Tuesday, July 26, 2011
After reading Anders Behring Breivik's (the villain responsible for the recent massacre in Norway) so called "manifesto," Breivik and his manifesto both seem more like an extreme covert leftist trick than a document undergirding a legitimate terrorist movement. If these new "Templars" are real, their motivation is materialist and, therefore, Christian in name only.
What makes the document suspect in my eyes, is the presence of legitimate information on the destructive nature of Cultural Marxism. The document begins with Breivik admonishing his fellows to edit; add to; and freely and widely distribute his “manifesto”.
The introduction titled: “What is 'Political Correctness'?" and the following segment: “How it all began - Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism” are frankly spot on. Breivik’s abbreviated history of Marxism, both economic and cultural, is very accurate, and not a little bit frightening, as what it lays out is very obviously true if you are a clear eyed observer of cultural indicators.
It is also the sort of thing a leftist would leave in so once theses Neo-Templars begin their Manchurian Candidate like attacks on defenseless targets, like the cowardly attack on the Norwegian children’s camp, the truth in the document can later be dismissed as the musings of madmen and therefore rendered forever illegitimate arguments when engaged in debate with true cultural Marxists.
The document does not give a good reason for slaughtering children in an effort to reverse the harm done by leftist radicals who have been all too successful with their experiments in social engineering. It has all the earmarks of leftists propagating the myth that conservatives are as dangerous as radical Islam and if you can tie in Christianity through associating these evil men with the Crusades, by calling themselves ‘Templars', all the better.
That was me wearing my tinfoil headgear. Let us now address the more probable, yet equally distressing actuality of what is laid out in the manifesto.
It would not surprise me if these “Neo-Templars” are indeed a legitimate movement. But let’s be clear, this is not a Christian movement. The original Templars were founded after the first Crusade and their primary function was to protect the world’s Christian pilgrims as they visited the Holy Land after Jerusalem had been liberated from Islamic invasion.
The “manifesto” gives the origin of the Neo-Templars and talks of the movements anonymous founders even mentioning their spiritual affiliations, a number of whom adopt the dubious classifications “Christian Atheist and Christian Agnostic.
Through the manifesto we learn that:
“Choosing the path of the Justiciar Knight is to walk the path in pursuit of becoming “The Perfect Knight”. Any candidate prepared to walk this road must be willing to forfeit his materialistic ambitions and embrace voluntary poverty and martyrdom.”
Very noble sounding! And not at all dissimilar to an Islamic Jihadi pledge. The Neo-Templars forfeit their materialism to fight for European materialism. Make no mistake, God is an afterthought to these people, thrown in for the sole purpose of adding legitimacy to their claims of being modern Templars.
As Breivik rightfully points out, in his history of the original Justiciar Knights, the Templars sacrificed to “lay up treasure in Heaven” by protecting Christians from being killed by Muslims while on pilgrimage, which is exemplified by the Scripture verse:
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13
The Neo-Templars express the following as their guiding principles: “to protect the interests of all free, indigenous Europeans, European cultures and Christendom in general through armed struggle.” Clearly, the Neo-Templar’s first priority is protecting the material interests of Europeans, this is often the case with irreligious conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic.
If they meant anything other than the material well being of Europe, they would not have found it necessary to list protecting the cultures second and Christendom last. No true Christian ever puts Christ last in any list of motivators.
Equally explicit is that they are not truly interested in protecting the interests of “ALL” free indigenous Europeans. As displayed by Brevik’s willingness to take the lives of some 90 indigenous European people, no small number being children. In America at least, a Conservative’s primary material interest is life and it is the first of the unalienable rights mentioned in our Constitution as being endowed by God.
Nevertheless, the description of the the Neo-Templar movement goes on aping Islamic extremist rhetoric:
“The Order and Tribunal has concluded that any and all Europeans have not just a right, but a duty to resist through political and military means; cultural Marxist/multiculturalist atrocities and crimes committed against the indigenous peoples of Europe.”
You resist by launching your own atrocities? This sounds more akin to what is taught in the Qur’an:
“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” Surah 4:95
In the Holy Bible there are no similar instructions calling Christians to fight. The manifesto continues:
“As such, any European Christian conservative can act as a Justiciar Knight. This includes Christian agnostics and Christian atheists. Although the
PCCTS, Knights Templar is a pan-European indigenous rights movement we give all Europeans, regardless of skin colour, the opportunity to become a Justiciar Knight as long as the individual is either a Christian, Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist.”
