On The Human Neck

A recent article for Salon by Matthew Rosza argues that the human neck is a “mistake of evolution.” He notes obstructive sleep apnea as a representative example of gross negligence by a purported God who supposedly designed the human body according to a plan. Rosza’s opening volley is to attack the concept of an “intelligent designer,” characterizing the position of intelligent design as one that argues biological machinery is so complex and perfectly calibrated that it had to be “planned out by a deliberate and thoughtful source of some kind.” 

However, in the context of biology, intelligent design intentionally makes no mention of who or what the designer is, or what the potential motivations of that designer might be. Moreover, intelligent design takes a straightforward abductive reasoning approach towards design, arguing that design is simply an inference to the best explanation. When we see the amount of human thought and work that goes into creating complex artifacts such as smartphones, automobiles, and jet airplanes, then it is at least reasonable to believe biological organisms, which are far more sophisticated than any human artifact, require thoughtful design.

Is the Human Neck a “Mistake of Evolution”?
Walter Myers III

Intelligent Design makes the rather boring, ho-hum assumption that systems and organisms of vastly greater complexity than a computer or a car require a system designer. Pedestrian observational science, frankly.

Christianity does not start with observational science: such ways of thinking are of value, even great value, but it is not based on the historical record.

We need to understand our history, what actually happened, before we can truly understand the world about us.

What its purpose was; what our purpose was (and is!); where we went wrong; how we cannot heal the world…

…how Jesus did what sinful men could not do, and how we can expand His Kingdom — of healing, grace, truth, justice, and compassion — across the world.

You can only go so far, with the dim light of Natural Revelation.

And if the Darwinians could have their way, we would be blinded and robbed even of what small light our flawed human reasoning can provide.

All due to their love of State Power — as directed by the Right Sort of Genetically Superior Men — and their intense hatred of any Authority above and beyond the reach of the State, any Law that outweighs the voice of money and guns and media complexes and academic amen corners.


Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the Lord and come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever, and serve the Lord your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you.

II Chronicles 30:8, English Standard Version

It’s too late for Our Betters: they would much rather have their nations die, their money wither, their power be broken, their future cut off, than ever kneel before God and repent.

People really do choose death, and they really do choose hell.

Unlike them, we can choose a better future, for ourselves and our descendants.

It begins with our repentance before the King of Kings, Jesus Christ.

And it continues with a renewed spirit of obedience to His Law-Word.

In humility, in dedication, in truth, and with love and courage, justice and mercy.

And under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit, sent from the Father and the Son, to keep us on the upward path.

“Christian leaders are complicit”

“Christian leaders are complicit”?

More than you think.

Don’t forget: when the Darwinian snake first reared it’s ugly fangs, most scientists at the time challenged it’s just-so stories. It was the clergymen that placed the stamp of approval on Darwin, having the old God-hater buried at Westminster Abbey as their crowning achievement.

“The approval of the Right Sort is light-years more important than the approval of God,” the leading clergymen of the time decided.

That was then.

Here’s the Daily Mail headline: “Police ‘prevented Catholic priest from giving murdered Tory MP Sir David Amess his last rites as he lay dying after being stabbed‘.” And here is the overture:

“A Roman Catholic priest has accused police of preventing him from giving Conservative MP Sir David Amess his last rites as he lay dying in his Essex constituency.

Father Jeffrey Woolnough arrived at the police cordon stretching across tree-lined Eastwood Road North in Leigh-on-Sea, offering to administer the last rites to the devout Catholic, 69, on Friday afternoon after he was allegedly stabbed multiple times by a suspected terrorist.

But he told the Mail: ‘The officers said that because it was a crime scene, and also the nature of the scene, it just wasn’t possible.'”

The official response from authorities is that this decision was simply business as usual. Here is a piece of that:

A spokesman for Essex Police, which responded to reports of the initial incident before Scotland Yard launched an investigation, told MailOnline that a cordon was put in place ‘to secure and prevent contamination of the area’.

“‘As with any police incident, it is of the utmost importance that we preserve the integrity of a crime scene and allow emergency services to tend to those in need,’ the force said in a statement.

‘A cordon is put in place to secure and prevent contamination of the area. Access into a scene is at the discretion of the investigating officers. This is a fundamental part of any investigation to ensure the best possible chance of securing justice for any victim and their family. …’”

Let’s see if I got that right: It is now official policy that priests — who say Last Rites under many, many tragic and complex situations — are not allowed to minister to Catholics as they die, when the victim is in a crime scene or is in need of urgent medical care?

Police kept priest from saying Last Rites for stabbed politician. News story? (Yes, in UK)
GetReligion

And this is now.

I can hear the Established Men laughing, all the way from here.

