John Dickson: Hugh “…Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised.”

It’s blindingly foolish to claim that Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, and Jesus are different.

For anyone who missed the easily understood story: Jesus is Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus is God, period.

Yet it’s become “a thing” to talk about how Jesus wants us to be compassionate to one another which is really a way of saying “Hey Christian, shut your mouth about God and truth but open your wallet and pay to fix all the problems that godless people have created.”

No surprises but that sounds a heck of a lot like Communism. If you can’t see it though, don’t strain yourself.

Frankly, either you quote Jesus on God’s judgment on the godless and the establishment of his rule over the nations or you don’t get to quote him.

You can’t ignore the topics Jesus speaks predominantly on – like judgment on the Godless, the lake of fire, the coming kingdom of God where Jesus rules the nations – in favour of the ones that atheistic Marxisxs accept to further their dominance in Western society.

Nonetheless, on a regular basis someone who totally rejects the biblical scriptures and Jesus own testimony of who he is will come out and attempt to tell all of us exactly why Jesus only cares about social justice issues and how to treat people.

Welcome to the May 2016 edition of that farce.

For good measure, here is a great response to said farce:

To suggest Jesus never told anyone what to believe in is not only historically wrong, it misses the essential connection between what we believe and how we treat others, writes John Dickson.

At the Sydney Writers’ Festival yesterday, the much loved social commentator and author of The Good Life and Beyond Belief Hugh Mackay opined about the teacher at the root of Western ethics: “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

My colleagues in the room – experts on this stuff – raised an eyebrow. The festival social media department thought the remark worthy of an immediate verbatim tweet.

Who knows whether Mackay’s words were a throwaway line or studied aphorism. But they are inaccurate in the extreme, both as a religious statement and as a historical one. Mackay may come from the modern school of thought that says that religion is not really a proper field of study. Anyone is therefore allowed a firm view without reference to “experts”. I mean, how can someone be an expert in something that doesn’t exist? And so on.

But forget religion. What about history? What do our first-century texts say Jesus said? I’ll spare you the long list, but what struck me once I gave this five minutes’ thought is the way almost all of the paradigmatic statements in the Gospels urge beliefs as the logical basis of ethics.

The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel opens with the words, “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The most famous sermon of Jesus, in other words, begins with a reminder that he is not just looking for moral riches but a humble recognition of our moral poverty as the key that unlocks the door to God’s kingdom. There’s a bit of belief in there.

Or consider the opening words of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel: “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel”. There’s that pesky “kingdom” stuff again, and a call to believe it all – as “gospel”.

Luke’s Gospel is often thought to contain the most “ethical Jesus”, with loads and loads of material about caring for the poor, being a Good Samaritan, and all that. The opening manifesto of Jesus in Luke declares, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners … to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” As so often in the Gospels, God’s grace and favour are the drivers of the grace and favour we are meant to show others.

What about the fourth Gospel? John has Jesus sum up the work of God in this way: Jesus says, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

It’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit.

Of course, a sceptic like Hugh Mackay might reply that these key passages represent the opinions of the Gospel writers not Jesus. Jesus, he might suggest, is authentically heard only in the humanitarian stuff about “loving enemies” and “turning the other cheek”. But maybe it’s the other way around. Perhaps the real Jesus only ever banged on about believing theological stuff, and it was the Gospel writers who invented the ethical material Mackay prefers. That’s the point: Mackay is just picking and choosing.

In truth, neither caricature is likely. Everywhere you look, Jesus appears to have endorsed the old-fashioned idea which Mackay wants us to abandon: namely, that what you believe about ultimate things impacts how you think you should treat others.

Two further examples bear this out clearly. When asked by an expert in the Jewish tradition, “Which is the greatest commandment?” Jesus replied that there were actually two great commands: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it: love your neighbour as yourself.” Like it or not, Jesus probably thought the religious hypocrite was in exactly the same position as the moral agnostic. The former cares for God but ignores people; the latter cares for people but ignores the source of all reality. Jesus would have condemned both.

And when Jesus himself summarised all his beautiful sayings about “love your enemies”, “do good to those who hate you”, and “turn the other cheek”, he concluded the speech with, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” Here we find the inner logic of all that Jesus taught about ethics: it is precisely because mercy is at the heart of God that it is also the central ethical principle of the universe.

I am almost tempted to say that Jesus never taught people “how to treat each other” without grounding it in stuff we are “meant to believe” about ultimate things, including God and his kingdom.

Read charitably, Hugh Mackay is trying to open up an important discussion about the role of “beliefs” – or fundamental convictions – in shaping ethics. Jesus is a bad example to use, but I agree it’s a vital public conversation to have.

Personally, I reckon Mackay’s godly-but-godless-ethic is really just a relic of the Judeo-Christian culture in which he, like most of us, was raised. It seems obvious to him that we should be humble, love our enemies, and show compassion to the destitute. But, historically, these things were connected with religious ideas in the West about the inestimable value of human beings made in God’s image, the love and mercy of God for all, and so on. These particular morals – humility, love, etc – played no role in the ethics of Greece and Rome for the simple reason that Greeks and Romans did not believe that everyone was made in God’s image or that God loved everyone the same. Their different beliefs led to different moral emphases.

I would love to see a genuine debate about whether one can logically justify an ethic of love, humility, and compassion – things Mackay admires so much – without appealing to the “kingdom of heaven” Jesus spoke so much about. I don’t think we can. I think it’s only a matter of time before a society which rejects the love of God realises that loving everyone, including enemies, is merely a cultural-historical habit rather than a logical match between fundamental realities and human ethics. I could be wrong, but it’s a debate that needs to be had. And if we’re going to have it, important public intellectuals like Hugh Mackay need to do better than give us quotable memes like “Jesus never told anyone what to believe in. He only spoke about how to treat each other.”

Mackay’s sad hope will not comfort him or anyone else when Jesus is established on the throne of the nations and executes long deserved judgment on everyone who refuses to belief exactly what the Truth proclaims is truth.

Do yourself a favour and get to know Jesus for yourself – he cares infinitely more about your future than Hugh Mackay does.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/dickinson-can-we-love-our-enemies-in-a-godless-world/7433288

Hedonists And Atheists Are Happy To Acknowledge That Game Of Thrones Turns Them On Sexually And Encourages Them To Fantasize, Porn Use Actually Decreases On The Nights That The Show Airs, And Yet An Increasing Number Of Christians Insist They Have The “Spiritual Maturity” To Watch It’s Graphic Sex Scenes And Gratuitous Nudity With An Immune Stoicism

I know a bunch of Christians who watch the show and try to justify it in a bunch of different ways – the depths to which they sink is terrifying.

“It’s a great story, it’s unconventional story-telling, it’s full of morally complex-characters, it shows us our need for redemption, it exposes us to the darkness of humanity, it’s got really great art design, yada yada, blah blah.”

One particularly clever saying shifts the spotlight over the violence, as though that somehow justifies it:

“Oh, yes I do find some of the sex and nudity shocking…but the violence is also shocking.”

Nice try.

How about these Christians explain to us how watching packet corn syrup splatter and plaster cast heads drop off fills them with the same dread and horror as scoping out some young, buxom bosom?

