Media Accusations as Updated Maoism

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!

Advertisements

Keep Hammering!

Joseph Foreman wrote:

Rep Party nullifies the election if Roy wins?
And we’re worried about Russians?
The people’s vote means nothing in what countries?

The Powers that Be understand what a REAL threat is… and then take off the gloves.

On the other hand, the more stronger and the greater the frequency of these systematic, radical challenges are, the more likely that the wall will be shattered.

No matter where you are, or your place in life, KEEP HAMMERING!

Liberals: Naturally Intolerant

[L]iberal intolerance represents not the self-undermining of liberalism, but a fulfillment of its essential nature. When a chrysalis shelters an insect that later bursts forth from it and leaves it shattered, the chrysalis has in fact fulfilled its true and predetermined end. Liberalism of the purportedly tolerant sort is to militant progressivism as the chrysalis is to the hideous insect. — Adrian Vermeule

There is only one God… and liberals despise Him to the very core of their being, as He is insufficiently righteous in their eyes.

“You don’t do what *I* what you to do!” they cry, “And there is no God higher than *ME!*”

While it is right and just to mock the little liberal godlings, it’s important that we don’t inadvertently do the same thing they do. We must elevate the commands of God above conservative, even above libertarian, desires. Always remember:

HE commands.

WE obey.

Praise God, in Christian societies there is no noxious poses of tolerance while endlessly working to proscribe the Wrong Sort of opinions, beliefs, cultures, and lifestyles. This fact, alone, is an excellent reason to drive today’s liberal fools from their positions of power.

Growing a Pair

“The real damage is done by those millions who want to ‘survive.’ The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn.” —  Sophie Scholl, German student and anti-Nazi political activist, active within the White Rose non-violent resistance group in Nazi Germany, executed by guillotine in 1943 at the age of 21.

If safe, suburban, conservative Christian family men ever decide to grow a spine and a pair, they would not go too far wrong if they decide to emulate Miss Sophie Scholl.

Fighting Culturally Approved Evils

From Joseph Foreman

A meme on another thread asked: “if it were legal to kill two year olds would we fight it like we fight abortion?”

Yes. Exactly like we fight abortion or any other culturally accepted evil.

A few radicals like you would fight, but most Christians would not fight the murder of 2 year olds, and for all the same reasons.

Why?

Because, Cultures are accepted ways of doing things that secure the future. Because for a long time it has made sense to do things that way and for whatever reason it seems to work as a solution to what is perceived as a greater problem in the future — it secures our future.

Everyone including Christians, including radical Christians, are acculturated people. Not opposing cultural norms is the simplest way to avoid the sort of conflict that unsettles your future. But, There are culturally acceptable or normal ways to be radical in every culture and oppose those norms.

In the West radicals tend to be nonviolent agitators who disrupt things to get their culture changing message out whether it’s taking a knee during an anthem, marching down a street, blocking a door, or interrupting a public service. Because of the influence of Jesus Christ in the West there are, compared to the East, many more radicals of this sort. In fact our laws have been changed to express tolerance for the radical who might have a different idea of how things should be … the first amendment is an example of this sort of tolerance for prophets whether true or false because it is often hard to tell the difference at first.

In the East, in Africa and the Middle East by contrast their cultures accept comparatively less symbolic radicalism and much more direct warfare terrorism etc. because they tend to kill prophetic disrupters so the radicals tend to view killing as a necessary way to get their message out. Embryonic Jihad does have its simpleminded appeal.

The fact is there only reason we don’t kill 2 year olds is because at this point there is no perceived need to — no perceived connection between killing them and securing our future. If there were, we would kill them.

For most of human history there have been cultures that found the murder of 2year olds a reasonable way to secure the future — infant sacrifice is just that culturally accepted norm. In fact many of the OT anti abortion verses we hammer on are the prophets speaking out against infant sacrifice. Any Phoenician or philistine would be mystified by the Question that started this thread.

To think that you are without culture because you go against the flow is like a fish thinking he must be out of the water simply because he is swimming upstream.

Instead we need to be thinking of how to turn the stream so it’s course follows a path that is true and moral so people would find it “natural” to do what is right.

Culture is simply the broad agreement of a people on what is the “natural” way to do things.

