth bombs from Independent Canadian rap artist, Tom MacDonald’s latest release, ‘Fake Woke’ epitomise a truism: sometimes truth-affirming criticism comes from the most unexpected of places.

Instead of jumping ship to ride the go-with-the-flow anti-Trump, Joebama-is-the-messiah crowd, MacDonald has gone head-to-head with the culture of fear, lies and division, that keeps the far-Left in positions of power, and helped Democrats take the Presidency.

MacDonald, acknowledging cancel culture – which arrests freedom of speech by gagging anyone speaking truths that don’t affirm or confirm to the far-Left’s ideological party-line – wrote in a tweet on the 13th of January,

‘I don’t even know if I can release any of the new music I had planned to start the year with. The risk of getting deleted/banned/removed from platforms is REAL. I’m seeing it happen to dozens of people every day.’

The song was released on January 29th. Since then, it’s flown under the radar of Big Tech censorship, and their trigger-happy, fall-in, line-up, goose step in unison, salute or else, thought police. This may change as the song’s popularity continues to explode.

So far, the only real controversy has been over MacDonald’s opening lyrics referring to Eminem and Cardi-B as hypocrites and poor role models. With Hiphop24x7, being the only Rap affiliated site so far to cover it in context, albeit briefly.

According to Popvortex, the self-released single is the current number 1 song on itunes.

However, this polling position appears to depend on where you look.

Fake Woke’ is listed nowhere on the Apple Web Top 100, but in the actual itunes store it’s sitting at number 17; with over 3 million views on YouTube since its release on YT four days ago.  

Kristin Smith’s review for PluggedIn (Focus on the Family’s online entertainment, culture and society news site) noted that the song’s ‘extremely controversial’ lyrical content comes from how the lyrics contrast with Hollywood, the music world, and “progressive” legacy media’s own bigotry.

This is exhibited by the far-Left’s oppressive intolerance towards anyone with a different opinion, or opposing viewpoint.

As per Caldron Pool editor, Ben Davis’ apt observation,

‘Bigotry is NOT refusal to affirm the opinions of the day. Bigotry is “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.” (Oxford)

With ‘Fake Woke’ MacDonald has good reason for concern.

Humourless Cultural Marxists abusing their positions of power and perma banning whatever doesn’t suit them, or support their manipulative, forced conformity to new cultural laws, is now standard practice.

As the song states:

‘Cancel culture runs the world now, the planet went crazy
Label everything we say as homophobic or racist
If you’re white, then you’re privileged, guilty by association. They never freed the slaves, they realized that they don’t need the chains. They gave us tiny screens; we think we free ’cause we can’t see the cage. They knew that race war would be the game they need to play. For people to pick teams, they use the media to feed the flame.’

MacDonald isn’t new to controversy. His August 2020, ‘People So Stupid’ took aim at the mislabelling of heterosexual men as homophobic, because they refuse to date transgender “women”, perpetual victimhood, and abortion.

 ‘Fake Woke’ hits a similar vein, challenging Black Lives Matter, and defund the police; putting a mirror up to the face of politicians (most often on the Left) who preach anti-racism, but need racism to keep votes, and campaign dollars rolling in:

‘Segregation ended, that’s a lie in itself
That was a strategy to make us think they were tryin’ to help
They knew that racism was hot if they designed it to sell
We buy up every single box and divide us ourselves.’

Adding to this, MacDonald slams the slaying of truth, with specific reference to the slaughter of the Hebraic word “Amen” on the altar of radical feminist wokeness,

‘Censoring the facts turns our children into idiots
They claim it’s for our safety, I’ll tell you what it really is
Removing information that empowers all the citizens
The truth doesn’t damage points of view that are legitimate
They’re tryna change amen to a-men and women
How’d we let ’em make praying a microaggression?
Instead of asking God for the strength to keep winnin’
We cheat to get ahead, and then we ask Him for forgiveness.’