And all those complicit Christian Leaders respectfully keep silent, before the power they truly fear and respect above all.

Local Issues and a Real Man

This is the kind of complex local issue we should get a grip on, and solve successfully, before we go on to anything better. Cutting our teeth in things that matter to our neighbours, and earning our stripes in the smaller matters that really matter, right where we live.

The core problem here? Things don’t stay the same. The value of the dam shifted from power generation to improving property prices, but the cost of ownership was never shifted to the people who benefited. Meanwhile, the state government made expensive demands the dam owner could not pay for, and also refused to pay for any changes.

RogerWilco
This is why in the Netherlands water management have their own independent government structures with full responsibility for an entire river or catchment area. Some have existed for 800 years and they have their own independent elections and tax. This is essential in a country that is largely below sea level. Those windmills? Yeah we used those to manage the water for centuries.

Yes, the Dutch are a bunch of pagans: but if they have a good solution that is fair and just for all parties, I’ll listen to them. And the man did say “centuries”: rumour has it that the Dutch were believing Calvinists, back in the misty distant past. Perhaps modern believers can still learn something from those long-gone to be with the Lord…

Mike Fochtman
Great point about how many of the people that benefit from such dams are NOT responsible for the maintenance. Hydro dams have a myriad of conflicting demands on them. Power generation, flood control, recreation, irrigation… Everyone involved have there own agenda and the owner/operator finds themselves pulled in many directions.

And the owner/operator has his own agenda, too!

A good judge can sort out these issues after the disaster. A great judge can sniff out the coming disaster, and put a stop to it before the disaster strikes.

But at the moment, Christians need to learn the concept of “law”, “judge”, “due process”, “who pays”, “who benefits”, “property rights”, “community rights”… the whole thing.

The distant Dutch Calvinists would be ashamed, to see how infantile, ignorant, and short-sighted modern believing Christians have become. And that’s the believing Christians I am talking about, their spiritual descendants, not the lawless, depraved, and cruel barbarians that their blood-and-soil physical descendants are!

“But at least they have plenty of wealth!”

“Measured against the 17th century ancestors? Absolutely! And frankly, they can keep their wealth – and their immoral madness – to themselves.”

GOLDplus2
80 years and I would say, it had served it’s design life. That’s a well done engineering design and construction in my opinion. I am not trying to downplay the losses.

True enough… but not good enough.

Things get old. The costs and benefits change. Maintenance needs change, as does technology.

Somebody needs to know what’s going on, for the sake of the towns and communities that could benefit – or be harmed – by the aging infrastructure.

That someone could be Christians, if they are willing to make the sacrifices, and give the needed commitment. And stop their march into worthlessness, retreating into impotent escapist fantasies.

Nothing is going to get better, until we decide to make things better.

icestick18
It is really important to note that there were no major injuries or fatalities because the Emergency Management Director of the County took the extraordinary step of completing a full scale evacuation of the potential flood area prior to the failure…despite the dam owner’s wishes. She should be applauded for her efforts because if the dam didn’t fail that decision could have cost her job. She acted selflessly and with conviction and ultimately saved countless lives.

Love your content Grady!

The courage of this Emergency Management Director is what we need to build up, in ourselves and our children.

“She acted selflessly and with conviction and ultimately saved countless lives.”

That’s what I like to hear.

I hope the Director get a promotion, a raise, and public honours for her intelligence and concern.

At the very least, we should remember, and raise up such real men as models for our children, boys and girls alike.

And rest assured, that woman is far more manly than many churchy leaders with their gonads in a sack.

She knew what to do to protect her people, and she did it. Period.

You can spend your whole life — and lose it! — waiting for the Patriarchal Christian types to do the same.

Explain Like I’m Five

r/funny - The original Explain to me like I'm 5.
The original Explain to me like I’m 5.
Posted by u/Andy_023, r/funny

Simple and clear, but not so simplified as to be untrue.

A tough balance to strike. Definitely worth it, though, if you can pull it off.

I would argue that the Bible is the paragon of this. Clear enough for children to grasp and adore, deep enough for serious academics to draw out useful, applicable wisdom for the rest of eternity.

Then comes the self-serving fables of our Superior Betters.

“It’s not about whether something is true, simple or complex.
It’s about an explanation being politically useful.
in building up trust and compliance on the part of the Inferior.
And saving energy and bother on the part of the Authorities.”

It would have been 1000% better if the father said “I don’t know. Look it up, and tell me what you find.”

Or even just stuck to the simple, observable truth – “The sun sets in the West.” – instead of adding a fake detail, to build up his stature in the eyes of his ignorant son – “In Arizona actually, near Flagstaff.”