Statements like the last few, reveal the utter lack of a Christian spiritual component to the Neo-Templar movement. However, there is a spirit driving these ersatz Templars--it just isn’t from God. The Holy Bible defines what a Christian is and is not, any other definition is human in origin and, therefore, temporal not spiritual.
One cannot be a Christian Atheist or Christian Agnostic. Nor can one be a Christian and join an organization that sanctions the actions of Breivik.
The Apostle in Romans 3:8 categorically, absolutely denies the lawfulness of doing evil, any evil, expecting that good can result from it, anyone making such claims in their actions can expect only damnation.
“And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.”
These Neo-Templars make quick shrift of their ignorance of Christianity if they truly hold to what Breivik reveals in his manifesto. When they speak of Christian Atheists and Agnostics, I can only imagine that they mean secular individuals who cannot deny the practical nature of advancing the Christian ethos in an orderly society even while denying the God who inspired that ethos. Anything else would be by any interpretation patently absurd.
As Romans chapter three continues, in verses 12-16 we find an apt portrait of those who would act as Brevik acted:
“They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways:”
If this is not a leftist plot to make conservatism and Christianity look bad, then it is likely the result of, as I mentioned in my article, “Bondage of Corruption Pt. 2: American Taliban”, a case of co-opting terms.
In that article I explain that ideas and groups like the Knights Templar can : “...manifest quite often in a twisting of terms and words. Shallow thinking coupled with what often seems disdain for the true meaning of words (or the true function of a historical group) gives rise to malformed concepts.”
Breivik and those who identify with him in co-opting the Knights Templar, in modern times, are the dangerous exemplars of a younger generation completely indifferent to the realities of what they emulate or celebrate. I am reminded of the young guys who don Guy Fawkes masks because they liked the “V for Vendetta” comic book or movie--adopting Guy Fawkes as the symbol of rebellion.
In reality, Fawkes and his confederates were tools of the Catholic Church and terrorists who plotted to kill hundreds of people (by blowing up Parliament in full session) to kill King James the I, because they opposed his making Holy Scripture available to the masses and his Protestant resistance to the papacy.
Fawkes was the ultimate manifestation of oppression and establishmentarianism.
Or leftist kids who revere Che Guevara even though he was a murderer who essentially opposed everything they love. If Che and his form of economic Marxism had prevailed, they would not have there much beloved iPods and Wii game systems.
I have received friend requests on Facebook from a great many young folks, mostly Europeans that have as their profile picture some iteration of the Crusader’s cross in the past few weeks. It is my sincere prayer that these young folks are not aligned with Breivik’s ideology. If they are I would ask them to consider this:
The Hospitallers, the Templars and all the other Crusaders did not take vows to stay at home to kill their fellows who disagreed with their ideas of what Europe ought to be, that was not their idea of fighting for their fellow Europeans rights, culture and Christendom. They didn’t dress like trusted policemen only to open fire on defenseless children. Instead, these crusaders took the fight to the attacking enemies face wearing the cross proudly!
If you want to fight and you are in a country that is actively involved in the War on Terrorism join the military and fight. If you are a veteran, re-up! If you are in a country not actively engaged, act towards getting your government involved.
And for God’s sake, leave Christ out of this sort of foolishness. He is big enough and God enough to deal with evil on His own terms. That is what real Christian faith demands. This does not mean you cannot defend yourself when attacked, or oppose evil when need be, but you have to know that God wants you to leave children at camp having innocent fun alone.
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Romans 12:19
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
We told you so!
How now progressives? What means that sickly pallor overwhelming your once hearty and vital visages? I miss that glazed over luster in your eyes! Where you once stood so resolutely confident in “Change” – you Hollywooders, you leftist tycoons, now you waiver. Do you now find your “Hope” kinked?
In truth, it was always so. All your "Hope and Change" hinged on flawed premises and false paradigms. What we on the right knew all along, you are just now beginning to realize, which is that ideology can oft times diverge sharply from stark reality.
President Obama is a hardcore liberal ideologue - and that’s all. Ideology is the sum of his Presidential being. That too has always been so! It was so when he was a community organizer; when he was a Senator on the national and state levels and when he campaigned for the office he now inhabits.
Why liberals felt the junior Senator from Illinois would make a competent Commander-in-Chief, administrator and statesman given a far left background completely bereft of commensurate experience remains God’s own mystery.
