With a generation of young people growing up uneducated about the foundational truths necessary for a good life and good society we can expect they will be easily led astray, "tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming." (Eph 4:14).
Does this help explain some of the seeming ease with which Western youth are so easily recruited to the modern causes to champion and promote all sorts of nonsense? Millennial’s parents have a lot to answer for. They failed to pass on the truths which made us a great nation. They are increasingly cowed into inaction and silence and we have a complicit media joining in the mob like rampage imposing sexual and other types of immorality on everyone, and then we have weak politicians who seem to be surrendering to these bullies out of fear. The ones who now run the media, the schools, the education departments and increasingly the government, not only seemingly have no knowledge about the foundations which allowed us to be such a great nation, they seem to have no understanding about the consequences of abandoning those foundations, and no willingness to even obtain such knowledge and understanding, as it takes more than two minutes to do so. The things that have allowed "The West" to stand out, flourish, excel and be envied by all the nations outside it, are now being undermined. What can we expect will be the consequences?
0 Comments
Michael Phelps Is Driven
An Olympian Finds His Purpose By: Eric Metaxas|Published: August 11, 2016 7:02 AM You’d think things would have gone swimmingly for the all-time Olympic gold medal holder, Michael Phelps. But they didn’t: until he found his purpose. In the months and even years leading up to this year’s Rio Olympics, much of the news about Michael Phelps was bad. In September of 2014, he was arrested for driving while under the influence in his hometown of Baltimore. It seemed that Phelps’ best days, both in and out of the pool, were behind him. But that’s not how it turned out, and I think you can guess why. As you probably know, Phelps carried the American flag during the opening ceremonies on Friday August 5. Then, as of this recording, he's added three more gold medals to his impressive lifetime total, now numbering 21. To put it mildly, both of these were unlikely less than two years ago. As Phelps told ESPN, following his announced retirement in 2012, he struggled to “figure out who he was outside the pool.” In his words, “I was a train wreck. I was like a time bomb, waiting to go off. I had no self-esteem, no self-worth. There were times where I didn’t want to be here. It was not good. I felt lost.” Like a lot of people struggling with similar feelings, he self-medicated. In the immediate aftermath of that DWI arrest, he cut himself off from family and other loved ones and “thought the world would just be better off without me . . . I figured that was the best thing to do — just end my life." That’s when a friend came to his rescue: former All Pro linebacker Ray Lewis, whom Phelps considers a kind of “older brother.” Seeing the hopelessness and despair in his young friend, Lewis, an outspoken Christian, told him, “This is when we fight . . . This is when real character shows up. Don’t shut down. If you shut down we all lose.” Lewis convinced Phelps to enter rehab and gave him a book to read while he was there: “The Purpose-Driven Life” by my friend Rick Warren. The book changed Phelps’ life. Within a few days, Phelps called Lewis and told him “‘Man this book is crazy . . . The thing that’s going on . . . oh my gosh . . . my brain, I can’t thank you . . . enough, man. You saved my life.’” As Phelps told ESPN, Rick Warren’s book “turned me into believing there is a power greater than myself and there is a purpose for me on this planet.” The book, which tells readers that “relationships are always worth restoring,” also convinced Phelps to reconcile with his father from whom he had been estranged for more than two decades. Upon seeing each other, they embraced. As I record this commentary, Phelps still has two more chances to medal, but his story of hope and restoration doesn’t really need any further embellishments—to use one of my favorite words, it’s miraculous enough. Michael Phelps’ story is a reminder that no matter how big a mess your life may be, and no matter how dim the last embers of hope may glow, God is still there. It’s also a reminder of the role that God’s people are called to play as bringers of hope and agents of restoration. The results may not be as dramatic as Phelps’ story but they will matter every bit as much. Now, speaking of stories . . . Earlier this summer my colleague John Stonestreet spoke at the Alliance Defending Freedom Academy on the topic of the “Story” with a capital “S.” The Story of the world, of humanity, of reality, written by God. It’s a great appeal to Christians to not forget the overall narrative of God’s Story, even in the midst of these troubling and confusing times. So please come to BreakPoint.org/free to request a free, downloadable transcript of John’s talk, “The Christian Story in the Cultural Moment.” Further Reading and Information Michael Phelps Is Driven: An Olympian Finds His Purpose"The Purpose Driven Life," the book that steered Michael Phelps to find his purpose, is available at the online bookstore. And while you're there, get a copy of Eric Metaxas' book "Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life" to read other stories of God at work in the lives of every-day, and not-so-every-day, people. Other ResourcesOlympic swimmer Michael Phelps credits Purpose Driven Life for turnaround, reconciling with father Mark Ellis | MyChristiandaily.com | August 2, 2016 Available in the online bookstoreThe Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren | Zondervan | October 2013 Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life Eric Metaxas | Penguin Group Publishers | October 2014 Source As the following from the American Family Association shows, the anti-God rainbow movement taking over our once young and free society are hell-bent on destroying the very source of what has made us so free and prosperous. Christian schools are very much on their target list and Australia will not be immune:
"The California legislature is waging a progressive, liberal assault on Christian colleges in an attempt to use the law to manipulate them and force them to abandon their faith-based convictions. The California Senate passed SB1146, a bill containing a provision that removes Title IX exemptions designed to protect a religious school's freedom to exercise their religion. The bill is set to be considered before the California State Assembly. Recent news reports indicate the author of the unconstitutional provision, Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), has made the bill less anti-Christian, but a less evil bill is still an evil bill. Although the bill has passed the California senate and is in the California Assembly, Sen. Lara's amended (less evil) version, as reported, will:
The Sexual Revolution and Cultural Marxism
Ideology over Public Health By: Eric Metaxas|Published: August 10, 2016 6:00 AM So, it’s OK to warn people about the dangers of drinking too much soda, but not about risky sexual behavior? Welcome to the strange world of cultural Marxism. Christians are sometimes accused of being “in denial,” especially when it comes to matters of sex. But after reading about a recent AIDS conference, I have to ask: Who’s really living in fantasy land? At the recent UN international AIDS conference in South Africa, the actress Charlize Theron announced that HIV “has no biological preference for black bodies, for women’s bodies, for gay bodies . . . HIV is not just transmitted by sex,” she explained. “It’s transmitted by sexism, racism, poverty, and homophobia.” Matthew Hanley, a Senior Fellow with the National Catholic Bioethics Center, writes at Mercatornet that while it was Theron who made these nonsensical remarks, they could have been made by almost any professional at the conference. When Theron says AIDS is not spread just by sex, “she means to direct attention away from sex itself, to minimize its primary role, and to shift ultimate [blame] anywhere else.” “Statements like these,” Hanley adds, “sound less like medicine than a strand of Marxism—cultural Marxism.” Marxism has “morphed away from the sphere of economics and into the sexual revolution,” he explains. This means that “every form of sex has necessarily come to be regarded … as equal; therefore . . . Nothing must jeopardize the truly radical assertion that there are no differences in the arena of sexuality . . . Objective hazards must be repackaged to conform to the value assigned to sexual behavior—which is something we don’t do for other public health matters.” For instance, nobody says smoking cigarettes or drinking huge amounts of sugary drinks is healthy and normal--or distributes pills in schools to offset the effects of tobacco and sugar. Instead, we urge young people to avoid cigarettes altogether, and cut down on the soft drinks. But heaven forbid we tell them to avoid sex. The United Nations isn’t the only place we're witnessing an absolute refusal to acknowledge that all sex is not equal when it comes to public health. Dr. Paul Church, a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty, was fired from his position at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center last year for telling the truth about homosexual behavior: That, as Bryan Fischer writes at barbwire.com, it “leads to a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, parasitic infection, anal cancers, and psychiatric disorders.” This, folks, is a new form of totalitarianism. As Hanley explains, those who seek to promote the equality of all sexual behavior—married, unmarried, gay or straight--“seek to triumph by means of the will” and by “various forms of coercion.” The idea that nothing should interfere with sexual pleasure goes back a long way. In 1930, Austrian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich wrote a book titled “The Sexual Revolution,” in which he announced that ideas—particularly moral ideas--that diminish sexual happiness should not be tolerated. By contrast, Christianity teaches that sex was designed by God and should be reserved for monogamous, life-long marriage between one man and one woman. Sex within marriage is intrinsically linked to complementary love and childbearing. When we hear people spouting off about the so-called “equality” of any and all forms of sexual behavior, claiming that the wrong attitudes cause disease, or attempting to punish anyone who dares to point out the truth about health risks, we need to help our families and friends understand where all this comes from. Ultimately, it’s a rejection of God’s loving—and healthful--design for sexuality. BreakPoint.org Where will this utopian social engineering movement of "equality" lead us as a society? Marriage is just one area.
Religion: All must be atheists. Education: Dumbing down schools until all are equally uneducated. Politics: All must vote ALP/Greens. Think of the failed attempts throughout history to forcefully redistribute resources. They always fail. They always make the masses equally poor and the ruling elite unequally rich. "Marriage Equality" is a Totalitarian Trojan-horse. It will not be the end of the ideological "equality" movement. The FEE article below is helpful in that it gets one thinking about the Socialist aspect of the "equality" nonsense sweeping through the West and doomed to ultimate failure. War Socialism – A Republican Dilemma by Chris Calton There are many forms of Socialism. But there is one principle that holds true for all its manifestations: the forced redistribution of resources. And war is a form of Socialism. With the census coming up on the 9th August 2016 the Atheists are campaigning, with evangelical zeal, to have people tick the box which says "No Religion," hoping to increase the numbers of their faithful and become the biggest "official" religion in Australia, at least on census paper.