Once again, half-truths are more nasty and difficult to fight than flat-out lies.

When Christian men refuse to take the easy way out, their sons will develop the drive to do their own research. That is what this post is about.

If they can pull off successful True Simplifications, their sons won’t only be able to think for themselves, but be serious movers and shakers, thinkers and leaders, in their own right.

That, I believe, is what God wants to see of us.

Not naive fools, not fearful or trusting ignorami, but men and women able to do their own digging into the facts, and get those facts, those truths, to the general population – simple and sophisticated alike, each in their own language.

Humility, commitment, and service, demonstrated over decades, leads to respect and authority.

Random Psalm of the Day Generator (KJV)

Well, I liked the Random Psalm of the Day Generator (KJV). Maybe you’ll like it too.


Some people think that this life is only a preparatory life and is therefore unimportant St. Nikolai, in Prayers by the Lake, talked (I forget exactly where) about how birth and death are only an inch apart, and the ticker tape goes on forever.

This makes what we choose in this life incredibly important. We can only “save for retirement” between birth and death. We can only repent between birth and death. After death, improving the lot we have eternally chosen in this life will be impossible. 

Why I’m Glad I’m Living Now, at This Place, at This Time, in This World
by CJS Hayward

No, I am not interested in Orthodoxy: too much mysticism and escape, not enough discipling the nations – including their governments and their legal systems – under Christ and His Law-Word, in time and on earth.

Still… if even flat-out Marxists and Darwinians can get it right – once in a blue moon, but still – then Orthodox believers should get their chance to be heard.

Trusting with contentment in God’s direction of our lives is the root of some wise thinking. God really does know what He is doing. And – unlike the Orthodox – we know that His enemies will be forced to cede ground, step by step, year after year (with the occasional resurgence, admittedly), until Christ and His Law-Word is indeed publicly recognized as King over All by every human nation and institution, everywhere.

Just don’t get hypnotized by the temples. That’s a deceit and a cheat.

Piety isn’t the point. Righteousness is….
… as declared in the Psalms, and throughout the Bible.

Punishment and Evangelism at School

From
The Biblical Educator
Christian Education: The Christian Thinker as Teacher, Part 2

[The bolded closed brackets are my commentary.]

—<Quote begins>—

AN EDUCATIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE

By Rodney N. Kirby

#11 “Punishment and Evangelism” (Genesis 4:1-15)

We have mentioned in a previous article the fact that Scripture draws a parallel between God’s disciplining of us, and our disciplining of our children. If we are to be Godly in our dealings with our children, we must see how God deals with us. Our text this month records another instance of God’s method of punishment. We will note several points, and seek to apply them to discipline in the school.

[I can hear the howls at the mere mention of “God’s method of punishment.”

All I can say, is that we should not mix up God and Santa Claus. One is a soft’n’spineless wish fulfillment creation of man. The other is not.]

First, we may notice in vs. 6-7, that God detects Cain’s attitude of rebellion, before it breaks out in an outward act. Speaking anthropomorphically, we may say that God could tell that Cain was up to no good. He could tell that Cain was upset about the non-acceptance of his offering, and that wicked plans were running through his mind. And so God warned Cain, before he committed the outward transgression. “If you obey, and come to Me on My terms, I will accept your offering. But sin is lying in wait for you; watch out? You must conquer your sin.”

God, of course, being omniscient, could look into Caine heart and see where he was heading. Even though man is not so omniscient, he nevertheless can generally tell what a person who is being tempted to sin has on his mind. This is especially true in regard to children. Every parent and teacher of young children knows how to “read” their children; you can see what their scheming little mind is up to. “Johnny, don’t you dare even think about doing that.”

We must warn our children before they do wrong. It is all too easy to sit back and watch them do wrong, and then pounce on them. We must make the rules clear ahead of time (no “post facto” laws), and must warn of what will happen for disobedience. Our goal is not to punish our children, but to teach them in the right paths. If a warning will prevent disobedience, the punishment will not be necessary; the child still will learn obedience. Of course, we are not condoning the all-too-common “warning,” “If you do that one more time, so help me, I’ll…. ” ‘What we mean is warnings that come before any actual disobedience has taken Place.

[We must warn children before they do wrong. We should follow the example of God, and not the prompting of our own ego-bloat.]

In vs. 12, God tells Cain that the ground will no longer respond to him, as it had before (cf. vs. 2), and that he will be forced to wander. In essence, God removes Cain’s dominion from him. Cain will no longer be able (successfully) to exercise dominion over the earth. Cain had shown himself to be irresponsible as a viceregent of God, and so he is removed from a position of authority.

[Many Secularists, who sympathize far more with Cain than they ever will with Abel, are going to be astonished when the same happens to them. Assuming they even think that is possible for them to lose power.]