Yeah, recovering from that shock must be really tough – you got my deepest sympathy, bro!

I was addicted to pornography for a good decade of my life so I know porn when when I hear about it. I also read the books way back when I was addicted to porn and I longed for a movie version of it because, hey, it would be violent and full of sex and nudity – a lot like porn which, if you have a minimalist moral compass (and boy did I), sounds fantastic! 

I write this to make the point that if a Christian is going to try and justify their immoral lifestyle choices that completely contradict the biblical scriptures and the historical teachings of the church regarding sexuality, they have your work cut out.

But try they do.

The “spiritually mature” argument is a great one – it essentially gives you the licence to do, well, anything you can think of and make an appeal to the liberty we have in Christ.

They even deceive themselves so far as to apply Romans 14 to justify themselves. Let’s recap:

“One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Romans‬ ‭14:2-6‬ ‭ESV‬‬

I suppose Paul, the apostle appointed by Jesus Messiah himself to reach the Gentiles with the proclamation of God’s coming kingdom, could have meant that people who abstain from watching pornographic sex scenes are weak!

Sure, Paul may have intended that if you are fully convinced in your own mind that watching all those bouncing breasts and vivacious vaginas, then watch away in honour of the Lord!

Then again, Paul did earlier write:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” Romans‬ ‭1:22-25‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Perhaps the worship of images Paul refers to extends to the pornographic ones on the television screen?!

Indeed, Jesus does set people free but in case the point needed emphasis, he doesn’t do it so you can watch Game of Thrones and pretend that watching naked women feigning  orgasm has no effect on you. 

It’s like watching porn and claiming it has no effect on you. Seriously?!

Anyone Christian who disagrees is welcome to demonstarte their conviction by sending me naked pictures artistic portrayals of their wives or girlfriends, or if they are a woman, themselves. After all, there is a beauty in nude “art” that us spiritually mature can handle.

Anyway, about the following article: I loathe to publish something supportive of Game of Thrones but if it exposes the self-serving lies of Christians who promote any show with sex and nudity as permissible before God, then the words of your enemies can actually point people to the truth about God. 

PornHub data shows the sexually-charged and barbaric (but totally awesome) program is so good at fulfilling our sexual needs, the nights it airs leads to a drop in porn consumption.

And for those not getting their fill during airtime, search words “Game of Thrones” increase on the porn site that evening — by a whopping 370 per cent, in fact.

So statistically we know the show turns us on — but anecdotally it’s also liberating our conversations around sex.

What’s a bit of incest between siblings? 

Gone are the days where my friends and I were timid about sharing our sexual fantasies. Now my colleagues are leaning over the partition to tell me watching Games of Thrones with a beau is the perfect “warm-up” to an evening filled with sexual delight.

The night is dark and full of pleasure, indeed.

We’re also sharing what gets us off and there’s no holding back on the fact that a bit of disturbing television romance may be helping in that department. Yeah, we might not want to invite Joffrey and his thirst for pain into our bedroom, but we’re no longer afraid to say we enjoy watching it.

And it’s not just medieval style-sadism that is rocking our world — “softer” pornography like Fifty Shades of Grey has women changing their porn habits also. Early last year PornHub reported a 219 per cent increase in searches conducted by women for the word “submission” in the days after the premiere of Fifty Shades of Grey.

Searches for “dominate” and “spanking” were also on the up.

The release of the film version of Fifty Shades of Grey last year saw a dramatic shift in the porn searches conducted by women. 

Rewind more than a decade and it was Sex in the City loosening up women’s dialogue about men and dating. All of the characters talked opening about orgasms, regularly faced dilemmas such as Carrie’s politician boyfriend asking her to pee on him, and sleeping with as many men as they pleased was A-OK.

But women are now well past being comfortable talking about what brand of vibrator we use — we want next level in a space we feel at ease sharing and GoT airing on primetime is giving that to us.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/how-game-of-thrones-made-porn-socially-acceptable/news-story/40b149ce4b39cf4756719fd00413c49f

Joel Richardson’s The Global Jesus Revolution: The Church Must Embrace Prayer And Missions, Target Muslims As Largest Unevangelized People Group

Joel Richardson is one of the most important voices in understanding the role of Islam in biblical eschatology. Richardson has outlined this relationship in numerous books including Islamic Antichrist, Mideast Beast, and When A Jew Rules The World. 

Most recently, his documentary End Times Eyewitness reviewed this idea from the midst of the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East over the past few years.

Now, Richardson has released the follow up documentary The Global Jesus Revolution, which focuses on how the Church in the West needs to respond to the increasing troubles we see across the world, especially in the Middle East.

In a recent episode of The Underground, Richardson discusses these issues and the roadmap forward for Christians:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Times-Eyewitness-Joel-Richardson/dp/1938067517

The True Political Spectrum: Washing Away The Deceptive Left-Wing, Right-Wing Terminology In Favour Of The Reality That Either You Are Free From Government Or You Are Oppressed By Government

In this age, society will always be imperfect at best.

Jesus has not yet assumed his position as King of the nations and consequently there will never be a perfect political and economic system

But let’s remember that we do have a choice about just how bad things can get.

After all, would you prefer the Third Reich and Communism or something a little more freeing?

People literally chose both of those and look how it ended.

Because this is a fallen world, the natural tendency is always towards corruption and the misuse of power. If something good is established in the political and economic realms, it wasn’t achieved without the hard work of people fighting against authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies. 

In essence, someone realised that humanity were made to be free and they fought against those who sought to subdue that freedom in the name of whatever oppressive ideology was popular at the time.

And guess what: nothing has changed!

The contemporary West is in many regards the most successful society ever and most of that can be attributed to the esteemed value of the individual.

Sadly, we are in a significant upheaval where much of what has been gained is currently been stripped away by the corrupt leaders elected by ignorant “useful idiots” who don’t understand their history and consequently cannot see the oppressive future they are ushering in of their own free volition.

As always these days, an understanding of the true political spectrum (ie not the left-right lie where of your two party options, one is always left and one is always right) is absolutely necessary to avoid falling trap to the deceptive language employed by politicians who seek ever more power over society.

The below article from Mr E at Rocking Philosophy is asimple yet astute breakdown of the political into an accurate and useable form: namely the relationship between the size and power of government versus the freedom of the individual.

I find his ending statements the most fascinating as Mr E, an atheist, expresses his desire for a world “where individuals have total autonomy and collectives can only ever be voluntary”. 

If you know anything about the God of the bible, this is exactly what is promised therein.

Don’t get sidetracked with supposed Christian empire in history that committed evil acts or scandals involving the church and paedophilia. I’m not talking about Christians who fail to be like Christ, or in plenty of cases, people who only claimed the name of “Christian” – I’m referring to what God says the church is and will be perfectly when Jesus rules over the nations as King.

Humanity will be perfectly free, from sin and even death, (with “free” meaning free to love, not free to act selfishly and dangerously) and the church is by default a collective that you can only become part of by your free will, otherwise known as voluntary.

Indeed, this is why we choose freely to become Christians – because our sin is killing us and we want to be made like Jesus, so wing God freely promises to all those who say yes to him.