But by hijacking the "No Religion" box they are double dipping, as members of their congregation should be marking "Atheism" in the "Other" box according to the ABS, the government body conducting the census. Most people think atheists just don't believe anything, that they have no faith and therefore are not religious. But they have a full belief system just like other religions do, and they have a strong faith in what they believe. They differ from most in that instead of believing that God exists they believe he doesn't exist. Many atheists are extremely fervent in their fight against the God they insist doesn't exist. Atheism is still a belief. According to philosopher Blaise Pascal, Atheism has more serious consequences for its adherents if they are wrong about God than if they were right. Those consequences are immediate and eternal. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary describes religion as: "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.""Using this definition, many atheists would certainly be categorized as religious, particularly the so-called “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. It would be better to consider them anti-theists (“against God”) or misotheists (“haters of God”). These men and others like them spend much of their time railing against the Creator they say doesn’t even exist. Strangely enough, these misotheists seem to be more obsessed with God than most Christians. They most certainly hold to their cause and beliefs with ardor and faith."1 Atheists certainly have a belief system. They have a belief in the origins of the universe and humanity: They believe everything just came out of nothing. This "nothing" exploded in a "big bang" and then "everything" just appeared, including intelligent life. Now, I may be the least intelligent of this intelligent life but to my mind, when you blow something up it destroys it does not create order. You blow up a building you get rubble, not the other way around. They have a belief in why we are here: No reason. No purpose. No meaning. We are just here. This leads to a very cold-hearted, self-centered, immediate-gratification focused worldview, and one I would suggest is behind the most destructive wars, economic failures, political ideologies and movements in human history. They have a belief in where we go when we die: Nowhere. It is about as hope-less as you can get. If they get the numbers on census night this contributes to Australia becoming more of a society made in their image. In the context of the rainbow attack on traditional marriage, family, children, and on freedoms of speech, religion and conscience it would just provide more ammunition to the increasingly anti-Christian parliament to avoid a plebiscite and just have compromised and intimidated politicians decide on their attempt to destroy marriage and family. Below is some interesting material on the census religion question: From SaltShakers.org.au: Census – religion question 2.1 The ABS says atheism IS a religion – and the religion question is about ‘identifying’ with a religion The Australian Bureau of Statistics describes its interpretation of the ‘religion’ question on the census. The ‘Religion question’ is about people ‘identifying’ with a religion. Many people ‘identify’ with Christianity even though they are not regular churchgoers. The ABS Census Help site actually DEFINES ATHEISM AS A RELIGION! So the campaign by the atheists to get people to mark ‘NO RELIGION’ is very misleading. This is what the ABS says: “People who have non-theistic religious beliefs or other life philosophies should write their response in the 'Other (please specify)' box. Examples of non-religious beliefs include Humanism, Agnosticism, Atheism and Rationalism. If a person identifies with no religion at all, mark the 'No religion' box.” Source – here under ‘Cultural Background’ (scroll to the bottom for ‘Religion’). 2.2 Paul Murray – atheist/agnostic criticises the Atheists ‘No Religion’ campaign Paul Murray had a VERY interesting 6 minute comment on Sky News. He says that, as an atheist (or agnostic) he would choose the ‘No Religion’ box. But he exposes and criticises as 'dishonest' the campaign being run by the Atheist Foundation – like not attending church etc… He says ‘Don’t fall for it!’ WATCH Paul Murray’s video – click here. 2.3 The ‘Yes Religion’ website – to counter the atheist ‘NO Religion’ campaign A group has set up a website to counter the atheists’ campaign. The website, http://yesreligion.org.au/, urges people to think carefully about the question – discussing the ‘not attending church’ and ‘not part of a denomination’ and other arguments, and encouraging people to choose a religion if they ‘identify’ with it. 2.4 Michael Jensen – article on the ‘Census Religion question’ Michael Jensen, an Anglican minister from Sydney, has an interesting article in the SMH, criticising the atheists’ campaign… Article: On census night, don't discount your religious identity, Michael Jensen, SMH, 2/8/2016. From FamilyVoice.org,au Next Tuesday night (9 August) is 2016 Census night – where we are required by law to answer all sorts of questions to help governments make decisions about such things as public transport, housing, education and hospitals. There has been little controversy – until now. This year, the religion question – and its implications for the funding of school chaplains and faith-based charities, as well as tax-exempt status for churches – is all important. The religion question is the only one that is not compulsory. It lists six Christian denominations and three non-Christian religions, with a space for “other” – but this year for the first time, “No religion” is the first option. That was the result of a quiet campaign by the Atheist Foundation of Australia three years ago. They hope that putting “No religion” at the top before any other option, they would win the “donkey vote” – and ultimately force governments to end any subsidy or recognition for the huge amount of public good done by faith-based community organisations. They have also mounted an advertising campaign in supermarket car parks and elsewhere, urging people to mark the “No religion” box. The problem is compounded by the fact that many non-denominational Christians mark “No religion” because they have faith in Christ, but don’t belong to a particular denomination. To them, “religion” means “denomination”. What can we do? We can: · Make sure we answer the religion question – by marking one of the six boxes for Christian denominations, or writing “Christian” or something similar in the space provided for “other” religion. · Send this email to other friends and family, encouraging them to do the same. · Pray – that the atheist campaign will fail. By Paul Kengor Published on June 17, 2016 • 4 Comments