Even so, we may punish disobedience in our children by taking away responsibilities from them. If a student is given the responsibility of taking a note to the office, for example, and he abuses that responsibility (by stopping in the restroom for a smoke), then (along with other punishments) he should not be given that responsibility again. If your son is caught drag racing down Main Street, his car keys should be taken away until he gives evidence of having learned godly responsibility. Students who demonstrate irresponsibility thereby demonstrate their inability to exercise dominion properly, and that dominion is removed from them.

Verse 11 brings up an important point. Cain was “cursed,” in contrast to Adam and Eve (see Gen. 3:16-19), who were not directly cursed. The difference is to be seen as rooted in the different states of the souls of Adam and Cain. Adam confessed his sin to the Lord (3:12—”and I did eat”). Adam responded to God’s chastisement with a recognition of the grace of God. In 3:20, Adam sees that through his wife, God will sustain life, ultimately through the promised seed (cf. 3:15). God symbolically washed Adam and Eve from their sins by the death of a substitute, and by clothing them with the skin of that substitute (3:21).

In contrast, Cain never confessed his sin. In fact, the only response he made to God was a complaint. He complained that his punishment was too severe, that he would not be able to stand it (4:13-14). Cain maintained this, even though he knew God’s punishment was what he deserved, or rather that God was not even punishing him as severely as he deserved (Rom. 1:32). Cain deserved to die (Ezek. 18:4), and God was showing mercy to him in not destroying him at that moment.

[There was no confession, and no repentance. So how could there ever be forgiveness?]

One man was regenerate, one of the elect of God; the other was an unrepentant reprobate. Thus, God did not “curse” Adam, while He did “curse” Cain. The differing states of the respective souls was reflected in differing punishments.

[Interesting point!]

In applying this to our work as Christian teachers, we must immediately make a distinction between our discipline and God’s. God can see the heart of man; God knows who the elect and who the reprobate are. Men (not even teachers!) do not have this ability. However, we can detect the difference between a repentant student and a hardened, unrepentant student. The godly student will manifest his regenerate nature in outward acts; the unrepentant student will likewise manifest his true nature. (Matt. 7:17-18).

[The unrepentant student should be shown the door.]

And so we should make a distinction in our punishment between the repentant and the unrepentant students. God surely punished the repentant Adam, but He punished more severely the unrepentant Cain. So we may punish an unrepentant student more severely than we do the repentant student. Two students may throw rocks through school windows. One, who evidences genuine repentance over his sin, may be required to work to make restitution for the damage. The other, who shows no signs of sorrowful repentance, may be expelled from school. The unrepentant student (or his parents) will often complain (as did Cain) about “unfair” punishment; the godly student generally will submit to punishment.

Such unrepentance in a student points to a need for evangelism. This student must be shown that his lack of sorrow over sin shows his sinful heart. The teacher will point out to the student that, when he complains about the severity of his punishment, he is acting just like the reprobate Cain. He should be told that he deserves much more severe punishment than what we administer—that his sin deserves death, and places him under the wrath of God. He should be implored and commanded to repent, forsake his sins, flee to Christ, and seek forgiveness from God. Remember, the goal of punishment by men is the restoration of the offender. We do not desire to expel the offending student, but desire his reconciliation to God, and resulting godly obedience. Let us not forsake this opportunity to evangelize the children God has entrusted to us.

[We are to treat the students as we would want God to treat us…. not least, because we ARE God’s students in many ways!]

—<Quote ends>—

Logic, Reason… and Running Away

From
Why Did Google Ads Ban LewRockwell.com?
by David Gordon

(The bold is mine)

One thing struck me as especially odd about Google’s ban of LewRockwell.com from its advertising program. This was the claim that articles on this site could “undermine participation or trust in electoral or democratic process.” I suppose what is meant is that the site has published articles that suggest there was substance to President Trump’s claim that the election was stolen from him. If people believe this, they are less likely than they would otherwise be to support the electoral process. Why support a process you regard as rigged?

Is this argument sound? I do not think so. Those who say the presidential election was rigged usually do not want to end elections. Their complaint is that the proper election procedures weren’t followed, e.g., that people were counted as voters who didn’t have proper identification and that in some states, electoral rules weren’t enacted by the state legislatures, as the constitutions of those states required. It hardly seems reasonable to say that people with views of this kind don’t support the electoral process. Rather, they wish to enforce the existing electoral rules that were violated. The widespread activities these people have engaged in to publicize their charges suggest that they are committed to the electoral process, not that they oppose it. To the extent that articles on LewRockwell.com have led people to hold these opinions, then, it is wrong to blame the site for undermining participation in the electoral process.