The True Political Spectrum

Having made a video about the left-right paradigm I feel the yearning to further expound on a more accurate representation of what the left and right truly are. I’ve been researching the concept of the political spectrum for quite some time, and the political compass appears to be the most widely used:

I can no longer accept the accuracy of this chart, since collectivists are always authoritarian to some degree. They restrict individual liberty, and define rights via collective approval. This is the epitome of totalitarianism, brushing aside individuals for collective goals. This is not only oppressive to the individual, but also leads to problems like regulatory capture. Where would the ‘too big to fail’ bankers be today without state funded bailouts, bad debts passed onto the people via money printing and inflation?

Some might argue that if the banks failed then there would have been chaos. This is the fault of policies allowing a small number to dictate economic activity, and tilt this in their favour. The ‘too big to fail’ bankers didn’t care

about losses because they knew that central banks were there to insure them in the event of failure. There is no way to prevent this sort of monopoly under collectivism, since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore it’s better to have a system where mistakes cannot be accommodated for with bailouts and ponzi schemes.

Before a more accurate diagram of the present political spectrum can be given it’s important to be aware of what democracy truly is. Democracy is a collectivist ideology that defines rights via the ballot box. This is the same throughout the democratic world. True, there is a far stronger Lockean inspired culture of individualism in the United States, but still democracy has the same problems wherever one goes, and it’s worked wonders for the expansion of socialism. It saddens me that two world wars were fought in the 20th century, and still socialism could not be kept at bay. While fascism, which is simply National Socialism, has been denigrated as the true face of evil, the same cannot be said for international socialism, otherwise known as communism.

If by now you need to be told that Hitler, fascism, and Nazism, are all socialist ideologies driven by state protectionism and nationalism, then the chances are you’re a communist, or an admirer of Marx. There’s always the strong possibility you swallowed the blue pill of government education that teaches people that the Nazis were far-right, even though they controlled the means of production via state regulated corporations, and restricted property rights. If you need any of this confirmed then I have already made videos called “National & International Socialism” and “Nazis Vs Marxists”.

Nothing seems to make a Marxist and a communist angrier than the unrevised fact that fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. Fascism obsesses over race, while communism endlessly deals with class, but both demand adherence to authority. Hence they are both totalitarian. These two great evils have fought for dominance throughout the 20th century, and today we have a society where democracy is a perpetual battle for control of production and property rights via either the fascist or communist models.

Corporatism itself is a fascist ideology, where the means of production is manipulated by regulation defined by the state. The differences between this and communist control of production is something communists will contest ad nauseum. But they are semantical issues that ignore the fact that corporations could never exist without state policies of corporate personhood. Under laissez-faire, corporations would just be businesses, like any other. The state however benefits from corporations collecting taxes and controlling society on the behalf of bureaucrats, like feudal lords herding peasants on farmlands under feudalism.

With all this in mind we can now begin to see that we only live in one half of a paradigm made up of collectivism and individualism. Presently we live entirely within the collectivist half, where international socialism and National Socialism reside. Here is what this looks like:

It may seem very unfair to label conservatives as fascists, but this only occurs because the right-wing political choice under democracy is merely a corporatist and nationalistic alternative. Conservatism as an ideology is predominantly based around questioning change, since change may not necessarily lead to good things. Therefore I am not inclined to believe by any stretch of the imagination that conservatives are fascists per se. Admittedly they are more authoritarian than many libertarians. But they are always looking to create a society of personal accountability and minimal statism, which is far more than can be said for any socialist, obsessed with absolute control of society.

Conservatives are often associated with organised religion. Organised religion can be very problematic when it merges with the state. This is called theocracy, and is just another form of collectivism. It is not however compulsory to be religious if you are a conservative, and many conservatives are atheists. Having cleared this up it’s much easier to understand why modern right-wing parties have been lumbered in with fascists, due to their big government military spending and corporate welfare policies. Saying that, the term “far-right” is a smokescreen, since fascists are only far-right collectivists, not far right on a broader political spectrum, which looks like this:

Here the totalitarian ideologies, be it national or international socialism, are on the far left. As we progress to the right we pass all ideologies that demand adherence to the state, like democratic political parties. The middle is obviously the centrist position, though I would call this sitting on the fence. The first position to the right is libertarianism. Modern ‘purist’ libertarians believe in a state that only comprises of military, courts, and police, protecting natural rights instead of defining them (note: left-libertarians are merely communists, using dialectic to reframe terminology). This shows why libertarians are on the right, since they actively work towards a limited state, and democracy would not be a legitimate method to infringe upon the natural rights of the individual. These ideas are defined by such philosophers as John Locke, Ayn Rand, and of course the Austrian economists.

The far-right position is stateless anarchy. In a world of anarchy the individual is sovereign. Appeals to consequences galore are usually the opposition to a stateless world, but at the very least it’s possible to grasp that the interpretation of the political spectrum in this case is totalitarianism on one end, where individuals have no rights without collective approval, and anarchy on the other, where individuals have total autonomy and collectives can only ever be voluntary. Perhaps some day we can live in this world, but for now even libertarianism would be a positive result for individualists, and a perfect transitory step for the evolution of human society to voluntaryism. It seems to me that the history of mankind is the battle for individual autonomy over the collective, and I for one aim to help this cause.

http://www.rockingphilosophy.com/2012/08/the-true-political-spectrum.html

A New Authoritarianism

As any religion has its creeds, so too does Progressivism.