Last week I looked at the history of the original socialists and at what Pope Francis aptly termed their “ideological colonization” of the family and marriage, work that started in the 19th century with the likes of Robert Owen, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Whether they know it or not, today’s nature-redefiners — who target the family or marriage or sexuality or gender — are standing on the shoulders of those 19th century ideologues, utopians who sought to replace the natural-traditional-Biblical family with their own conceptions. Socialism’s new strategies are certainly different from the old, but the rebellion against God and His absolutes remains the same. In recent decades, eager socialists in the West have been ripping down the traditional family from Scandinavia to Ireland. The spectacle in Ireland was especially disturbing. It was one of the few places where marriage was redefined not by unhinged judges or a left-wing Parliament but by national referendum in a one-time Catholic country where the majority no longer cares about the 2,000-year Christian teaching on the sanctity of marriage. Ireland’s citizenry once led the way in sending priests and nuns to the English-speaking world. Today the Irish take the lead as angry scoffers at their ancestors’ faith. Socialism’s Bait and Switch. The contemporary left’s effort to fundamentally transform the family has been relentless, opportunistic and multi-faceted. Even in countries like Italy and France, where the populace was not demanding same-sex marriage, socialist politicians are hell-bent on giving it to them anyway. Under the leadership of socialist Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, Italy just approved same-sex civil unions, which everyone in the country understands as the Italian left’s mere first step to securing same-sex marriage and adoption of children as well. Still, even there we can mainly blame the electorate. Italian citizens, after all, voted for the socialists. They did so not because they wanted the left’s wider cultural-social agenda. They voted for cradle-to-grave freebies and never-ending pensions from the nanny state, not for the redefinition of family and marriage. But sadly, what they do not realize (or tolerate as a trade-off for socialism’s wondrous freebies) is that when you vote for the left for economic reasons you inevitably also get its cultural-social agenda — which undermines the natural-traditional-biblical family. If you are addicted to the welfare the socialist doctor provides, then you also accept his cultural brew. Such is the plight of the welfare junkie addicted to the state’s largesse. Thus, Italians en masse remain sympathetic to Pope Francis and his appeals against same-sex marriage and the “demon” of gender ideology. Nonetheless, when you hold out your hands for “free” government goodies, among the candy in the socialist bag is family redefinition. You want the fat pension? Okay, fine, but you also must give a thumbs-up to gay unions. Time to pay the socialist piper, kiddies. Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America. As for America, our situation is not wildly different. We are getting an aggressive “LGBTQ” political-cultural agenda under Barack Obama’s expansive left-wing umbrella of “fundamental transformation.” That was not what the rank-and-file Obama voter was expecting in November 2008. Certainly, the record number of millions of African-Americans (historically the most religious voting demographic in the country) who enthusiastically voted for Obama did so for reasons that had nothing whatever to do with transgender bathroom edicts. But alas, the fundamental transformation they are getting is a White House literally illuminated in the rainbow colors of the gay-rights movement. We should not delude ourselves that Barack Obama, the most far-left president we have ever had, is not a socialist of some sort. As Stanley Kurtz showed several years ago, we know that Obama was actually for a time in the 1990s a member of the socialist New Party. (For extended analysis, see my book on Obama’s long-time mentor, The Communist.) If Obama remains a socialist, he remains one from a cultural perspective as much as an economic one. But moving away from Obama, look at the platforms of the dominant socialists in America today when it comes to family-sexuality issues. The website of the influential Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is quite open about its social goals. Its “About DSA” section lists among its three planks the broad objective of seeking to “restructure gender and cultural relationships.” The DSA has been carrying the rainbow flag for quite some time. It passed a resolution at the annual convention in November 2011: DSA calls for the legalization of same-sex marriages in all the States and Territories of the United States of America; the enactment of anti-discrimination laws in housing, jobs, education, and health care; and the repeal of state sodomy laws and anti-lesbian and gay restrictions. That was merely point one in a very comprehensive seven-point statement on “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Rights” that also included (among other things) “making public schools safe and bias-free for LGBTQ students, defending their free speech in school and allowing students to start gay-straight alliance clubs” and advancing “the rights of LGBTQ people to parent.” Very tellingly, point four in the DSA statement insisted: “DSA advocates for local and federal non-discrimination laws and insists that religious beliefs cannot be used to justify bias.” For the record, the objectives of the DSA statement are almost identical to those of Socialist Party USA, whose official platform includes a statement pledging, “We are committed to confronting the heterosexism that provides the fertile ground for homophobic violence, and support all efforts toward fostering understanding and cooperation among persons and groups of differing sexual orientations.” And if you want to go further left still, John Bachtell, Communist Party USA chair, recently writing in People’s World (successor to the Daily Worker), called for a socialist-communist-progressive-liberal-Democrat coalition, coalescing around Bernie Sanders, to “fight uncompromisingly against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia.” Marx and Engels: Proud Papas. What would Marx and Engels have thought about their name and ideology being invoked in the modern left’s crusade against “transphobia?” Well, they would have been shocked speechless. But they surely would have appreciated how their left-wing descendants found such handy tools to undermine the traditional family. Today’s leftists may not succeed in a total “abolition of the family” (to borrow from the phrase in The Communist Manifesto), but they are certainly succeeding in fundamentally transforming the institution. Once upon a time, when we worried about socialists undermining the family, our concern was the economic destitution wrought by the ideology and its counterfactual theories about property and wealth confiscation and redistribution. In the old days, socialists harmed the family by leaving a dad jobless or the household scratching for income in a decimated economy. Today, we need to widen our horizon of socialism’s destructive possibilities. Modern socialists are not thinking merely about managing the state’s economic means of production; they are seeking to completely manage and revamp society’s very understanding of the human family itself. They are, in short, fundamental transformers not just economically but culturally. And they operate a giant wrecking ball that is wreaking havoc in millions of lives. https://stream.org/socialist-groups-agree-traditional-family-enemy/ Marxism and its associated atheistic worldviews (like the rainbow movement) are on the verge of taking the West, in spite of the efforts over the past century or so to defeat it. Bernie Sanders, openly Marxist, almost got to be the Democrat nominee for US President. Bill Shorten, one of the most pro-Marxist ALP leaders for some time, almost took Australia on July 2nd.