In the case of abortion it makes general sense to solve a problem this way and so secure a good future.

Once the way of abortion is tried those who try it are so horrified by what they have done that they use every psychological coping mechanism to cover their sin including aggressive hatred of light.

The reason the Gospel is the only answer is because God’s forgiveness, no, God’s sacrifice of Himself to pay the price we deserve is the only hope a person has of ever overcoming the true guilt they feel — a guilt to real so great that it is almost impossible to imagine until the murder more foul than any other imaginable has taken place.

Therefore the Gospel is our only hope of transforming the culture to make this form of murder as unthinkable before the fact as it is afterward.

The real problem with the pastors and christians who are regularly complained of in these threads is they do not believe that their Gospel can change the heart and meet the needs of the members of their congregation who have committed the “unforgivable” sin.

But they do know what it is to be chewed up by the lions of a guilty conscience which in their congregations they believe is the arena they face — or refuse to face for the same reason that most christians in Rome figured out a way to stay out of the arenas that had real lions in them.

There are the Christians on the margins — sometimes, the bloody margins — which push the kingdom forward, take the risks and pay the price. Then, there are Christians who don’t: perhaps because they are fighting another way (from praying to arguing), or hiding, or fleeing. All these are possible… and there is also cowardice, or simple unbelief.

To think that you are without culture because you go against the flow is like a fish thinking he must be out of the water simply because he is swimming upstream.

Instead we need to be thinking of how to turn the stream so it’s course follows a path that is true and moral so people would find it “natural” to do what is right.

First, comes the desire to do this: and many Christians simply don’t have the desire to protect the innocent, or pay any price – major, or minor – to make it happen.

If we don’t pay the price, God will exact the price for knowingly and explicitly violating His law in another way: and I am confident that we won’t like it.

It really does comes down to

  • repentance (and the death of our wickedness, sin, and self-worship) or
  • death (in time and on earth, as well as eternally):

and if we think that somehow we can enjoy the fruits of a demonic culture and not pay the price for it — along with those who more openly support evil — then we have another thing coming.

More than one society went on with its evil until it was suddenly smashed beyond repair. It is an unpleasant experience, even if you yourself are one of the redeemed.

Genocide, Step by Step

Why did the Nazis hate Jewish people to the point of committing genocide?

Larry Rogak, I am a trial attorney with a degree in philosophy. I’m also a comedy writer.

The Jewish Holocaust didn’t exactly happen because of “hate.” That would imply that the Nazis planned all along to exterminate the Jews. The genocide of the Jews was the end result of a gradual process. It’s a long story but it can be summarized in this way:

The Germans had a long history of feeling that the Jews were “different” from them (partly because of the writings of Martin Luther). Along with this was the concept that the Jews caused “bad luck” (“The Jews are our misfortune” was a Nazi slogan). Hitler, with his obsession with German “racial purity” (which didn’t actually exist because there is no “pure” German race), believed that the presence of Jews diluted and weakened “German blood” (especially in the case of Jewish-German marriages). Hitler also blamed the Jews for Germany’s loss of World War I: he believed (wrongly) that German Jews did not support Germany’s war effort.

Once Hitler took power, he strove to “separate” Jews from Germany’s business and social life: this led to outlawing Jews from holding civil service jobs and jobs in journalism, teaching and the arts. Boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses were encouraged by the Nazis. Big corporations were pressured to expel Jews from management positions; the Nazis forced some Jewish-owned businesses, like newspapers, to sell out to the Nazis for pennies on the dollar.

The Nazis emphasized to the German people that in order for them to “unify,” one of the things they needed to do was to get rid of the unwanted elements of German society: Communists, anti-social types (vagrants, drunks, the mentally ill), and especially Jews. Why “especially” the Jews? Because the Germans believed that the Jews had an almost supernatural power to undermine society. While this sounds crazy, the average German believed it.

As the Jews became socially isolated, the Nazis sought to deport them so that Germany would be “just us,” a term the Nazis used a lot. But deporting Germany’s 300,000 Jews was not easy; very few countries were willing to take any Jews, and those that did, like the USA, would not accept many.

While most Germans agreed generally that the Jews were a “problem,” every German knew at least one Jew who was an “exception,” and the Nazis were inundated with requests from “loyal” Nazis to leave their favorite Jew alone. Josef Goebbels complained about this in his diary, which was found after the war.