A new authoritarianism has descended. There now seems to be a list of official beliefs we are allowed to hold and no others; decided for us by the new establishment that has taken hold in government and the media, especially but not only in Fairfax, the ABC and SBS where there is now a uniformly censorious tone that colours everything. The very idea that you might hold a different opinion from the approved one is, to use the word that is now creeping into our discourse, ‘unacceptable’ and if you dare express it, what you get in reply is not a counter argument but a demand for an apology, the more humiliating and grovelling the better. You will also be forced to resign from whatever post you occupy. And behind the threats and intimidation lurks the spectre of the thought police to enforce the approved view of what is acceptable and what is not. The advocate of unapproved views these days is simply bludgeoned into submission. It is unacceptable that you might have a different opinion from the establishment on climate change, same-sex marriage, adoption by same sex couples, illegal refugees, abortion, the republic, the family, the sexual agenda in schools, foreign aid, religious freedom, government spending, freedom of speech, Israel, Islam and any proposal for changing the constitution. As views other than the official ones are unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that you should be allowed to express them. Indeed, you run a terrible risk these days, not that you will have to defend your case on its merits, but that you will be branded as a social leper, shunned, stopped from holding a public meeting or setting foot inside a university, blacklisted, abused and ridiculed simply because you hold a personal view different from the official one that has been sanctified by the new establishment. Were Voltaire alive he would find it easier to say: ‘I disagree with everything you say and will fight to the death to stop you saying it.’ The new authoritarianism has found a very fertile field in the denigration of Tony Abbott which has now reached an hysterical crescendo. He represents a separate strain of opinion from the mush that passes for policy in the Liberal party today and consequently must be stopped and silenced, not by logic, but by ridicule and abuse. He was probably doomed from the start by putting forward the uncomfortable truth in the 2014 budget that the country was living beyond its means and that surgery was needed before we went bankrupt. Given that the new establishment depends on government spending and handouts, it was inevitable that the budget would be unacceptable and Abbott with it. But by that time, it was known Abbott also had a real commitment to socially conservative positions that bind the society together, contributing to its stability. So he was doubly cursed and totally unacceptable. As the Age put it (before the staff went on strike and Fairfax shares went up), Abbott could not be allowed to stay in office and had to be ‘checked’. Eventually this led to his removal, but now, he has to be silenced, his legacy degraded and, if that does not work, forced to leave the parliament altogether. The most egregious example of this practice is the recent attempt by the PM to belittle his predecessor’s achievement in stopping the boats bringing illegal migrants into this country. Turnbull’s argument is that the boats were stopped, not under Abbott, but Howard. For Turnbull, the crazy excesses of Rudd/Gillard that allowed people smugglers back into business and Tony Abbott’s successful response just did not happen. This is little better than the whiting-out of any inconvenient facts by Turnbull that might diminish his own wondrous lustre. Worse, you would think that Turnbull would have at least an ounce of feeling that here was a policy of which Abbott was justly proud and would allow him this one tick of approval. But no, the zeitgeist is that Abbott and all his works are bad and Turnbull has to deliver the cruellest cut of all. Abbott’s supporters, guilty of the unacceptable sin of loyalty, are now condemned and abused as malcontents, subversives and troglodytes; forget about the arguments, just abuse the advocate. I hope they speak out more, because they contribute to the robust debate of ideas, whether you like their opinions or not. Then we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Party itself promoting the line that Abbott should not stand again for election, campaign in the election, speak at conferences or even write articles. You would think that any political party with a former leader who had brought it back from disintegration and got it into government would show gratitude, welcome his experience and invite him to contribute to the debate. Instead, we see a party, now with no sense of tradition or respect, full of midgets who sold their souls for the exalted post of assistant minister or parliamentary secretary, and wailing like a Greek chorus, trying to destroy him. No-one seems prepared to say it, but such an attitude is mean, ungenerous and, above all, foolish, for it cuts the party off from the conservative point of view that Abbott represents and many people want to see promoted. Worse still, it shows how the new authoritarianism is eating away at the free exchange of ideas that used to be one of the Liberal party’s – and the country’s – great strengths.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/brown-study-139/

The Problem Of The Fragmented Political Right

Great essay.

Why the political right is so fragmented

by MC

The genuine conservative political right is defunct. It no longer exists as a separate entity and is now securely blocked in with the fantasy ‘Nazi’ ‘far right’.

The leftist/collectivist policy of denigrate, divide and destroy has worked beautifully, no doubt assisted by fifth-columnists well able to hide amongst the tolerant liberalism (small L) of conservative (small C) opinion.

The US Republican establishment is now left of centre. With the exception of the Reagan years, it has been drifting steadily leftwards, totally out of contact with grass-roots conservatism. In fact, the modern GOP does not hide its contempt for its supposed conservative roots.

The British ‘Conservative’ Party is a bit of a far-left-of-centre joke. For sick political expediency it has killed justice and allowed a multi-tier system of ‘race/Islamophobia/social cohesion’-driven legal exceptions to prevail. We now have one law for Muslims and their patrons, another law for the man in the street, and a third more draconian law for those who wish to express their freedom, liberty and/or right of free speech. The Conservatives have particularly allowed freedom of speech to become encrusted with so-called ‘hate’ legislation where hate is an ill-defined term, randomly applied and seemingly related to causing offense particularly to Muslims and/or gays and/or general dissent. But where causing offense to Christians or Jews or real conservatives is studiously ignored.

So how did we get here?

I suspect that the contrived association between Nazism and the ‘right’ has much to do with it. However, there is also a failure to understand liberty , racism and nationalism as they apply to traditional liberal conservatism. But there is yet another factor which may also be critical.

There was recently an article at Gates of Vienna about Jewgida, which attracted more than the usual number of comments. Many of those were divisive and intolerant, seeking to emphasize that Jooos are the enemy rather than celebrate the number of Jews who participate in the counterjihad movement.
Personally I am disappointed that Jewgida feels the need to exist outside of any local/national Pegida movement(s), but all the same I would welcome them into the fold.

The right is vapid because it is fragmented. It is fragmented because it has been taught to be intolerant and see the likes of Jewgida as a threat. This is not part of true conservatism or the true right; it is the absorption of leftist principles into the conservative psyche.
Real conservatism has a Judeo-Christian core belief, a belief that leads to trust and tolerance: trust and tolerance in God and in (conservative) man. When that core is deflated, however, then there is only fear and fragmentation. The negative reaction and mudslinging provoked by the publication of Diana West’s book American Betrayal (a MUST-read for ALL those on the right), presumably at the fear/knowledge that the Republican Party had also been thoroughly penetrated by KGB agents of influence, was just too much for the supposed icons of right-Republican thought.

So here is a provocative piece from a UK Nationalist website of dubious origin, which is unconfirmed in any way:

“I learnt some of the plans of the deliberate One World agents at a meeting in Harold Wilson’s [UK Prime Minister in the 60’s] room in University College, Oxford, in October 1940. He explained the organization of the subversive groups in this country, with the biological, economic and political sections as the most important, and with overt left wing organizations such as the Communist Party to divert attention from the three vital sections. He said that the overall head of the subversive organization was the head of the biological section, while he himself was the head of the political section of the subversive organization. Members of his section were to infiltrate the political Parties, A larger proportion were to infiltrate the Labour Party, most of them posing as ‘moderates’ on the right of the Party, but a substantial number were to infiltrate the Conservative Party, these posing as ‘moderates’ on the left of the Party. He explained that they were to pose as ‘moderates’ because the British people tended to distrust ‘extremists.’ At a later stage everyone who is patriotic was to be described as a ‘right wing extremist.’

— Dr. Kitty Little PhD. BSc. MA.

Let me reiterate that this is unconfirmed in any way. Nevertheless, it is thought provoking because what it posits has come true (see the rest of article at the link).

If the ‘right’ has indeed been penetrated, then the brief for the agents of influence would be to divide and render harmless, which has very obviously been achieved. The infighting in the ranks of the right, worldwide, has been sad and destructive.

Margaret Thatcher described Ted Heath as a Conservative éminence grise constantly sowing discord. This is the same Ted Heath who took the UK into the EU (EEC) and lied (by omission) about an “ever-closer union”.

By all appearances the natural Right has now been demolished and removed from the political scene in most of the western world. Thus Geert Wilders’ PVV is deemed ‘far right’ rather than plain ‘right’ because any criticism of ‘immigrants’ means ‘racism’, and ‘racism’ is ‘Nazi’ and thus ‘far right’.

The ‘Socialism’ in National Socialism is rarely emphasised, and it is the ‘National’ that is deemed responsible for all the evils of the Holocaust and the general hatred of Slavs, Africans etc. And, yes, the Nazis were very racist when it suited them. But they accommodated the Japanese, and the Bosnian Muslims and the proto-Palestinians when it was in their interests to so do. We see this same phenomenon too in most socialist regimes, where the real but covert object is to create a feudal state with a party elite ruling over a proletariat of workers whose existence is little more than slavery. All are equal, “but some are more equal than others,” as George Orwell put it. Stalin hated Jews, but he also hated Caucasians and Mongolians, and the Chinese communist nobility hate anybody not of Han descent.