Dr. Jeff Myers and Aaron Atwood sit down to discuss the Marxist worldview, democratic socialism, and the difference between a Marxist and a Christian view of wealth. The message starts at around 2.50 mins: Listen now → Exclusive Forum Video Dignity of Life: Abortion to Euthanasia Last month, Scott Klusendorf shared on the Summit Forum how we can address the value of life. He discussed questions such as, "What makes humans valuable in the first place?" and "Are we valuable because of what we do functionally or simply because we are human?" How we answer these questions as a culture will determine policies on abortion, marriage, genetic engineering, doctor-assisted suicide, and more. In case you missed the live webinar or you want to re-watch it, we want to give you this Summit exclusive resource. Stay tuned for more information about next month's Summit Forum with Stand to Reason's Student Impact Director and Summit faculty member, Brett Kunkle. Watch Scott's interview now. Pro-Life Resources
Books:
Summit Forum is a monthly webinar series presented by the Summit Alumni Network. The Forum brings biblical insights by Summit faculty right to your home, wherever you are. Faded Memories Are Leading to a Rejection of Free Markets
Monday, July 25, 2016 By Joe Carter After almost a hundred years of seeing the effects of socialism and other government interventions in the market, American attitudes began to change in the 1980s and 1990s. The benefits of deregulation and privatization began to seem obvious and more people began to embrace free enterprise. But as Daniel Yergin notes1, there is now a shift away from markets due partially to “fading memories of the old order—or no memories at all.” Voters under 30 were either very small or not yet born when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down in 1989. They have no memory of communism—what it meant in terms of poverty, thwarted opportunity and political repression. Closer to home, few Americans recall the likes of the now-defunct Civil Aeronautics Board, which not only set the price of an airline ticket but regulated the size of the in-flight sandwiches. What millennials do know is what happened in 2008—and for many it serves as an indictment of the market system. Read more . . . 1 2Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy2Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness, and why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially-just society. Visit the official website at www.defendingthefreemarket.com3 Related posts:
SOURCE: Acton Institute Gramsci: An early founder of Safe Schools, BRR and the more frightening programs yet to emerge...26/7/2016 If you are wondering how it came to be that Australia's government Education departments have become so fully infiltrated by Marxists that they are now able to arrogantly spend millions of taxpayer dollars rolling out such radical social engineering indoctrination programs like the deceptively named "Safe Schools" and "Building Respectful Relationships" programs, wonder no longer. While we have been asleep on the wall the enemy our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers had to go overseas to fight last century, have snuck in and succeeded in capturing our institutions, and not just education departments, but also the universities and the media and many major corporations like QANTAS, ANZ, Disney, Apple, Hilton. The victory banners they march under have changed design and colour, becoming more colourful, but they are just as deceptive and have equally authoritarian ambitions.
The following excerpts from this Samuel Gregg article is well worth reading as is the entire article at the link below. "As a matter of principle, Marxists aren’t troubled by scruples. They will kill, steal, lie, railroad the innocent — whatever it takes to advance the Revolution. Marx himself never shied away from what his program entailed. “When our turn comes,” he wrote in 1849, “we shall not make excuses for the terror.” The actions of his apostles, ranging from Lenin to Stalin, Che Guevara, Mao, and Pol Pot, to the Castro brothers, prove just how “principled” Marxists are willing to be, even if it means gulags, “reeducation” camps, or simple murder. In the long-term, however, it may well be that the most effective of Marxists was an Italian philosopher, journalist and Communist official who spent the last 11 years of his life in Mussolini’s prisons. Unlike some other Communists of his generation, Antonio Gramsci had no blood on his hands. He signed no execution orders. He was even considered somewhat of a heretic by more mainstream Marxists of his time. Gramsci’s ideas, however, help explain why so many of the West’s cultural institutions today are rotten with leftist ideas and rhetoric. Gramsci insisted that Marxists had underestimated the importance of culture-forming institutions such as the media, universities, and churches in deciding whether the Left or the Right would gain control (or to use his favorite word, “hegemony”). Marching through the Institutions. Gramsci thought that all these cultural institutions weren’t neutral, but in fact were serving as a vast propaganda machine on behalf of capitalism. Until leftists came to dominate them, they would never be able to convince enough people to support their revolution. This part of his thesis was like manna from heaven for many left-wing Western intellectuals. Instead of joining a factory collective or making bombs in basements, a leftist professor could help free society from capitalist exploitation by penning essays in his office or teaching students. In this scenario, the revolutionary force shifts away from the proletariat toward middle-class intellectuals. Today, entire humanities and social science departments (not to mention journalism schools) in Western European, North American and Latin American universities are slaves to the search for hidden oppressors. In practical terms, the Gramscian strategy also means that the left plays hard-ball when it comes to the internal workings of numerous institutions. It doesn’t matter, for example, how good the journalism of a devout Christian or a religious Jew might be. Nor is it important that a political conservative or free market advocate has conducted cutting-edge research in his academic field or produced a superb film. Such people must be marginalized because of their faith and/or politics, lest they threaten the left’s “hegemony” over the means of “cultural production.” Truth is no longer important, for truth is just a ruling class construct. What matters is the pursuance and maintenance of power, so that millions of media-consumers and thousands of university students can continue being enlightened about the hidden structures of privilege. The worst part of Gramsci’s legacy is that it has effectively transcended its Marxist origins. His outlook is now blankly taken for granted by millions of teachers, writers, even churchmen, who have no idea that they are committed to cultural Marxism. So while the socialist paradises constructed by Lenin, Stalin and likeminded people imploded over 25 years ago, the Gramscian mindset is alive and flourishing at your local university and in more than a few liberal churches and synagogues. The vast structures of cynicism which Gramsci’s ideas have built, which honeycomb Western society today, will prove much tougher to dismantle than the crude cement blocks of the old Berlin Wall." To read the full article read on -->> The below excerpts from Nick Cater's article in The Australian today highlights the danger facing Australia from not just one but two totalitarian forces (Islam and the Rainbow movement) who seek to silence all opposition as they advance and attempt their takeover of our once young and free, but now very sleepy and blind, Australia.