Yet, here we are! And while here we are seeing the sort of damage that can be done in a very short amount of time when competence is not considered whilst making enormous decisions like who will helm the ship of state. As a passenger on that proverbial ship, I find the naked sentimentality that led to your choice of a novice captain himself guided by foggy idealism, a poor substitute for accurate charts and a clear sky.
So, it is no small wonder that we now find ourselves dangerously off course in exceedingly dangerous waters.
Just shy of two years ago, I wrote an article wherein I expounded upon a narrative popular at the time, fueled by no less than an ex-president that anyone critical of President Obama’s policies was a plain dealing bigot. In lieu of this liberal fallacy becoming a tenet amongst more rabid Obama sycophants, I coined a new eponymous law. Beside Murphy’s Law, Occam’s Razor and Asimov’s Laws of Robotics I placed:
"The Obama Principle: Opposition to the policies of an African American president exists by virtue of him being an African American president."
My eponymous law may prove to lack the staying power of its aforementioned illustrious comrades. It seems that once people actually had to live with some of the President’s policies it has become okay to question the wisdom of Mr. Obama and his half-baked machinations. The actualized ones as well as the ones he proposes.
The irrational opinions the President uses to frame his political arguments have suddenly ceased to be rallying cries and have become the subject of sharp rebuke from people you would not expect, people who were, at least on the surface, supporters of Mr. Obama.
A few years ago, early Barack Obama enthusiast and supporter Warren Buffett, with blind adulation for the fresh faced candidate from Illinois, (once it was clear that Hillary was not a fait accompli) announced:
"I will be very happy if he is elected president.”
Buffett’s comment prompted Leftist bloggers to fire off postings with titles like:
“Here's Why Warren Buffett Endorsed Obama Today: McCain Failed to Get 'Lobotomy'”
By March of 2009 things had begun to appear shaky in light of the President’s economic remedies’ lack of...Clarity. The President granted an interview to 60 Minutes where he was asked: "Your plan really for solving the banking crisis was met with very, very, very tepid response,"
Kroft said to Obama.
"A lot of people said they didn't understand it. A lot of people said it didn't have any, enough details to solve the problem. I know you're coming out with something next week on this. But these criticisms were coming from people like Warren Buffett, people who had supported you, and you had counted as being your..."
The President interrupted:
"And Warren still does support me," Obama interjected. "But I think that, understand, Warren's also a big player in the financial markets who's a major owner of Wells Fargo. And so he's got a perspective from the perspective of somebody who is part owner of a bank."
Quite so! A reality that Mr. Buffett himself was beginning to remember once the dew of Obama madness began to evaporate. Nevertheless Buffett continued his role as Starbuck to Obama’s Ahab and toed the ideological line. Buffett stated in an interview on CNBC around the same time: "I voted for Obama and I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy,"
This, even though the President had yet to offer any proof that would bolster such confidence and optimism.
Where once liberal Obama stooges immune to all semblance of reason held dogmatically to the unspoken creed that no one ought to find fault in Mr. Obama, it seems he is now becoming fair game.
Warren buffett offered a stern lesson in the idiocy of Mr. Obama’s class warfare inducing rhetoric, when he explained the economics of corporate jets and their owners Which Obama had earlier ridiculed. He completely laid open Obama’s ignorance in regards to the provisions, Mr. Obama's own stimulus plan allowed corporate assets like the much-maligned jets.
This should come as no surprise to thinking people. As a hardcore liberal ideologue, who has not produced a thing himself, the President had nothing to do with the production of the stimulus plan-- Other than desiring of course that it be a bill that would induce more Federal spending. Thus, he fell into his default mode and attacked the rich through his ill-informed corporate jet demagoguery. He didn't know about the Corporate asset write offs in the stimulus.
The Berkshire Hathaway head honcho is not the only Obama loyalist now at least entertaining the idea the President may be well and truly insensible to economic actualities. In light of Mr. Obama’s equally careless remarks eschewing Las Vegas tourism, we find erstwhile Democrat and Obama supporter Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts veritably frothing at the mouth as he laments this Administrations mishandling of the economy, fostering a business hostile environment, paralyzing the private sector.
Wynn passionately intoned: “I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States."
Wynn continued: “And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime.”
Even Rap Mogul Jay Z, when asked his opinion on the criticism aimed at the President recently had to admit: “He's the president, it's fair.”