Nationalism is not the same as racism. Nationalism can be precisely defined, but racism is exactly what socialists want it to be, in that it is not necessarily anything to do with ‘race’ but more to do with skin colour or religion. Socialists are obsessed with skin colour in a way that nationalists find strange and revealing. To a nationalist it is ‘culture’ that is important, and particularly the preservation of the national culture. Religion, too, is a socialist paranoia. In the socialists’ view, Christianity is uniquely indicative of ‘white’ supremacy and ‘white’ privilege, and must be purged. The more a Christian is Bible-orientated, the more dangerous he/she is. Any other religion is just a point of leverage which can be used to turn on the faucet of violence at need, and at this Islam has shown itself to be compliant and thus useful.

Socialism is a political religion. It believes that man is god, and that mankind can build a heaven-on-earth utopia based upon equality and social justice, but only if all become believers. This means that pragmatically, dissenters must be isolated and removed (exterminated), whether by using gulags or Konzentrationslager, or just scimitars, is largely academic. This philosophy also means that the party must redefine ‘truth’ because the basic curiosity of a human must be eradicated and replaced by doctrine and propaganda, a process nicknamed ‘brainwashing’.

The political right has thus been brainwashed out of the common perception, and an Antifa movement has been established to make sure it stays there. Antifas are interesting as well as oxymoronic: these are the Sturmabteilung of the Nazis rehashed as enforcers of socialism, which implies that it was always the socialism of the Nazis that was important, and that every howl of antifa rage is to give voice to an opinion that both Stalin and Hitler were correct.

There is no political ‘far right’, because in reality the Right’s policy is for small government and minimum interference with individual liberty. Therefore, to interpolate ‘far right’ is to contemplate a state with no government at all i.e. anarchy in the truest sense of the word (anarchy = without government).

The ‘right’ is often closely associated with capitalism, and we have to be careful here for most people confuse capitalism with cartelism. Capitalism means that everybody has access to the markets subject only to their own financial resources and ability to sell their labour. Cartelism means that markets are only open to those meeting criteria set by those already controlling that market. In the UK one works for a company and is paid a remuneration which is governed by a salary band. This salary band is an averaging-out of the ‘value’ of all the workers in that pay band, so the good, profitable workers have to subsidize those in their band who are unprofitable, This is called ‘Social Justice’, and is just another expression of cartelism.

The ultimate in cartelism is in the full socialist agenda, where the state is in absolute control of all production of wealth. Communism abhors capitalism, but enforces absolute state-run cartelism. That is not to say that capitalism is perfect, but it is like democracy: it is the best we have, despite its faults. There was a time when, especially in the USA, if one worked hard and intelligently, then one was almost sure to prosper. This was the American dream. But cartelism has turned that dream into a worldwide nightmare. No longer can lemonade be sold from the front yard — the cartel just can’t stand the competition.

The big selling point of socialism is ‘welfare’, and I suspect that the major criticism of rightist politics is that the balance of welfare to work is too much on the side of ‘work’ and an ethic of ‘no work, no pay’. But the incredible ability of ‘right’ politics to create jobs and distribute wealth and therefore to promote wellbeing is rarely discussed, as is the profound reciprocal ability of socialist ‘welfare’ to promote poverty. When, in the UK, I smashed my leg (high-energy pilon fracture type 3), I had a choice: I could live on welfare for the rest of my life, or I could try to hold down a job as a cripple. I chose the latter, but in doing so, had to give up all access to the former because this was an all-or-nothing inflexible type of welfare designed not to help the patient but to be able to tick a box on a political welfare agenda sheet.

Socialism tends to be very physicalist. Whilst it looks after the injury, in doing so it wants to also own the mind. It has no room for the metaphysical, which says I want to be free and to decide for myself and take responsibility for my decisions.

Because socialism is essentially a religion, it seeks always to evangelise and sermonise. It is much like Edmund taking the White Witch’s Turkish delight*: not only can one ever get enough of it, but it also puts one into spiritual shackles to the point where one will betray one’s brother and sisters for more of the same.

The opposite of the (political) Left is not National Socialism, as the Left would have us believe. And, yes, there were (and still are) street battles between socialist factions like the BNP and SWP, or even BLM and Trumpeters. The real opposition to socialism is from the liberal conservative right, who, on the whole, don’t realize that they even exist, they are now so isolated.

Although Communist Russia fought National Socialist Germany, that does not make them political opposites — brothers often fight brothers, and sometimes with an extra bitterness which comes from sibling jealousy and rivalry, given their competition for the same finite resources….

Time to make friends, brothers of the right!

http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/04/why-the-political-right-is-so-fragmented/

Some More Terrifyingly Accurate Commentary On The Trump Phenomenon (Which Is A Consequence Of The Success Of The Obama Phenomenon)

Look, Hillary is exactly the same too so don’t go thinking there will be a winner when one of these two gets elected – there will only be losers.

The States, the Free World, everyone.

Time to stop trusting in human leadership and look to the God-man Jesus.

Why would millions of Americans rally behind a Republican presidential candidate who, according to every poll, and at a rate plunge precisely commensurate with the number of times he opens his mouth, has a zero percent chance of winning the general election?

It’s simple. America’s mood is revolutionary – like, in an Emancipation Proclamation kind of way. Our present political climate, an antagonistic cacophony of cultural discord, rage and exasperation by the unwashed masses with our party establishment “better-thans,” is like nothing we’ve ever seen or imagined.

Or is it?

Dutch politician and historian Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801-1876) is credited with what seems an eerily prescient foreshadowing of the bizarre phenomenon that is “Trump 2016.”

“Pent-up anger and long-held frustration due to economic stagnation, moral decay, spiritual impotency, and political corruption,” he opined, “invariably pave the way for the rise of crass manipulators. Instead of a mastery of truth, such revolutionary opportunists tap into fear and rage, ignorance and prejudice, staging great public spectacles of narcissism.”

It’s human nature. Such sense of hopelessness, anger, betrayal and frustration can lead otherwise good people (some of whom I respect and admire) to make very bad decisions – to exercise poor judgment.

It gave us Barack Obama in 2008.

And Donald Trump in 2016.

trump america againIndeed, we’ve moved seamlessly from “Hope” and “Change We Can Believe In,” to “Make America Great Again.” It’s as though van Prinsterer had a crystal ball through which to keep tabs on the Donald’s ivory Trump Tower office suite.
“Pent-up anger and long-held frustration due to economic stagnation, moral decay, spiritual impotency, and political corruption. …”

No honest person – though President Obama, a decidedly dishonest person, yet tries – can say with a straight face that we have not entered an era of “economic stagnation.” With trillions in debt, tens-of-millions of Americans dependent on unfunded “social justice” programs, and millions more having given up on looking for work altogether, we’re actually teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse.

Moral decay, spiritual impotency, and political corruption? That’s America 2016 in toto. Since 1973 we’ve sacrificed nearly 60 million of our most innocent fellow citizens at Baal’s altar of convenience and “equality.”