"The determination to deny their opponents a platform, the merciless attacks on character, the insistence that their enemies not only apologise but do so grovellingly like some shaven-headed dissident at a show trial suggest the Left, once again, is flirting with totalitarianism. There is one important detail about the early fascists that the Left intelligentsia have been inclined to overlook: the early fascists were metropolitan sophisticates rather like today’s intelligentsia — artists, writers, academics and dreamers convinced of their own superior wisdom. The resemblance between totalitarianism and modern-day political correctness is hardly surprising. As Tony Judt wrote in his expansive volume on the history of Europe from 1945, a monopoly of authority requires a monopoly of knowledge, the assurance that the official “truth” on any given topic would not be challenged or, if it were, that the challenge should be suppressed with exemplary force. It is no coincidence that the intelligentsia, which champions political correctness today, once championed the Soviet Union where the state sought to control not just what people said but what they thought. It aspired to set the limits not only on Dimitri Shostakovich performances but also his compositions. Stalin, if he could, would have cracked down on Shostakovich not just for the music he conducted but the music going on in his head." Nick Cater in The Australian newspaper 26th July 2016 Fascism Is Real
From Jeffrey A Tucker: "Without the term fascism as an authentic descriptor, we have a problem. We have no accurate way to identify what is in fact the most politically successful movement of the 20th century. It is a movement that still exists today, because the conditions that gave rise to it are unchanged. The whole burden of one of the most famous pro-freedom books of the century — Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom — was to warn that fascism was a more immediate and pressing danger to the developed world than Russian-style socialism. And this is for a reason: Hayek said that “brown” fascism did not represent a polar opposite of “red” socialism. In the interwar period, it was common to see both intellectuals and politicians move fluidly from one to the other. “The rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period,” wrote Hayek, “but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.” FEE From Miranda Devine in the Daily Telegraph: July 24 2016
"THE story of Cheltenham Girls High School is a textbook example of the subterfuge involved in the controversial Safe Schools Coalition and how far education authorities and governments will go to preserve and conceal a program that subverts parents rights and values. It is worth forensically examining how a school and a minister attempted to discredit a true story last week, how some media outlets gullibly accepted official denials, and how a group of courageous parents and teachers defied the cover-up anonymously to voice their concerns. The fear felt by the whistleblowers, and the secrecy and euphemisms employed to disguise the true nature of the Safe Schools agenda really is of Orwellian proportions. And the ultimate irony is that the principal of CGHS, Susan Bridge stood up at an assembly on Thursday to declare the school was being “bullied” by the media. It all began last week with our story of how teachers at the all-girls school in northwest Sydney were asked in a staff meeting to stop referring to students as “girls”, ladies” and “women”, but to use “gender-neutral” language instead. The story was based on detailed accounts from insiders who attended the meeting, but asked not to be identified. More than half the meeting, which was held at the end of last term, after school hours, was spent specifically addressing the planned implementation of the Safe Schools program. Read on -->> Pokemon Go at the Holocaust Museum
Have We Finally Amused Ourselves to Death? By: John Stonestreet|Published: July 19, 2016 6:00 AM The good news is people are leaving their screens inside to go outside. The bad news? When they’re outside, they’re still staring at screens. Listen Now | Download In 1985, social critic named Neal Postman, in the introduction to his book “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” compared two famous dystopian visions: “1984” by George Orwell and “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley. He noted that though many people thought their visions similar, Huxley and Orwell had very different theories about how people would lose their freedoms. Orwell thought it would be Big Brother—the all-watching, all-powerful state. Now certainly, in the age of the NSA and TSA, it sounds like he may have been on to something. But Postman thought Huxley was the one who got it right. Here’s how he put it: What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, because there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture... As Huxley remarked in“Brave New World Revisited,” the civil libertarians and rationalists ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions. In “1984,” people are controlled by inflicting pain. In“Brave New World,” they were controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared what we love will ruin us. “My book,” Postman then concluded, “is about the possibility that Huxley was right, not Orwell.” And perhaps nothing has so vindicated Postman’s take on American culture like Pokemon Go, a game in which users capture, battle, and train mythical creatures. Already it has more users than Tindr and even Twitter! The upside—this game takes users outdoors to look for Pokemon, around cities and towns, even fields, using their phones' GPS and camera. The downside—though outdoors, users are still staring at screens, oblivious to the world in which they’re searching, not to mention to other people. As you might imagine, there have been casualties. This weekend, hundreds of gamers snarled traffic heading into Central Park, when a particularly elusive Pokemon was spotted there. Last week, two men fell off a cliff near San Diego playing the game. Others have been stabbed, robbed, beaten up and shot at by those taking advantage of unaware users. As a San Diego Sheriff’s Department spokesperson said, “People need to realize this is just a game. It’s not worth your life. No game is worth your life.” Neil Postman’s warning in “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” however, went further than that. He warned we were becoming a silly culture, addicted to distraction, without the ability to prefer the good, the true, and the beautiful to the trivial, the meaningless, and the titillating. Such a culture, he thought, would be easily taken captive by the inability to discern what’s truly important. And in perhaps the ultimate indictment on our culture, the Arlington National Cemetery and the Holocaust Museum issued appeals last week that users not search for Pokemon at these hallowed sites of remembrance. The fact that it even needed to be said only affirms Postman’s prophecy. Look, games are fun, and Pokemon Go is pretty cool. So if your kids are playing, don’t panic. But if they’re addicted to perpetual distraction, it’s time to intervene. Our friends at Axis.org can help. They have a marvelous tool for parents of teens called the Culture Translator to get you up to speed on this game and all kinds of other things. Come to BreakPoint.org, click on this commentary, and I’ll link you to it. Further Reading and Information from BreakPoint.org: Pokemon Go at the Holocaust Museum: Have We Finally Amused Ourselves to Death? Find out more about Neil Postman's prescient observations on our amusement-centered society by getting his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death", available at the online bookstore. Available at the online bookstoreAmusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business Neil Postman | Penguin Books | December 2005 Screens and Teens: Connecting with Our Kids in a Wireless World Kathy Koch | Moody Publishers | March 2015 #Struggles Craig Groeschel | Zondervan Publishers | October 2015 Other Resources2 California men fall off edge of ocean bluff while playing 'Pokemon Go' Veronica Rocha | LA Times | July 14, 2016 Pokemon Go players unwelcome at Arlington, Holocaust museum Sara Ashley O'Brien | CNN.com | July 13, 2016 The Culture Translator Website SOURCE The Marxist Worldview
This podcast presents a lecture by Dr. Jeff Myers on the Marxist worldview. Listen as he sketches the history and influence of Karl Marx, from The Communist Manifesto to Bernie Sanders, all the while contrasting Marx’s view with a Christian worldview. Listen now → Here's what else we thought was worthwhile at SummitMinistries.org this week: 1. Justin Brierly hosted an insightful conversation between Vanessa James, an ex-Christian, and Holly Ordway, an ex-atheist, on Unbelievable. 2. Stephen Witmer wrote a brilliant article connecting a biblical view of sexuality and creation care at The Gospel Coalition. 3. J. Warner Wallace blogged about how "Jesus is a myth, just like President Kennedy," a creative response to an old challenge to Christian belief. 4. Joel McDurmon shared a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche that highlights inconsistency in Richard Dawkins' arguments at The American Vision. 5. Sean McDowell wrote about six different ways you could make a career in apologetics. A recent survey of 2000 unchurched people reveals much about the inborn "spiritual DNA" inside each human being. It has revealed that people, although being naturally impacted by the negative wrap that "religion" (often very deserved)gets in the media, basically don't mind talking about religion and spiritual issues, and in fact want to do so and are often open to and even waiting for Christians to make the first move.