This is the same Jay Z, who in an interview a year and a half ago said:
“I believe the same thing about Barack that I believed at day one. What he represents is bigger than any political agenda that he can pass across the House, Senate or whatever. I think that right now he's going through a difficult period because people are putting the last eight years on his table and they're judging him by it. You can't expect a man to clean up eight years of mess in two years; it's just bad math. It's impossible.”
When one considers the latest report from the Labor Department showing unemployment at 9.2%, compared to an average unemployment rate of 5.2%, during the eight years Jay Z berated, it is “fair” indeed! The unemployment rate didn’t reach 6% until August of 2008 and it ended at 7.3%
The unemployment rate was at 7.8% at Mr. Obama’s swearing in and it has not been that low since. Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in October of 2009 and since then has only been below 9% twice.
Not to wax all wonkish, because that is not my normal style, but this is interesting data when you remember that President Obama rushed through the stimulus all the while assuring us that it would keep unemployment below 8% if acted upon swiftly! And so it was.
Reactionary politics and voting emotionally as exemplified by the 2008 election is never a good idea. Especially when it culminates in the election of so pig-headed an ideologue as our current President. That is why our Founders arranged our election cycles as they did, to allow a swift correction in government if emotionalism resulted in bad choices. The Founders insured America time to come to her senses.
George W. Bush was an ideologue; Bill Clinton was an ideologue as well and born of the same species as Obama. Yet, the leftist strain infecting Clinton is not nearly as virulent as that coursing through Mr. Obama’s fevered brain. Prompted by the Republican takeover of Congress, Mr. Clinton saw the writing on the wall and was wise enough to recognize the plans he put in motion were failing miserably.
President Clinton was an able enough captain to see the rocks ahead. He knew he needed to change course. Mr. Clinton cooperated with the Republicans and thanks to the leadership of Newt Gingrich and the Republican’s “Contract with America,” President Clinton was then able to take credit for a healthy economy and surplus.
President Obama’s liberal sensibilities are completely clouding what little judgment he has left. Even though John Boehner, the current House Speaker, played an instrumental role in drafting the "Contract With America", this President has his jaw set and will not be moved.
To all the liberal and independent people who now bemoan their tragic trust in an unproven commodity, heavy on the show, but otherwise insubstantial-you voted with your heart and not your brain.
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9
Let that be a lesson to you!
Saturday, July 9, 2011
There is a great tumult in the liberal blogosphere triggered by a pledge signed by Michele Bachmann called “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family,” the pledge makes this unsteady, perhaps even dubious statement:
“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
It was dumb to include that statement in the pledge, even though it may well be true--it will not help the conservative cause or make the Republican party more appealing to minorities.
Not because it may be factually in error, but because even if it were found to be accurate, most people lack the discipline to alter their current behavior and attitude in order to correct our current state based on the possible reality that Black families were more stable under slavery.
Slavery is such a sore subject with Black folk that invoking it immediately closes minds to the rest of your message. The statement does not suggest that Black folk were better off under slavery, the statement begins:
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families"
This part of the statement is completely overlooked because of the reactionary nature of the race question in America. A good example of that racial default setting is exhibited by Black folk who I know to be conservative in their sentiments and politics, who nevertheless suggest since this issue came to light that David Duke and Michelle Bachmann share common ground.
Statements like the one in the “Marriage Vow”, never work! Frankly, you have to be engaged in higher order thinking to consider such beliefs in the first place. Whether true or not, most people never ponder anything this deeply.
What is lost because of this lack of depth, in liberal and unfortunately Democrat following Black folk’s thinking, is sadly, the contemporary Black community is in such a state that one would even think to make such a historical comparison in the first place!
I made a similar statement to my former Pastor and one of the Elders of my church a few years back. I made the mistake of intimating that through the American slave trade, what man meant for evil, God used for good in that literally millions of Africans would have died in false religion if they had not been brought to America as slaves where they heard the Gospel message and were saved.
Black folks were “physically” worse off in chattel slavery, but they were in an infinitely better place spiritually. Better to die a Christian in slavery than a free man in false religion. Eternity is a heck of a lot longer than the few decades we suffer through on earth.
When I made this statement you would have thought I set a bomb off in the room from their reactions. But if you are a Christian, you have to agree!
My Pastor and the Elder, placed so much value on their blackness and maintaining a misguided moral superiority based on the premise that we as American Blacks are victims and morally superior to Whites because of our victimhood, they were blinded to the victory an unknown multitude gained through this great evil.
