Again, from Joseph Foreman
There is a lot of soul searching and “ethical honesty” as people look at Trump and now Roy Moore’s apparent sins.
This is why I will never concede a word of agreement with their accusers:
When Mao took over China the Red Guard in every hamlet, middlesex, village , and farm and metropolis met individually with every Chinese comrade in the New China. They interrogated them around the clock until they had a signed confession from every Chinese person. They confessed to plots to assassinate Mao, to being part of their neighborhood plot to assassinate the police and governor of their province or town. They incriminated themselves and everyone they could think of before the interrogations were through. Absurd stuff?
My father was held prisoner by these men and listened to these interrogations going on night and day and spent a good chunk of his time in the same interrogation process — which served as intensive training in the nuances of the local idiom and accent as well as the idiom of actual Maoist-Leninist-Marxist applied doctrine. I’ll be narrating his book “Red Man” analyzing in the words of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao exactly what their doctrine is and how it is applied.
You ask, “how could they get them to confess to such outrageous things without torture?”
Easily. Just get them exhausted after 12 hours to agree to the most ridiculous little thing that might even be true along the lines of, “I didn’t wash my hands this morning and my failure in hygiene threatens the health and well-being of the people’s health.” They would make a dozen or so of these little confessions, most of them true, then stretch them and within an hour they would confess to every evil thing, attempts to assassinate leaders, murder neighbors, affairs with their neighbor’s children, unthinkable stuff.
It is where he learned presuppositional apologetics — the principle of antithesis — and it saved his life. I learned apologetics from him. By the time I read Van Til years later I had already learned most of it from a man whose life depended on it rather than just his career.
With Christians they would start with simple things that are theologically true. Then things that were arguable, then things that were false. Once the agreement began it continued in a flood. He once remarked that he was surprised to discover that sometimes even something as true as, “Jesus is God!” is a lie in the mouth of these men. To agree with the Devil on anything is to discover that you have not found common ground but that you have agree to the precise opposite of what you thought.
God give us wisdom.
After that, if the authorities had political enemies, or just a need to remind people who jerks their chain, they would march someone, often completely innocent so no one would feel safe, through town with signs of their written confession held on poles over their heads. The people would fill up the courtyard where my father was held, outside his window actually, they would ask the people what such traitors deserved. The people would shout death death death. If they didn’t shout loud enough the Red Guard would take someone from the crowd who “clearly was a co-conspirator” with the doomed man or woman. Everyone would shout with more enthusiasm, they would kneel the “confessed killers” down and blow their brains out on the ground to fulfill the righteous demand of the people.
No! when an epistemologically self-conscious leftist — as our media is becoming — asks you to agree on anything including theology, including the moral failings of someone who is smiting them hip and thigh, the answer is, “there is literally nothing which you say which is true enough to agree on because you will only use the truth — ethical truth, theological truth, legal truth, factual truth to prove a greater lie.”
So how do you not deny Christ? Do you say, “Jesus is not God?”
Instead say, “I will not agree with you, but I will tell you that Jesus is God and He is coming to judge all who reject his rule.”
So they say, “See you agree with us?” I agree that, “If Jesus is declared God with out you declaring submission to him, then you have not declared anything I agree with.” if they will not accept the 2nd half of the statement their statement of the first half is false. (This is just an example of the logic of disagreement, not a real life conversation. Don’t let it sidetrack the point.)
Back to the issue before us, accusations against anyone the media believes to be conservative:
Refuse to give an inch of agreement to anyone they accuse without a trial. Then, if guilty, you don’t agree with the accusers, you agree with the trial.
The first thing these people do when they have power is deny a fair trial.Just the think of all the fair trials you have seen in the teeth of political correctness? It doesn’t get any better when they are in power creating their utopia with a chainsaw.
So don’t start appeasing their lies today by joining their discussion and putting on social trial anyone they accuse without a real trial. That is all part of where they are going. And by these petty agreements they draft you to pull their load closer to the edge.
By the time you discover that I am right — if you will not take my word for it — they will have come for you and your children whom you have set up for them to take.
Never let these people come for any person or idea or fact that you believe is important even when agreement with them seems obvious. Its as obvious to you as the worm on a hook is obviously good food to a fish.
We do not agree with the United Snakes of American Media on any point.
The mainstream media are, indeed, self-consciously enemies of Christ, and therefore of Christians. And therefore of reality itself: as is bound to happen, when you despise the Author of reality.
But their strength withers, and their flowers fade. This isn’t 1930s Russia, or 1960s China. Living out some half-wit re-enactment of the past is a sign of failure and sterility, not vigour and power. Pretending that there are only four TV channels, all radio is State Radio, and that the Internet doesn’t exist is a sign of delusion, a fever dream of a fading ideology.
It reminds me of a not-so-distantly related development, the cancellation of the atheistic 2018 Global Atheist convention, Reason for Hope:
Apparently, Ayaan Hirsi Ali pulled out. Richard Dawkins and Salman Rushdie were expected, as were other atheist luminaries.
The cited reason was poor ticket sales.
Poor ticket sales don’t just happen. Is it possible that the public is just plain losing interest in “bad boy” atheism, whether it is represented by profane Darwinian bloggers or high class hatemongers (religion as a “virus of the mind,” etc.)?
Apart from professional obligations, who cares to argue with these people? The natural instinct of a sensible person is to, paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, suddenly recollect a subsequent engagement and, as inconspicuously as possible, find another table…
A dying power flails about, pushing the right sort of hate speech, imitating though control strategies fit for the 1960s.
Leave the dead to rot.
Stand with the Living God. Obey Him, grow His Kingdom, and enjoy the fruits of victory. Bless and nurture the firstfruits in the here and now, reap the full harvest in the coming decades, and exult God as He grants to you the great rewards of eternal life with Him!