The survey revealed that 70 percent agree “there is an ultimate purpose and plan for every person’s life,” and 57 percent say that finding “their deeper purpose” is “a major priority.” People are looking for answers and are open to their Christian friends prodding and invitations. This is a very interesting survey and worth further reading at: BreakPoint.org The results lead to an important question: "Where does our innate desire for purpose and meaning come from?" Could it be a product of accidental Darwinian evolution, which suggests we and everything in the universe just appeared out of an explosion of "nothing" which resulted in everything? I think it makes more sense that we have been intentionally designed with an inbuilt "spiritual" aspect which causes us to be restless and seek our higher purpose. Read more about this, and the solution to our restlessness at the following Christianity page which invites you to seek answers and provides some suggestions to the big questions we innately long to have answered. Further Resources on this subject: Search the word "purpose" in the Bible to see God has a lot to say about the topic. Your Unchurched Friends Want to Know About Your Faith Bob Smietana | Christianity Today | June 28, 2016 God? Meaning of life? Many Americans don’t seek them in church Cathy Lynn Grossman | religionnews.com | June 28, 2016 Research: Unchurched will talk about faith, not interested in going to church Lifeway.com survey results | June 28, 2016 Entrusted Website Valiant for Truth
"The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits." (Daniel 11:32) "The Lord is a man of war, Jehovah is his name." Those who enlist under His banner shall have a Commander who will train them for the conflict and give them both vigor and valor. The times of which Daniel wrote were of the very worst kind, and then it was promised that the people of God would come out in their best colors: they would be strong and stout to confront the powerful adversary. Oh, that we may know our God: His power, His faithfulness, His immutable love, and so may be ready to risk everything in His behalf. He is One whose character excites our enthusiasm and makes us willing to live and to die for Him. Oh, that we may know our God by familiar fellowship with Him; for then we shall become like Him and shall be prepared to stand up for truth and righteousness. He who comes forth fresh from beholding the face of God will never fear the face of man. If we dwell with Him, we shall catch the heroic spirit, and to us a world of enemies will be but as the drop of a bucket. A countless array of men, or even of devils, will seem as little to us as the nations are to God, and He counts them only as grasshoppers. Oh, to be valiant for truth in this day of falsehood. Charles Spurgeon Craig Manners
9th July 2016 Everyone has a worldview i.e. how they view and understand the world. For example, did the world just appear out of nothing and suddenly produce well designed things, order, intelligent beings and a perfect environment for sustaining life, from a "big bang?" "Nothing" accidently exploding into "everything"? An explosion creating everything instead of destroying? Like setting off an explosion in a desert and finding a skyscraper suddenly appearing after the dust settled. Or is there a "Designer?" Did God create everything as per the creation account in Genesis, the first book of the Bible? A person's worldview affects how they view human beings. Much hinges on this. Are we moral beings for one? Do we have an innate dignity worthy of respect? Or is there no such thing as morality, is that just a human construct, and therefore is it really "dog eat dog," "survival of the fittest or strongest?" If so there is nothing wrong with euthanizing your frail and sick parents to get their money, for example, or there was nothing wrong with anything Hitler did. The Genesis account of human history makes it very clear that we are moral beings, as does I would argue observational science, observing the reality of human interaction, not to mention common sense and human history. According to this account human beings are made in the image of God. God's moral character is a part of human character. As God is not neutral toward human behavior, because of His moral character, neither are humans neutral to fellow humans behaving badly. We know for instance that it is "wrong" to euthanize our parents at a whim to get their money, and we know that what Hitler did was "wrong." But how do we know this? Is there a "moral compass" built in to us? If so, who built it? If morality is a reality, what are the consequences of a society increasingly becoming compromised, by embracing as moral something which is immoral? Making laws which promote, protect and teach immoral acts as being normal and moral? Insisting and forcing citizens to stop saying that immoral acts are immoral? Introducing schools programs to "educate" children to believe that immoral acts are now moral? If human beings really are moral beings, if there really is a moral foundation upon which good society is built, what happens when the government and/or culture undermines that foundation, when it weakens the moral fibre of its citizens? Just as a little yeast spreads throughout the dough, a small crack in the foundations has the potential to topple the whole building. Surely increasingly rampant immorality, will lead to a complete validation of and increasingly widespread practice of more immoral and corrupt behavior. What impact will this have for our society? Will it be good or will it be bad? Or is there no such thing as good or bad? There is much at stake when humans who subscribe to the worldview that there is no God, no morality, that human beings are morally unaccountable and autonomous and can do whatever they can get away with, that there is no truth, no right or wrong, good or bad, start to forcefully impose what is immoral upon their fellow humans and demand that they call it moral. If the reality of morality is not respected it will not be long before our once young and free Australia is overrun by chaotic forces which will do to our society what explosives really do to things, destroy them, not create them better than they were. If you are interested in learning more about our world there is an interesting event coming up in Melbourne on 21-23rd July 2016 with Prof. Stuart Burgess, one of the world's leading design engineers in space, robotic and drone technology. For details click here. By Craig Manners