Perhaps, though, those on Google who banned the site mean something else, and here the word “trust” comes to the fore. They may mean that the articles lead people to distrust the electoral process as currently constituted. People ought to reject the protests of Trump’s supporters and accept that Biden’s election conformed to the rules. But why ought they to do so? Isn’t the question of the election’s legitimacy subject to debate? If it is Google’s position that, regardless of whether the election conformed to the rules, people ought to accept it, because otherwise they will lose trust in the electoral process, that is an extraordinary thing to say. Why should we trust an improper election? That is a foolish thing to do. Surely those who support “democratic process” should favor elections that conform to the rules.

But there is yet another way of understanding Google’s complaint. The complaint may be that, as Google sees the issue, the electoral protests are so manifestly wrong that they don’t deserve discussion. If that were the case, though, there would be little reason to fear public debate about the issue, as the absurdities of the protests could easily be exposed. If that is so, it seems more likely that Google recognizes that the complaints have substance, or at least cannot be readily dispatched, but wants these complaints suppressed. That calls into question its own commitment to the electoral process.

To what I have said, it might be objected that Google has an escape. Suppose that the electoral protests are manifestly wrong and their defects readily exposed. Google may fear that readers of the site will, owing to “confirmation bias,” have the tendency unreasonably to discount evidence that goes against one’s opinions, fail to read the refutations or, if they do look at them, put them aside without proper consideration. But given the great control of Google over channels of communication, it is unlikely that even those who strongly support the electoral protests could ignore the points against their claims, and, if these claims are that absurd, it does not seem likely that confirmation bias would prevail.

There is yet another problem with Google’s accusation. It seems likely that most people who find the articles on LewRockwell.com convincing will, even before reading them, be favorable to that point of view. Most readers of the site, it seems safe to say, share its general outlook. If that is so, the site cannot be accused of undermining trust in the current electoral process, as the readers already lacked such trust. Google might then say that at least a few people who did not do so before might come to distrust the electoral process and others might find their already existing beliefs strengthened. But, even if that is true, the marginal increase in distrust does not suffice to constitute undermining trust in the electoral process, so the accusation once more fails.

What I have so far said, though, isn’t my main reason for finding Google’s charge odd. That reason is this: if one speaks of undermining trust in the electoral process, this presupposes that most people do trust the process. If trust is lacking, there is nothing to undermine. But in fact, most people already view the process with grave suspicion. True enough, Biden’s supporters don’t accept the claims of President Trump’s supporters, but they don’t trust the electoral process either. They accuse Republicans of trying to restrict access to the ballot to their own advantage. It is a cliché of the analysis of American politics, but true, for all that, that our country is polarized. Practically no one is satisfied with the existing electoral arrangements. If such satisfaction were the criterion of being able to use the Google Ads program, Google would have to ban nearly all sites that discuss political issues.

Google has another complaint, namely that LewRockwell.com is promoting “harmful health claims.” Here I take it that Google’s target is articles that oppose covid-19 vaccinations on the grounds that they are unsafe and ineffective. My response to this is on similar lines to what I have already said about the electoral process, so I can be brief. If the assertions on the site are manifestly wrong, shouldn’t they be easy to refute? If you read the articles on LewRockwell.com, you will see that they raise important points that deserve careful consideration rather than dismissal. This is not the place to consider how best to deal with covid-19, but I shall venture one comment. When the vaccines were introduced, their supporters said that they were highly efficient in preventing people from getting the disease—in some instances it was averred that they were 99 percent effective—and that they were completely safe. Now, it is “a truth universally acknowledged,” in Jane Austen’s phrase, that the immunity wears off and that that many have died after taking the vaccines. Surely this is not the time to block discussion of this vital issue.

There was a time when I could get away with tagging Our Betters as “rationalists”; people who think that logic and reason was the sole criterion that matters in life.

Those days are long, long gone.

Our Betters couldn’t care less about logic and reason, weighting all the evidence and considering all the opinions.

They want you and me to Just Shut Up. Conform Now.

Or be cast from the (ever-shrinking) world of Allowable Respectable Opinion.

Our Superiors are sticking fingers in their ears, because they can’t bear to hear even minority current of dissent.

So fearful they are…

… which hints at how fragile their authority and legitimacy is.

It reminds me of the recent 100% ban on all private media organizations in China. Merely having comprehensive dominance, and the ability of government censors all the private media before they can publish a thing… that kind of power Just Isn’t Enough.

There must be only One Voice that is heard.

Summary: the enemies of reality and reason, unable to adjust to the real world, run into their shells to hide from reality.

These people are part of the past.

Not the future.