Just this past June we had five radical lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court thumb their nose at natural law, shake their fist at God and presume to deconstruct and redefine the institution of marriage to include the “especially abominable sin of Sodom.” This, while an increasingly apostate Christian church sat idly by and did little-to-nothing or, worse, affirmatively endorsed this shameful desecration of God’s created order.

I needn’t elaborate on Washington’s systemic culture of political corruption. They no longer even try to fake it. The betrayal has cut to the quick.

Enter Donald Trump – a several-times-bankrupt, big-government globalist, pro-socialized medicine, pro-abortion, pro-“gay marriage,” lifelong liberal Democrat – to save the day. That is, at least, to peddle the right kind of snake oil and bark the right kind of empty “Make America Great Again” platitudes that festering wounds crave and itching ears want to hear.

“… invariably pave the way for the rise of crass manipulators.”

Crass manipulator? No two words better describe Mr. Trump. Unless, of course, you consider it classy when a leading presidential candidate, an unrepentant serial adulterer, personally attacks his political opponents as “stupid liars,” sleazily suggesting that their wives are ugly (Heidi Cruz is a lovely woman both inside and out), brags about the size of his manhood from the debate stage, or habitually and unapologetically verbally abuses women – somebody’s wives, mothers and daughters – by calling them “pigs,” “ugly,” “fat” or “great pieces of a–.”

Trump recently boasted that he’s “such a good Christian.” Inexplicably, many Christians believe him. Or, at least, they really, really want to.

I pray that someday he will be – that Donald Trump might have a genuine coming to Christ and that, as Jesus told us would happen once he does, he might reflect this transformation in and through the righteous fruits of his words and deeds.
Like each of us, Jesus is Donald’s only chance at salvation.

“Instead of a mastery of truth, such revolutionary opportunists tap into fear and rage, ignorance and prejudice. …”

That’s all Mr. Trump has to work with – “fear, rage, ignorance and prejudice.” As absurdly demonstrated time and again, he’s completely devoid of substance and, when pressed to articulate even a modicum of evidence that he maintains but a middle schoolers grasp on the issues, deflects the question by personally attacking the questioner with the most shrill, jarring and vulgar of ad hominem name calling.

The man is a political chameleon. Over and over again, he somehow gets away with wholly reversing himself on any given position, on any given issue, on any given day – sometimes within hours of making a completely contradictory, and often incoherent, position statement.

Even so, to his cult of personality, the Trumpster remains the Teflon Don.
“… staging great public spectacles of narcissism.”

Angry Donald TrumpAs contemporary political figures go, and second to Barack Obama alone, Donald Trump represents the caricature of wounded narcissism (a self-centeredness that likely stems from insecurity). You needn’t ask, but he’s all too happy to tell you anyway. “I am a really smart guy,” he constantly reminds us. “I’m intelligent. Some people would say I’m very, very, very intelligent.”

“Sorry, losers and haters,” he has said, “but my I.Q. is one of the highest – and you all know it!”

I don’t doubt it. History has shown that “crass manipulators” and “revolutionary opportunist,” as van Prinsterer called them, are, generally speaking, very intelligent.
Of the Dutch historian’s seemingly prophetic statement, columnist and Pastor John Kirkwood asks, “Prescient or just discerning? This [the Trump phenomenon] couldn’t come true if it were not for the decline of the conservative mind. This couldn’t be happening if it were not for the faithlessness of the believer. Yet, we stand in judgment over other nations that have been conquered by fear, rage, ignorance and prejudice, and in our hubris exclaim, ‘It could never happen here.’”

Yet here it happens.

And what of the “faithlessness of the believer”? What of this demonstrably incongruous wave of Christian support for Donald Trump?

Van Prinsterer might have blamed it on widespread “moral decay” and “spiritual impotency.” I mostly agree.

Still, for the church, at least, and insofar as concerns many Christians’ wayward support (in my view) for this man of the world, I think the phenomenon can more precisely be described as “moral indifference” and “spiritual adultery.”

It’s a lack of faithfulness – a trusting in the things of this world, rather than in the promises of God.

“Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4).

It’s better not to hedge your bet with the Creator of the universe.

http://eaglerising.com/31850/the-great-prophecy-of-trump-2016/

Daniel Greenfield: Without Virtues, All Politics Are Reduced tTo Tribal Emotion And Personal Greed

This is an exceptional essay that speaks volumes to our current political climate and clearly points to the necessity of Jesus Christ to the human condition that we all share.

The paradox of the individualistic society is that it can only exist if individuals embrace virtues that are greater than their own needs and whims. A society where each individual acts as a little tyrant, pursuing his desires with total selfishness at the expense of everyone else becomes collectivist as the little tyrants turn to a series of big tyrants to get what they want no matter who gets hurt by it.

Social compacts are the alternative to big government. Communities built around unwritten laws in which people do the right thing keep government at bay better than a million laws ever could. No Constitution can protect a people that does not know or care about what it says. Laws embody ideas about what a society can be. But only the people can actually live out those ideas in their lives.

As individual virtues and social compacts break down, selfish squabbles escalate. Tribalism turns into legal civil war. Laws become the means by which one group imposes its will on the other and by which one man seizes the property of another. The people come to view the system with contempt. All virtues and principles are abandoned as neighbor turns on neighbor in resentment and hatred.

Our society has cultivated narcissism as its highest virtue. Even liberalism has become condensed to an identity politics of narcissism in which each victim gets to talk about their feelings for fifteen minutes before crybullying for someone’s head. Political discourse has become an exchange of feelings. And unlike contradictory ideas, clashing feelings of entitlement cannot be resolved. 

Ideas can exist objectively. Feelings only exist subjectively. Identity politics resolves this problem by treating the objective response to feelings as privilege. But even subjective empathy can never truly approach the subjective experience of the crybully. Even a member of that same identity group will differ in some way from the multiple intersectional identities of the crybully. And that difference is its own privilege. This isn’t really politics. It’s self-help narcissism crossbred with stale Marxism.

Marxism pretended to be a science. Its idiot inheritors use the same highly specialized vocabulary to describe their imaginary science of feelings to decide whose feelings get hurt microscopically worse.

But that’s the only kind of politics that narcissists can be expected to embrace. The left has personalized the political as much as it has politicized the personal. Its politics is purely personal. Its ideas can be condensed to “X upsets Y”. With the corollary that in the future X will not be allowed to upset Y because Y will be in charge of everything and stupid people like X will all die off so that history is on the side of Y and not X. This is a seven year old’s politics with better vocabulary.

But narcissism of the kind that our society has cultivated is a formula for perpetual childishness. Adulthood means doing things you don’t want to do and discovering that they can make you the person you want to be. That’s how virtue is born. Perpetual childhood prevents virtue from ever forming. Instead public life is cluttered with oversized children who have the language skills, resources and political power of adults, but none of the virtues that come with maturity.

They blame everyone else for their failures. Nothing is ever their fault. Everything is unfair. They can never admit they were wrong. Every failure adds more grievances and enemies to be blamed. They are incapable of acknowledging simple facts. Instead they lash out when they are shown why they cannot have what they want. The immature mind treats reality as a personal attack. It does not care what the truth is. It only wants its feelings validated by blaming someone, anyone else.

