Stop Talking About It

“We know Canada isn’t immune to racist violence & hate. We condemn it in all its forms & send support to the victims in Charlottesville.”
~Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Excerpt from a recent CTV Canada news article….

Last weekend’s white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., has thrust America’s racism, violence and toxic political climate into the global spotlight.

But experts warn that right-wing extremist views are also on the rise in Canada, and should not be ignored.

“The far right is becoming very bold in Canada as well and we’ve seen that in the run-up to the last (federal) election and right after that as well,” Barbara Perry, a global crime expert at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, told CTV’s Your Morning on Tuesday.

In Cambodia, in the 1970s, Khmer Rouge soldiers were a bunch of young men who were angry at the upper class. The thing is, they didn’t know they were angry at the upper class until Pol Pot came and convinced them of it. There are a lot of angry people in Canada. They don’t necessarily know why they’re angry, but they have no way to express it and so are looking for a cause/group they can attach their anger to. It doesn’t matter if the cause does not line up with the reason they’re angry (if they even know it). The cause becomes an outlet for the anger and it gives the person a sense of purpose in life. So, if we want to see an uprise in racism in Canada, then by all means, talk about it incessantly. Convince people that they need to be outraged and afraid of it. Good leaders will find angry people and attach them to good causes. Foolish leaders will attach them to evil causes. Canada has foolish leaders.

Related reading…. Fuelling White Nationalism

Flash-Drive Babies

flashdrive baby

Below is a video that’s making the rounds this week….

Now, setting aside the insane and laughable circular “logic” this unfortunate professor is using, the real argument she’s making is that unborn babies have little to no worth.

If I go out and buy myself a 16GB flash-drive for $10, and realize when I get home that it has fallen out of my bag and is lost, I’ll be ticked off, but I’ve really only lost $10 and the time it took me to buy the thing. However, if I get the flash-drive home and plug into my computer and transfer all my kids’ baby photos, my wedding photos, video of my kids’ first steps, photos of the last vacation I spent with my dad before he passed away, and the novel I’ve been working on for the last ten years and is 99% finished, and erase my computer as I’m going to sell it, and then lose the flash-drive…. Well, that would be a tragedy.

The nutty professor in the video sees human beings in the same way. A person only has worth if he or she has experiences, memories, and relationships. An unborn fetus has none of that and is therefore quite worthless and easy to replace.

IMG_3390And this is the true evil of abortion: the low opinion that pro-abortionists have of the intrinsic worth of human life (i.e. being created in the image of God). They love to say they have a high opinion of women’s rights, but that’s complete BS. There are few people who hate women more than pro-abortionists.

So who is God according to this result-of-affirmative-action professor? The pregnant woman is — she alone can arbitrarily decide if the unborn person has worth or not simply by choosing to have an abortion or to not have one. And when she chooses not to have an abortion, the future experiences and so forth of the child will retroactively give the unborn baby the value it needs in order to make the abortion of it wrong…. or something like that…..

Propaganda (Brief Book Review)

propaganda

“Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group”
~Edward Bernays

I recently finished reading Propaganda by Edward Bernays. It’s a short book written in the late 1920s describing the methods used by anyone who wishes to push their ideas and agenda onto a large group of people. The methods described in the book are still in use today.

Propaganda is a neutral term; it is neither good nor evil in and of itself. It can be used for good and used for evil, but mostly it is a vessel used to push an idea.

If I were a newsman who recently read a report done by some major university on the annual financial earnings of men and women and wanted to do a story on it, I could choose a couple of different ways to present the report. If I have no agenda but to present the report to the public for their own scrutiny, my headline would look something like: New Report on the Financial Income of Men and Women Released by U of T. However, if I’m a feminist, and do have a strong agenda, and I see in the report that men, due to more frequently working full time, putting in more overtime, and taking jobs in higher paying fields, are earning more money on an annual basis than women, I can use that information to push my agenda, and my headline would look more like this: Women Only Make Seventy Cents for Every Dollar a Man Makes New Study Shows. And that headline would be propaganda. It’s not an outright lie; it’s just that I am presenting the information to the reader so as to sway his or her opinion toward my agenda (which, for the feminist, is to convince the public that women are oppressed by men).

propSo, even though propaganda is neutral (and should not be mistaken with opinion writing), I would argue that it will most often lean towards dishonesty as the presenter of the propaganda is most likely not being sincere in his or her propagation of the information, even when the cause behind the propaganda is a good one.

I gave the book 3/5 stars.

The Day the Revolution Began (Book Review) Part Two

Revolution
Part One of this review can be found by clicking here.

In the next section of the book, Wright focuses on three elements which are “found within the varied pre-Christian expressions of Jewish hope. Each then played a large part in the early Christian understanding of what actually happened on the cross.” (Page 116) They are: 1) The Messiah would be a king; 2) The final redemption might come about not only in the context of extreme suffering, but by the means of it; 3) The “forgiveness of sins” and the “end of exile” would be the dramatic expression of the covenant of love.

In the King/Kingdom section, Wright writes a bit about the gospel (the proclamation of the good news that the righteous king is now in power), and a new exodus. He uses Daniel chapters 2, 7, and 9 to show how the Messiah would overcome the world empires and reign as king forever. Chapters 2 and 7 show how the world empires are destroyed by the Messiah King, and chapter 9 shows that Israel would have to endure a prolonged exile (70 x 7 years), but then the Messiah would come and save the people. This section is a short one and one could read Wright’s Simply Good News to get a better idea of how he presents the gospel.*

In the next section on suffering, Wright writes: “It is important … to detach the pre-Christian Jewish notion of a coming Messiah from the notion of suffering.” (Page 122) He points out that the notion of one man coming to suffer on behalf of the group is not necessarily a Jewish idea, but rather a pagan one.