The Leader and the Team

From Gary North, Leadership

(The bold is mine)

—<Quote begins>—

When someone accepts a position of leadership, his goal should not be to keep those under his authority in a state of permanent servitude. His goal is to help them increase their productivity. This is especially true in a business. This outlook surely applies to the military, especially on the battlefield. Someone who commands troops wants them to improve their performance on the job. This is how the members of the unit will be able to complete their missions and come back to alive. Squad leaders get promoted when those under their command outperform other units. A leader who cares for his men will do whatever he can to improve their performance. Those under his command will perform better when he masters the skills associated with improving the performance of his unit. They appreciate being part of a unit that has a reputation for being the best.

A leader should care emotionally for those under his authority. He should therefore take care of them. Caring is an aspect of stewardship. It is in addition to trusteeship. There is no way institutionally to enforce caring. Caring is emotional. It is subjective. In contrast, trusteeship is objective. It can be enforced. Conclusion: caring is not an inherent aspect of trusteeship. The categories are separate. A leader who sees himself as a steward—someone who is acting on behalf of his subordinates—wants to see them prosper, however the organization defines and rewards increased individual output. He also wants to see the team prosper. He deals with individuals (the many) and the team (the one). He seeks to promote the success of individuals as a way to promote the success of the team. He acts on behalf of the team’s individuals, but always in the name of the team.

God holds a leader accountable for the guidance of his subordinates. A leader’s institutional superiors hold him accountable for their joint performance as a team. The superiors are interested in the performance of the team. They pay little attention to individual performances.

—<Quote ends>—

It will take some time, for Christians to again decide to lead.

We might as well learn to recognize a good leader now, so when the time comes, we can choose more Davids and fewer Sauls.

Or even better, more Pauls and Moses’.

—<Quote begins>—

The generation of the exodus had Moses, Caleb, and Joshua to inspire them, but the Israelites ignored all three. Their lives were marked by a lack of faith in God’s promises, despite His promise-confirming acts of deliverance. They died in the wilderness because of this lack of faith.

The link between dedication and strong leadership is universal. So is the link between a lack of dedication and second-rate leadership. The most successful modern imitation of Christianity was Marxist Communism. Karl Marx had been a Christian as a teenager, but he abandoned his faith in God at the university. He proclaimed a secular postmillennialism of inevitable world conquest. My friend and colleague F. N. Lee wrote a massive book on this: Communist Eschatology (1974). Communism promised to create a New Man. After the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in October 1917, Communism attracted millions of followers. But, by 1975, the attraction of Communism was fading because faith in world transformation was fading. Communism by then had experienced the routinization of charisma in both Russia and China. Bureaucracies ruled both nations.

Douglas Hyde was a Communist Party leader and newspaper editor in England in the 1930’s and 1940’s. In 1948, he resigned from the Party. He converted to Roman Catholicism. He wrote an autobiography: I Believed (1950). In 1962, he presented a seminar to Catholic priests and nuns on the Communists’ techniques of training leaders. It was published in 1962 as Dedication and Leadership Techniques. In 1966, Notre Dame University Press published an edited version: Dedication and Leadership. Hyde was correct: the two concepts are related. In 1980, I located a rare copy of the original book. I contacted Hyde in 1984. I asked him if I could reprint it. He refused. He wrote back that the international Communist movement was no longer dedicated. It had lost its fire. His book now gave the wrong impression, he said. I published my edited version of the book in 2006, since the copyright had lapsed a decade earlier. My edition appeared 15 years after the Soviet Union committed suicide. It served as an epitaph for Communism.1

[…]

1. You can download it here: bit.ly/HydeTechniques.

—<Quote ends>—

Even if we cannot be leaders, we should provide these materials to our children: they will surely need good leaders.

—<Quote begins>—

Leadership means authority. Authority means responsibility. As people mature, they are supposed to exercise greater self-government. Self-government is the pathway to leadership. People take authority over their actions. This means that they self-consciously become judicially responsible for their actions. There is no biblical way to separate authority from responsibility. This judicial connection is built into the creation. Jesus said: “I say to you that in the day of judgment people will give an account for every idle word they will have said. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:36–37). Therefore, the inescapable price of moving up any hierarchy of authority is greater responsibility and greater risk of negative sanctions.

—<Quote ends>—

Lying… the Smart Way

(A repost from that other blog.)

It’s easy to attack the Empire, in any game and in any era.

But if you assume the existence of Objective Reality – and not all of us do – then you have to draw the line at lies, implied and stated.

The first thing to know, and the, the context of this island is that everyone wanted it. Always. This place is located so perfectly in the Mediterranean at the crossroads of Europe and the Middle East and Northern Africa, that it is so perfectly strategically located. Everyone wanted it.