A childish society is an “I Want” society in which everyone wants everything and no one wants to do the hard work of getting it. The clamor of demands is negotiated through the childish hierarchies of bullying, shame, braggadocio, tears, outbursts, violence and deceit. Any social compacts or laws that interfere with “I Want” are always unfair. Anyone who doesn’t agree is the enemy.

Denying a narcissist anything hurts their feelings. And so they lash out in retribution. They are immune to facts or explanations. They know what they want and they know that society isn’t fair because it isn’t oriented around their feelings, but they think it will be once they get their way.

Democracy can’t exist under these conditions. No civil society can. Without common virtues, there can be no enduring common ground. One side makes concessions while the other celebrates its successful bullying until the first side finds its own bully. Without a consensus, winning becomes everything and the winners are those who break the most rules while complaining the hardest.

And refusing to live by any rules while playing the victim is what narcissists are so good at.

Ideas, virtues and principles are the enemies of narcissism because they imply that there are greater and more important things than its feelings. To the perpetually immature, everything is personal. The attempt to move from the subjective to the objective is treated as devaluing the importance of its feelings. The narcissistic refrain of crybullies in campus debates is, “Stop talking and listen to me.”

The safe space represents the total rejection of all dialogue. It is also the ideal metaphor for the politics of an immature mind. It extends the entitlement of the crybully from its mind into the physical space with the ultimate goal of expanding that physical embodiment of its entitlement to the entire world.

All rights become condensed to self-esteem. Individual virtue is reduced to a lack of shame. Narcissists are always fighting battles of personal self-expression against “haters” who make them feel bad about themselves. Freedom of speech, and any other freedom, can’t exist in this space of emotional tribalism where negotiating the validation of your identity is the only thing that matters.

And yet it’s ideas that resolve personal conflicts. They allow us to set limits of mutual respect. These principles make it possible for us to exist as individuals without big government to watch over us. Principles check our entitlement. They tell us that there are things which matter more than what we want or the anger we feel. They tell us that we are not entitled to steal from someone just because we really want to. They remind us of the price we end up paying for winning at any cost.

These are the things that set apart society from savagery and human beings from animals.

A narcissistic society only empowers individuals to destroy their individual freedoms and the society that made it possible. The self-centered logic of narcissism can justify anything as long as it feels right. Principles are abandoned, virtues are mocked and morality is meaningless. The longer this goes on, the worse society becomes since the very worst way of finding happiness is perpetual immaturity.

Narcissists who can’t win their own battles turn to bigger narcissists. Little tyrants become big tyrants. Anything is justified and the very idea of a truth apart from feelings dies away. All that’s left is a brutish scramble to find the power proportionate to the feelings of everyone in Youmerica.

And these days we all live in a Youmerica where feelings matter more than facts, where narcissism is the only politics, where the only way to win is to hate and cry harder and where the future is a government as big as the ego of its rulers. Youmerica is our culture, our government and our creed.

Youmerica is the nightmare of the Founding Fathers come to live. “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion,” John Adams warned. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The same is true of all the rest of it.

We have no government capable of contending with human passions unbound by any code. The only government that will serve is tyranny. We can have a virtuous society of free men and women. Or we can have what we have now, and that is only a taste of what is still to come in the dying days of an empire whose people are busy trading their virtues for pottage without counting the cost.

Without virtues, all politics are reduced to their basic roots of tribal emotion and personal greed.

Without personal responsibility and truth, the cycle of decline will never be broken. Instead it will intensify. There will be scapegoats and circuses, massacres in the forum and fires in the night. There will be a new tyrant on the balcony every week and a new mob in the streets calling for blood.

And the country we once had will never return. There will be no America. Only Youmerica.

The country that we once had was not merely documents or buildings or territory. It was people. They were not a perfect people. Far from it. Like all of us, they were deeply flawed. But they believed in things. And as flawed as these things were, many were willing to live and die by them. They were willing to seek truth even if where it led did not please them. They made mistakes, but they grew up and became the men and women who tamed a land, build a nation and saved the world.

If we are to deserve the inheritance they left us, we must become better than we are. All of us.

We have been betrayed, undermined, misused, lied to and exploited. But in the end only we are capable of that final betrayal of our dreams and our heritage. We can choose to rebuild a social compact, a moral society that can undo the damage that has been done. Or we can let it all go.

http://freedomoutpost.com/without-virtues-all-politics-are-reduced-to-tribal-emotion-and-personal-greed/

The Importance Of Christianity To Western Foreign Policy

Nations dominated by Christianity tend to make pretty good allies to nations that enjoy things like not becoming a cesspool of poverty and/or warfare.

It makes sense if a large portion of your populous thinks it’s important to speak the truth, not steal from people, act generously, and value the life of others.

Even given the imperfection of even the best Christians around, it sure wins any contest against “allies” whose creed runs more like “kill the infidel”.

That may indeed be why Islamic countries can’t even be friends with other Islamic countries.

There are many Americans out there, close to 20%, that are atheist or agnostic. To those in this category, religion is typically meaningless and/or foolish. It is more often than not seen as a negative- one that can create wars and strife between nations.

Perhaps some of that is true, but the reality is that every American should desire that other nations should become more Christian. A simple look at our strongest allies, and our worst adversaries, clearly demonstrate this theory.

The section below show the list/rank of our allies and also some of our enemies- along with the top 2 prevalent religions in each country.

Top USA allies- per http://listaka.com/top-10-countries-usas-allies/#vymtIwRf

United Kingdom (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Canada (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Israel (1. Judaism, 2. Islam) – big disparity

South Korea (1. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious, 2. Buddhism)

Mexico (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/Irreligious)

Japan (1. Shinto, 2. Buddhism)

Australia (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

France (1.Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Germany (1. Christianity, 2. Unaffiliated/ Irreligious)

Philippines (1.Christianity, 2. Islam) big disparity
Top US adversaries – per a recent Gallup poll.

China (1. Confucianism, 2. Taoism)

Iran (1. Islam at 99.4%, 2. “Other”)

North Korea (1. Juche, 2. Korean Shamanism)

Note that out of the countries with the strongest geopolitical alliances to the USA, 70% list Christianity is the majority religion in their nation. 10% list Judaism, the older cousin of Christianity, and 20% list a different religion. NONE list Islam as the prevailing theology. The two countries that list Islam as #2 each have an enormous statistical spread between #1 and #2.
On the flip side, our 3 biggest adversaries are varied but have one main thing in common: Christianity is NOT their #1 or #2 religion. Iran is 99.4% Islam, which is merely an admission that an Iranian really cannot be anything other than Muslim, officially. The other 2 countries are special conditions that have nothing to do with Islam, or religion in general.

When searching out new worldwide alliances, the US needs to be looking for Christian nations. That is the #1 litmus test, it seems.

This topic became of interest after hearing a story on the radio about The Bible League- a missionary group that distributes Bibles (in native languages) across much of Africa. As many know, there is a battle for the hearts and souls of the majority of African peoples. Most in Africa practice some form of tribal religion, and both Muslims and Christians are actively trying to evangelize and convert these masses. The direction of these current religious leanings will likely determine if most of Africa will be a friend or foe to the United States.