“[F]rom quite early on in … Israel’s scriptures, some prophets and psalmists seemed to come back regularly to this idea of great suffering as the prelude to the coming deliverance. This suffering would, however, only be ‘messianic’ in the loose sense that it might immediately precede the ‘messianic age.’ Sometimes Israel’s scriptures refer to the suffering that results from Israel’s idolatry and sin. Sometimes, however, as in many of the psalms, it is suffering inflicted on God’s people, or perhaps an individual, despite their innocence. The night gets darker, the pain still more intense, and then a new day will dawn.” (Page 122)

Wright then focuses on the story of the Maccabean revolt. Wright says earlier in the book: “To understand any event in history, you must put it firmly into that history and not rest content with what later generations have said about it.” (Page 51) So, I guess he is trying to figure out why the early Christians viewed passages like Psalm 22, Isaiah 50 and 53 as describing the suffering Messiah (Jesus) as one who came to suffer for all the people when pre-Christian Jewish thought did not follow that narrative. It’s a bit of a confusing section, and I don’t think Wright gets his point across clearly enough here to the reader. He assumes you know (or hopes you don’t know) the Maccabean story well enough to follow his reasoning. Whereas Wright is very clear in other sections, repeating his main points over and over, here he is quite vague.

Well, the Maccabees were a Jewish family who rebelled against the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes IV ca 160 BC. Antiochus had greatly oppressed the Jews, prevented them from temple worship, and pushed them out of Jerusalem. The Maccabees fought back, won the day, and ruled Israel as kings and priests for the next 100 years or so. Antiochus had removed the rightful Zadokite high-priest, but the Maccabees did not reinstate him (or his descendant), but rather made themselves high-priests as well as kings.

The story as told in 1-4 Maccabees** is a story of Jewish covenant renewal (Antiochus’s oppression was the result of Jewish unfaithfulness), but it also emphasizes the suffering of the few, or the one, for the many, and so Wright suggests that it is here where the pagan idea of one suffering for many is combined with the narrative of Jewish covenant renewal. No doubt the Jews at this time were heavily influenced by Greek culture.

“Suffice it to note that at precisely the point where a Jewish writer [the author of Maccabees] is drawing explicitly on pagan philosophical traditions and doing his best to present a story of Jewish martyrdom as a story of human virtue [a pagan theme], especially courage and nobility, these themes come suddenly into prominence. Was that the reason, one might wonder, why some of the early Christians said some things about Jesus’s death that strike us, at least at first glance, as very similar? Or were they following a subtly different interpretive line?

“In any case, the point is clear. Within the larger Jewish hope, there are signs that some people at least, under pressure of intense suffering and persecution, reached for ways of interpreting that experience not only as something through which God’s people might pass to deliverance, but as something because of which that deliverance would come about… The point … is that the idea of redemptive suffering, though certainly not associated with messianic expectation, was clearly available in the Jewish world of Jesus’s day.” (Page 131)

The third element is titled Divine Faithfulness and Covenant Love. One theme that is absent from the Maccabean writings, but is clear in passages like Isaiah 40-66, is that God’s redemptive work is the result of His faithful love. A new exodus would occur with God taking the initiative to save, and not just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles as well.

The redemptive work would come through a royal servant. “There is a well-known fluidity between the nation and its royal representative: the king holds the key to the destiny of the people.” (Page 139) The king, through the love for his people, takes on himself the consequences of his people’s sins.

Then the Lord saw it, and it displeased Him
That there was no justice.
He saw that there was no man,
And wondered that there was no intercessor;
Therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him;
And His own righteousness, it sustained Him.
~Isaiah 59:15-16 (NKJV)

I looked, but there was no one to help,
And I wondered
That there was no one to uphold;
Therefore My own arm brought salvation for Me;
And My own fury, it sustained Me….
In all their affliction He was afflicted,
And the Angel of His Presence saved them;
In His love and in His pity He redeemed them;
And He bore them and carried them
All the days of old.
~Isaiah 63:5 & 9 (NKJV)

To be continued in Part Three….

*An excellent and illuminating commentary on the book of Daniel was written by James B. Jordan. I took a whole bunch of notes on that book which you can read here.

**A history of the Maccabees (and other events surrounding the life of Jesus) that I recommend is Emil Schürer’s A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ.

Leftist and Corporate Pawns

I saw this advertisement on my social media feed this morning. It’s a great piece of race baiting and victimhood praising.

First of all, Procter & Gamble doesn’t give a rat’s behind about black people; they only care about profits. So, the question to ask is: What group of people is Procter & Gamble trying to appeal to with this advertisement/propaganda in order to sell more of their products? Blacks (especially women) who believe they’re living in some sort of dystopian nightmare (of which I’m sure there are a small few) where whites want to hunt them down and kill them? Or, white liberals with a guilt complex? I don’t know. I’m not an expert on these things.

Secondly, propaganda pieces like this advertisement do not help to fix racism; they only make it worse. Everyone thought that the election of Barak Obama would drive the last nail down in the coffin of racism. But instead, race relations in the States were worse at the end of Obama’s term than they were before. That’s because Obama himself pushed the same ideology that’s presented in this advertisement.

If I were a black man I would be very insulted by this advertisement. In fact, notice how there are no black fathers in the ad?

Hey blacks, all whites want to kill you! But the new Head & Shoulders will give you that wonderful shiny hair you’ve always wished for.