Everyone wanted it. It was the Persians and Alexander the Great. And then of course, the Romans show ups with their Jesus religion, and do that thing.

“The Romans shows up with their Jesus religion, and do that thing.”

Being an Establishment Man means having a certain way of looking at the world, and sharing certain opinions of certain selected religions.1 In return, there are certain real benefits for being Established: you can be confident that Harris’ videos are in no danger of removal by YouTube for having Inappropriate Opinions that Violate Community Standards.

On the other hand… the Romans would resent being slandered in the manner Harris briefly indulges in. Au contraire, the Romans would insist on sharing the contempt of Harris (and the many who share his social class and station), although they would express it more explicitly.

That is, without the filtering of ~1500 years or so of Christian morality and ethics. An attitude towards life the Marxists would cheerfully demonstrate… or the Progressives, who are more careful about bad optics.

And so this is the climax.. This is actually where the conflict becomes a big deal.

[Newscaster] “1955 saw Sir John Harding as governor and commander in-chief, attempting to reconcile a Greek and Turkish viewpoints, all British proposals, however were rejected and a long period of riots and outrages followed.”

The British realized that these divisions between Turks and Greeks on the island, that they had helped create, were now getting out of control. So they pulled a page out of their old playbook.

[Newscaster] “And a new British plan described as an adventure in partnership.”

The plan was a classic one, to gather in London for a few days, with a few leaders and outside powers and decide for the Cypriots, how their country was going to be run. And that’s what they did. They all sat in the room and they wrote a constitution for Cyprus and Greece and Turkey were like both in the room. And they were like, we know that you sort of want to like join Greece maybe, or maybe you want to have your own country. You’re going to get neither of those. You’re going to be an independent country. And we’re going to create this really clever constitution where the president has to be Greek, but the vice-president has to be Turkish. And there has to be like a certain number of Greeks and Turks. And like they created this like really clever constitution that was going to make everyone happy in theory. And then they’re like, you’re going to be independent. But we, the British get to stay here with our bases and Greece and Turkey get to kind of have power still. Like if something goes awry, like they can swoop in. If they really need to, that was like a caveat to this, this agreement that they made in London. And in 1960, it happened.

There are two ways to lie: the One Big Lie, and the Half-Truth Dance.

This is somewhat smoother version of the Half-Truth Dance. Certainly, the British Imperials tried to play the Wise Leader between the two parties; and certainly, they tried to come up with a really clever solution… that flopped in the end.

But I don’t doubt that they really did intend to have Cyprus remain in peace.

But the real lie was slipped in at the beginning, with the framing of the divisions:

“The British realized that these divisions between Turks and Greeks on the island, that they had helped create…”

We already know – with “the Romans = moronic Jesus religion” – that Harris’s relationship with the truth depends on how it fits the Narrative and today’s political expediency, and not with actual history. Here, he positions the British Empire as the Evil Outsider dividing and fostering hatred between the peaceful natives…

…except, that wasn’t actually the case.

Justin dV
The production and discussion of the Cyprus situation is great quality, but it glosses over the internal actions of the various Cypriot communities.

As an African and post colonialism, there’s more at play than the British once nations gain independence. Political, economical, spiritual leaders are all involved in determining the direction of the country. Makarios was a huge influence, the coup that led to his exile and Turkish military involvement before his return also impacted the situation.

It wasnt just big powers at play but Cypriot, Greek and Turkish, had their own massive involvement.

Mark Axworthy
So, I learnt from this that Britain DIDN’T “rip this island apart”. The British tried ineffectually to keep it together. Why the false headline? The Greek/Turkish divisions predated British rule and post dated it.

jack Gray
Harris delivers decent pieces of journalism, he has his biases but a definite gripe of his is the British. It’s a shame because an otherwise good piece of journalism is stained by a clickbait/ ragebait title. Often times when the British are involved, yes they can be attributed to part of the problem. However I often find it’s a smoke screen used by the current natives to try to gloss over the current racial ethnic hatreds they have towards each other( that still continue today). And that the problem that persists is not one caused by a boogeyman but rather complicated histories and deep ethnic decides that predate the British empire. Blaming the Brits is an easy deflection from the problems a population faces and ignore the nuances that comes with a complicated history and ethnic/religious divides. Like I said a shame Harris has to stoop so low when he comes to a title.

And yet…


thcyprus

First of all, thank you for making a video for my country! Just a few notes:

(1) Ottoman rule was not as you present it exactly. The native Greek/Christian population was discriminated against, had to pay far higher taxes, Greek testimony was not accepted in courts, and in general Greeks/Christians were treated as second category people.