There were also certain Jews who had some limited degree of protection, particularly those who were married to Germans, and decorated veterans from the first World War. However, even the veterans were eventually shipped to concentration camps (during WWII), and Jews in “privileged marriages” lost their protection if their German spouse died or divorced them.

The Nazi government was not sure how much persecution of the Jews the German public would accept, so the Nazis took gradual steps. In each case, the German people surprised the Nazis by how willing they were to turn on their former friends and neighbors who were Jewish. And this willingness encouraged the Nazis to take further steps.

09 November 1938 was a turning point. On 7 November 1938, a Jewish teenager living in Paris shot a German diplomat as revenge against the German government for deporting his parents from Hanover, Germany into Poland. The diplomat died two days later. Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, seized on the opportunity to whip up the German people into a violent collective punishment against German Jews. A long night of murder, arson, and the destruction of Jewish businesses, homes and synagogues ensued, and became known as “Kristallnacht” (“night of broken glass”). The Nazis forbade policemen to protect Jews and their property.

Although many Germans were offended by this night of wild vandalism and arson, they curiously felt that the Jews had brought it on themselves; that they deserved it. And when Hitler and his top cronies saw that neither the German people nor the Western nations would do anything about it, this emboldened them to step up their persecution of the Jews.

But it was not until after the Germans started WWII in September 1939 that Hitler saw new options in regard to the Jews. After Poland was quickly defeated, that country was used as a “dumping ground” for Germany’s remaining Jews (those who had not left voluntarily or been previously deported). “Dumping” the Jews into Poland also meant isolating them into ghettos where not enough food would be permitted to keep all the Jews alive. Still, throughout 1940, murders of Jews by Nazis were not part of a grand scheme.

It was only when Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 that the concept of mass extermination of the Jews developed into government policy. The war, with its mass killing of Russians and “partisans” (civilians fighting against the Nazis), provided extra “cover” for mass killings of Jews. The Nazis “sold” the idea of killing Jewish civilians to the Army on the grounds that Jews were a “security risk.”

Mass murder of entire villages full of Jews began with the adult men. The Nazis were concerned about how their own soldiers would react. It took some adjusting on their part. But once they ‘got used to it,’ Jewish women and children were included as well. The Nazis went from one Polish, Ukrainian and Russian village to the next, rounded up the Jews, and shot them.

Killing millions of people is more difficult than the Nazis initially believed. Many German soldiers suffered physical and mental problems caused by killing unarmed civilians, especially children. So ways were sought to reduce the exposure of German soldiers to the Jews they were killing.

“Gas vans” were invented that fed the exhaust into the back of the van. Jews were loaded into the vans and were driven around until they died from suffocation. But the vans held only about 30 people at a time — not an efficient way to kill millions.

Eventually the idea came up to build large, stationary gas chambers, and bring the Jews to them. A chemical disinfectant marketed as Zyklon B — crystallized prussic acid — also known as cyanide — was put into use at Auschwitz. Other killing centers such as Treblinka used the exhaust from diesel engines.

The general German public knew that the Jews had been taken from their midst, but they didn’t know exactly what happened to them. Rumors, however, were all over the place. German soldiers wrote letters home, and some even sent photos, about the massacres of the Jews. Most Germans, however, preferred not to think about it. They themselves were suffering from Allied bombings of their homes and places of work.

So this is how the Holocaust happened: gradually, in phases, beginning with the sense that Germany would be a happier, healthier place if it belonged exclusively to Germans, and if the Jews, who caused bad luck, were someplace else.

If Christians are going to be peacekeepers… if they are going to protect life, and not destroy it… they will have to know what signs to look for. What to avoid. What to stand against.

It helps to have a belief system that is against standing armies, police forces, all-powerful governments, and spying agencies that desire omniscience, what only God can rightfully claim.

A belief system that rejects the State and the Elites’ claim to determine law for all, and claims the right to take and do whatsoever they please. Regardless of their religion, or lack thereof.

Yay, Calvinism…
A respectful nod to Libertarians…
Three cheers for Localism/small governments…
(small in power, in taxation authority, and in territory)
And a dismissive flick of the wrist to Secularism…