Even in American slavery God Himself received the increase!
It is simply a matter of pride. Not the good kind of pride, but rather the kind of pride that God condemns that we are now in bondage to. We are so bound to any scrap of an idea that makes us feel good about ourselves, that we are more than willing to believe man’s wisdom over God’s revelation if it uplifts the Black race.
In that same conversation my Pastor or the Elder, I don’t remember which at this point, made some reference to life having begun in Africa. To wit I responded: “Not according to the Bible”. The Holy Bible says that human life began in the Garden of Eden, which according to description, would have likely been in modern day Iraq, a long way from the Olduvai Gorge, even if you believe the world is different topographically after the Great Flood.
Adam and Eve in the Garden, or Homo Habilis in Tanzania? It makes us feel good as Black folk to lean towards Homo Habilis, we would rather be an extinct apeman, which man in his hubris attached the genus Homo to, as long as he is a black apeman from Africa. We came first.
Even though the Bible states a different locale and doesn’t find it the least bit necessary to comment on Adam’s race, or Christ’s for that matter. All we know about Christ’s appearance in Scripture from the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, is that unlike the Hollywood depictions of Him, He was not very good looking! We know he was Jewish. God, unlike man, places zero importance on race or any other physical attribute,
God says He:
“...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” Acts 17:26
Earlier in Acts we read:
“Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Acts 10:33-35
Biblically, we are all the same to God, we are all sinners. There is no moral high ground for Black people to stand on any more than there is for Whites. The Whites imported us to America, but it was Black folks doing the exporting.
Just as Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt by his own brothers, so too were Africans sold into America by theirs. Josephʼs slavery ended up being a blessing to his brothers and the people he came from. Not by wallowing in self pity or lamenting his predicament, but by being what God ordained him to be even in bitter bondage. And because of that attitude, Joseph was able to overcome dire circumstances and rise above them based on his character and faith in God. As a result, Joseph became second only to Pharaoh in Egypt.
Black folks have spent so much time looking to the modern Democrat party to be a latter day Moses, holding our hands as we wander blindly through the wilderness, we have forgotten the earlier example of Joseph who was, who he was, whether he was free or in bondage.
The biggest difference is the latter day Democrat Party/Moses simulacrum, is not doing Godʼs work. The Democrats are leaning on their own understanding and leading Black folk, as well as the nation, at large, into disaster, not the Promised Land.
All that being said, the modern conservative movement is absolutely clueless as to how it should appeal to minorities, if in fact the movement is attempting to make such an appeal.
This is primarily because conservatives have not understood the pathology at work in the minority communities.
Conservatives underestimate the level of resistance to reason the mental pathogen leftist racism has engendered in the minority mindset. Liberals have so ginned up racial identity in the Black community and animus towards conservatism, many Black folks are truly convinced, even with nothing ever changing for the better in their communities, as conditions wax worse and worse, they should still vote Democrat.
Even though the overwhelming majority of Black folks would agree with most everything in the pledge Bachmann signed; they still give their vote to people who find those same ideas anathema!
All hope of removing the mental chains from Black folks hearts and minds which could have been accomplished if Black folks actually read the document and recognized, they shared common ground with it’s signatories, was shattered by the inclusion of the maladroit slavery analogy.
The primary reason for this ignorance on the part of conservatives, is they actually buy into the “content of character” paradigm. But Black folks are so full of identity politics as fostered by racist liberal ideology, they are unable to see the catastrophic consequences of liberal policy in their own lives.
To the conservative this is insanity! As well it should be to any thinking person. Liberalism, however; does not exist and flourish in the mind of “thinking” people! This is why the left is so averse to any forum where their ideas are exposed to the marketplace of ideas in free exchange, especially if that market is not completely controlled by liberals.
The Bible teaches that even if certain behavior is permissible, such as having a cocktail. That permissible thing is harmful if it causes someone else to stumble. In other words, it would be imprudent to have lunch with a friend who is an alcoholic and you sit there quaffing martinis in his face knowing he has a weakness.
The idea the pledge attempted to get across with the slavery analogy may have been a good one in regards to creating a sort of jarring effect to the reader. However, that anal- ogy ultimately fails because it is a stumbling block to the segment of the population you were trying to reach.
If we as conservatives are going to win the culture war. we need to pay heed!
“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Matthew 10:16