(2) The whole “partition” thing was invented by the British when the majority (Greek) population revolted against them (let me know if you want video evidence from the 50s for this). They applied a divide and rule practice by (a) promising to the Turkish minority gains on the expense of the majority if they collaborated with them, and (b) by arming them and turning them against the majority. This way they turned the Cypriot revolution into a civil war, and this is how they managed to keep 3% of Cyprus under colonial rule. To this day Britain is hell bend in not allowing a proper solution to happen in Cyprus. They want divisive, apartheid kind of arrangements in order to ensure that Cyprus will never have a unified government that can demand the end of British colonialism in Cyprus. This is why they blackmailed the majority of Cypriots to accept the so called “independence” in 1960, and this is why they are hell bend in having as a “solution” something like the “Annan plan”, which would keep Cypriots divided and ad odds with each other, while they continue to use Cyprus unobstructed.

(3) In the 1963 the Greek Cypriot president proposed changes to the constitution which would reduce the vastly disproportional privileges that the British granted to the 18% of Turkish Cypriots, but they would still maintain more powers than nearly every other minority. Turkey rejected this and the Turkish Cypriots initiated a conflict in order to give to Turkey a pretext to invade Cyprus and enforce partition. Their plan was for this to happen in 1964, but their invasion then was stopped by the USA which didn’t want to risk a war between Greece and Turkey.

It’s not that the British Imperialists are the good guys. Far from it.

It’s that the natives have their own agency — gasp! — and are quite willing to fight amongst themselves. This hostility existed FIRST, and THEN the British made (…and make…) use of it, for their own profit.2

A good and righteous judge looks at ALL the pertinent facts.

Not just certain selected useful ones, that fits the power-political-cultural positioning needs of the moment.

GabrielReed
So you’re telling me that some British ministers made an agreement on paper concerning a foreign land ,devoid of cultural considerations and political foresight that led to decades of conflict ? No way…3

It is best to avoid the game of Empire: the costs outweigh the benefits, either slowly or quickly.


1 During the Roman Era, it was natural for power to be its own justification. But today, thanks to a certain ‘repulsive belief system’, you need to paint yourself as a victim, and the enemy as powerful.

Therefore, it is politically useful to paint Christianity as a Roman religion, a claim that conceals a lot more than it reveals.

But a carefully-phrased half-truth was always the best kind of lie.

2I am confident that Soviet intelligence picked up the usefulness of creating a frozen conflict, to insure the political safety of an Imperial military base… especially a naval one.

*cough* Crimea *cough* Ukraine *cough*

“Is Genesis History” Moves to Rumble

First, for Today:

The writing is on the wall for Christian messages on Big Tech platforms like this one. They’re coming after us by censoring, flagging, and even deleting our accounts. The best way to fight back is to go around them, which is why we are excited to announce that we now also have a platform on Rumble! Click the link below to visit our Rumble page, where we will also be posting updates for our upcoming film as well. Make sure you never lose contact with us if and when censorship eventually comes for this channel. CHECK US OUT ON RUMBLE! https://rumble.com/user/isgenesishistory

Time to leave YouTube soon…

I didn’t bother get an account on Rumble for Trump…
… but, I got one to access Is Genesis History.

PRIORITIES.

I recommend that you get one too.
After all, you get some good doses of Samizdat, and get your hands on information the Right Sort truly finds evil and corrupting.

‘Forbidden Knowledge: the Real Deal.’

Second, From Two Thousand Years Ago…

I recommend checking out the ‘Israel Cast Out’ series on Postmillennial Worldview.

First ArticleSecond ArticleThird Article – Fourth Article (unpublished as of Oct 13, 2021)

Gentry is referring to Revelation 11:2, a verse worthy of contemplating on:

“Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.”

But for some reason, my mind goes to a different verse today…

“I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you.

John 16:1-4, English Standard Version

No, I don’t think they will actually kill us, by and large: I doubt if the total body-count will reach a hundred, maybe not even ten, before the System goes down.1

But I can tell you this:

  • the members of the Establishment Censorship Boards — staffed by the Conformist upper classes, as always — are certain of their righteous moral purity, and of their high-and-mighty superiority to the mere Christian believer;
  • Their enmity to God, His Word, and His Authority as Creator, Redeemer, Judge, and King is absolute… and aging, and brittle, and blinding. Inflexible and calcified by old habits and fading dreams.

That’s why they are going down: they are holding back the Future, and the Future is going to shove them aside.

That’s because the Future works for God.


1To the great sorrow of Our Betters, the 1930-1950s are dead and gone. No longer can they behave as they did when they were young and virile, and had the power to do whatever they want, to whoever they want.

Christ’s Kingdom expands.
Whether His enemies want it to, or not.