So regardless of your view on Christianity, it is in your best interest as an American and for national security to hope (and pray if you believe in that) that Christianity is spread in non-Christian parts of the world. In this ever-dangerous world, we never know who could help us, or harm us, in the future.

“Safe Schools”, An Anti-Bullying School Program In Australia, Is So Interested In Teaching Children About Homosexuality, Gender Theory, And How To Bind Their Breasts And Penises That They Forget To Care When Christian Kids Get Bullied

My favourite part is where the one kid asks why teachers are pushing sex on them so hard if they don’t want them getting pregnant. 

Touché kid.

Bill Muelenberg’s write up disturbs:

The ‘long march through the institutions’ as Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci put it is working out real well. Instead of taking over a nation with tanks and bullets, why not just subvert it from within? Take over the main institutions of power and influence, such as the media, schools, churches, courts and so on, and you can capture a culture.

This is what we call cultural Marxism and we see it especially being played out with the so-called Safe Schools Coalition. I have written often about this pro-homosexual indoctrination program disguised as an anti-bullying program. Others have as well. A terrific piece by Paul Kelly in the Australian the other day is worth quoting from here:

This is much more than an anti-bullying program. Most people know an anti-bullying program when they see it. But this is something else — a pervasive and radical ideological agenda. Indeed, it does not even pretend to be anything less.

Senior ALP figures Bill Shorten, Penny Wong and Kate Ellis and other politicians stridently defending the program and attacking its critics are misleading at best and deceptive at worst. The materials, literature, instructions and recommended class activities are pervasive in their ideological content and often extraordinary in the activities they recommend for years 7 and 8 students. This story is a case study in hijack: how a program of social and sexual engineering was inducted into the school system by a lobby that won huge institutional support. The program is legitimised by a need whose validity is beyond question: preventing the bullying of LGBTI students.

In many ways the program is the purist example of the disruptive cultural and power changes sweeping through Australia. Its content would have been inconceivable 10 years ago. It reflects a transformation in thinking about sex and gender, the collapse of traditional and religious norms, the confidence of the progressive class that its moment has come, and the ability of a minority lobby to seize the ascendancy and command a majority position.

He concludes:

Shorten branded Bernardi a “homophobe” for criticising the program. Opposition education spokeswoman Ellis attacked Turnbull for pandering to “views of extremists”. ALP Senate leader Wong said: “This is a Labor program, we funded it in government, it’s a program designed to address the terrifying statistics of self-harm, of abuse, of discrimination and of bullying of same-sex attracted and transgender kids.”

Amid defenders of the program it is hard to discern any concession whatsoever that there are problems with this program. There is no serious sign of respect for parents who have reservations. Just the reverse — they are patronised and insulted by indirect linkage as extremists and homophobes. It is hard to find another example where the political class has been so arrogant in its imposition of a new and far-reaching agenda. Let’s confront the truth: there is a process of intimidation at work. It reminds of the mother on the ABC television’s Q&A program a few weeks ago, upset her son was encouraged to cross-dress, reduced to saying, “but it was a science class”.

There is no doubt the cultural norms are changing. This program constitutes dramatic evidence. But the progressives have overreached — their arrogance and intolerance and on vivid display. Turnbull, however, will find this a difficult issue to manage. And any politician asserting this is just another anti-bullying program is naive or engaging in a gross deception.

Let the children speak

But as good as such critiques are, the best thing we can do is let the children speak. They are the ones feeling the full force of this cultural Marxism, with everything homosexual being rammed down their throats. Let me offer the stories of two young people, sent to me by a distraught mother.

These children are attending public schools in Victoria and are experiencing on a daily basis anti-Christian bigotry and homosexual bullying. The first story comes from a 15-year-old:

Impacts of “Safe Schools”

-Spoken about in almost every subject, especially health subjects. It claims it is an opt-in program but when you are forced to do a health subject where it is integrated into all of them you can’t get out of it.

-Becomes a higher priority than other more important world issues. One day the wall was filled with students’ posters about health issues in other countries and morbidity and mortality rates but then the next day the posters were gone and replaced with LGBTI posters.

-The posters are plastered all over the school. If you walk down the hallway you find posters. Entering the coordinators you find about 15 stuck in various locations. The posters are everywhere you go and it is impossible to not go by one every day. This means the content is taught as the truth to everyone even if they don’t really want to know about it. It is subconsciously being taught to everyone all day without them even noticing.

-It makes students who aren’t LGBTI or who don’t agree with it feel inferior and those who do feel superior to others. No one speaks about heterosexual relationships anymore as it is how conception occurs and no one really wants to get pregnant while still being in school. Those who are LGBTI comment about how cruel those who disagree with them are and talk bad about them, but never actually get into trouble as it is “just their opinion” but if someone mentions they disagree they get excluded from the other peers, making them feel unwanted and as though their opinion isn’t as important.

-It dramatically sexualises relationships from a young age. If teachers don’t want us to get pregnant then why are they approving posters about who would like to sleep with who? Many students believe that the only purpose of life is to have sex. These posters around the school make students think of this a whole lot more than they should. LGBTI relationships are the only ones that seem to be supported, as they don’t result in an unintentional pregnancy. This also adds to how those who are heterosexual feel less important than those who are.

The second story comes from a 13-year-old:

Bullied Because I’m Christian

When you’re a Christian people don’t like you. They try to do everything they can to put you down. I am only thirteen years old and I have been physically and verbally bullied because of my beliefs. Last year I moved to high school and at first I thought it was great but as I get settled I find that if I tell people that I am a Christian people will treat me like crap.

The first time it happened was when I was telling one of my friends the good news about God. And the next week or so I get pulled out of class by my teacher and she told me that my friend’s parents complained because I was bible bashing their son. I told my teacher that I am not a closet Christian and I wasn’t telling the boy that he has to believe, I was only telling him the miracles that God has done. Later that boy approached me and started calling me names that are better left unsaid. His father called me one name that was very rude. Eventually the boy moved schools at the end of the year.

There have been a few incidents that have only happened within the last month. My friend mentioned that I was a Christian and some people in my class heard her say it and then they looked at me and said, “I hate Christians.” This made me very upset and on the same day someone who I thought was my friend said that she doesn’t believe in God and that whoever believes is stupid. Then she started saying God’s name in vane and laughing about it.

To protect this family, I of course have had to use anonymity, but I can fully vouch for these stories. And tragically, there would be plenty more such stories. We sure do need to hear these stories. All that the mainstream media wants to do is run with stories of homosexuals, but never of those adversely impacted by these pro-homosexual programs.

Since the MSM refuses to do its job, I certainly will do it for them. If other readers have similar stories to tell, please send them to me and I will happily run with them. The truth must get out into the public arena. And please pray for this family, especially the two students. They are going through hell.

And pray for all the other families who are on the receiving end of this homosexual indoctrination campaign.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/paul-kelly/safe-schools-turnbull-in-crossfire-over-sex-agenda/news-story/8196b1e8ad262992922598316cd9c5a0

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/03/13/cultural-marxism-in-schools-let-the-children-speak/