In an interview with Fox News, MacDonald said,

“I just thought that it’s important to point some fingers at the hypocrisy and the way the world is changing; not for the better…People have become allergic to opinions in North America in these last five years, and pretty soon they’re gonna cancel everything.”                  

As I wrote last year. The fight isn’t left vs. right, black vs. white, it’s truth vs. falsehood.


First published on Caldron Pool, 4th February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Conflating Donald Trump “losing” the 2020 election with Conservatives, and their allies [i], losing the Culture War is a mistake.

Just as unsteady is the conclusion that the modern Conservative position is now irrelevant; not the majority view in the West, or that “progressive” elites have categorically won their Culture War.

This mistake is being made by many on the far-Left, who are overjoyed with the feeling of total domination; enlivened by the prospect of a Stalin-style purging of political opposition; buoyed by a false sense of security, and contempt, stemming from what is being played out as a total victory.

It’s a falsehood that shouldn’t be echoed by Conservatives and those not aligned with the Left’s extremist ideological hegemony.

It’s a false conclusion that denies key variables.

Such as the collective impact of four years of Leftist tantrum throwing. Including among other things, division, threats, and intimidation. Their war-like strategy of attrition. The wearing down of the masses through a blitzkrieg of outrage, blame and false witness, carried out against Conservatives because many on the Left couldn’t handle the legitimate 2016 election outcome.

It denies context.

Such as the universal impact of the COVID-19 Wuhan virus, mass destruction caused by Marxist Black Lives Matter riots, and the Biden-Harris campaign of fear: “vote for me, or face certain death at the hands of COVID, “Climate change”, Nazis and racists.”

Distance sharpens perspective.

Step back for a bit, recalibrate and you’ll see that today’s conservative movement isn’t dead. It’s not even on life support, but there are improvements that need to be made.

Here’s one area where I think this applies.

While 95% competition and only 5% cooperation persists among conservatives and their allies, they will remain a house divided; doomed to struggle in the Culture War forced onto society by the far-left.

As opposed to excessive self-promotion, and the holding back of support for fear of losing an audience to any “competition”, unity in purpose demands creative cooperation.

The “I’ll let you share my stuff, but be damned if I’m going to do the same for you” has to go.

More cooperation and less competition amongst those within replacement media is the primary means through which Conservatives, and their allies, will overcome the leftist hegemony’s marginalisation, and monopolisation of the masses.

Cooperation and less competition counter the attempt from the far-Left to suffocate all means of communicating reasoned opposing viewpoints, which includes the Conservative Biblical Christian message.

Take as a shining example PragerU’s relationship with The Daily Wire, BLEXIT, and the WalkAway movement. A partnership, not always in agreement, but a partnership nonetheless that accounts for a good portion of their success.

It boggles the mind that other groups aren’t borrowing from their leadership in this area. Choosing instead to work against, rather than with those who on the same team.

Healthy competition has its place, but when that competition compromises cooperation, we’re no longer talking about teamwork, we’re talking about friendly fire, and causalities of war.

The adage there is no “I” in team pulls its own weight on the battlefield of ideas.

Conservatives in media need more of a ministry approach, less of an industry approach. More willingness to work with, rather than against each other. Less suspicion over motive, and more momentum in communicating the message.

This is what we aim for at Caldron Pool.

We’re aiming high, and are praying that others, particularly our army of dedicated readers, and Australia’s replacement media industry will be aiming towards as well.

It’s a mistake to view the Biden Presidency as the death of the Conservative movement.

If the first weeks of the Biden administration are anything to go by, the far-Left overplaying their hand is inevitable.

There’s still work to be done.

Support the alternative.

Build up a replacement media that will challenge the hypnotic newspeak of legacy media, and the 24/7 manipulative propaganda opiate keeping the masses under their thumb through disaster porn.

Be the alternative.

Add your voice to the conversation.

Become a regular supporter of Caldron Pool by donating here.

References:

[i] I refer here to Tulsi Gabbard, Bari Weis, and Brett Weinstein, among others.


First published on Caldron Pool, 2nd February, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.