So called "unrestrained" freedom is a form of slavery. True freedom requires virtue and there is no virtue in unrestrained immorality, or in harming other human beings, no matter how young or how old, or in making it easy for drug dealers or dealers in porn or other sexual forms of enslavement to enslave our nation's children, the weak or the poor. In June 1978, speaking at Harvard University, Soviet freedom fighter and winner of a Nobel Prize in literature, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, not only argued against the worldview which had enslaved his own country through Communism, but he prophetically assessed a major flaw and deception in the prevailing worldview being embraced by the West. He said that a “destructive and irresponsible freedom had been granted boundless space.” This is even more so today. The West has exchanged belief in unchanging truth, and a proper understanding of true freedom, for basically an anything goes version of freedom, which in reality is slavery calling itself freedom. It is a ruthless, deceptive, legalism, restraining true freedom and enslaving those who thought they were fighting for freedom. It is "an affront to the Aboriginal People of Australia to suggest another definition of marriage." - Statement from 70 Aboriginal leaders opposing the proposed undermining of human foundations. Do these original inhabitants have a place in "modern" Australia? Why would anyone think it is somehow modern, good, colourful and happy to offend Australia's original inhabitants by forcefully imposing radical immorality on them? Are our original inhabitants homophobic, bigots, haters, dinosaurs and intolerant? Our original inhabitants deserve respect, honour and recognition, not more cultural steamrolling.
From Warwick Marsh & David Rowsome
As we have previously shared, the new Senate voting laws have made it much more difficult for the smaller Christian and conservative parties to win a seat. It is therefore critical that you vote for at least 6 parties above the line to really make your vote count for Christian values. If you decide instead to vote below the line, then number at least 12 candidates below the line including those from Christian-values-based parties. But if you want to ensure that those parties or candidates that are not Christian-values-based, like the Sex Party or the Greens, are put last, then you should number either ALL the boxes above the line or ALL the boxes below line. Please use these resources wisely. Print them off and give them out at church. Tell your friends and cross-reference this information with the Australian Christian Lobby and FamilyVoice Australia. Distribute the electronic Christian Values Checklist PDFs through your networks to help Christian people make an informed and wise decision. If you want others to stay informed with updates like these on the Federal election share this update and encourage them to sign the Canberra Declaration today. Together we can make a difference. Yours for Christian-values-based Government "In the 4th century there lived an Asiatic monk who had spent most of his life in a remote community of prayer, raising vegetables for the cloister kitchen. When he was not tending his garden spot, he was fulfilling his vocation of study and prayer.
“Then one day this monk named Telemachus felt that the Lord wanted him to go to Rome, the capital of the world – the busiest, wealthiest, biggest city in the world. Telemachus had no idea why he should go there, and he was terrified at the thought. But as he prayed, God’s directive became clear. “How bewildered the little monk must have been as he set out on the long journey, on foot, over dusty roads westward, everything he owned on his back. Why was he going? He didn’t know. What would he find there? He had no idea. But obediently, he went. “Telemachus arrived in Rome during the holiday festival. You may know that the Roman rulers kept the ghettos quiet in those days by providing free bread and special entertainment called circuses. At the time Telemachus arrived the city was also bustling with excitement over the recent Roman victory over the Goths. In the midst of this jubilant commotion, the monk looked for clues as to why God had brought him there, for he had no other guidance, not even a superior in a religious order to contact. “Perhaps, he thought, it is not sheer coincidence that I have arrived at this festival time. Perhaps God has some special role for me to play. “So Telemachus let the crowds guide him, and the stream of humanity soon led him into the Coliseum where the gladiator contests were to be staged. He could hear the cries of the animals in their cages beneath the floor of the great arena and the clamor of the contestants preparing to do battle. “The gladiators marched into the arena, saluted the emperor, and shouted, ‘We who are about to die salute thee.’ Telemachus shuddered. He had never heard of gladiator games before, but had a premonition of awful violence. “The crowd had come to cheer men, who for no reason other than amusement, would murder each other. Human lives were offered for entertainment. As the monk realized what was going to happen, he realized he could not sit still and watch such savagery. Neither could he leave and forget. He jumped to the top of the perimeter wall and cried, ‘In the name of Christ, stop!’ “The fighting began, of course. No one paid the slightest heed to the puny voice. So Telemachus pattered down the stone stops and leapt onto the sandy floor of the arena. He made a comic figure – a scrawny man in a monk’s habit dashing back and forth between muscular, armed athletes. One gladiator sent him sprawling with a blow from his shield, directing him back to his seat. It was a rough gesture, though almost a kind one. The crowd roared. “But Telemachus refused to stop. He rushed into the way of those trying to fight, shouting again, ‘In the name of Christ, stop!’ The crowd began to laugh and cheer him on, perhaps thinking him part of the entertainment. “Then his movement blocked the vision of one of the contestants; the gladiator saw a blow coming just in time. Furious now, the crowd began to cry for the interloper’s blood. “Run him through,” they screamed. “The gladiator he had blocked raised his sword and with a flash of steel, struck Telemachus, slashing down across his chest and into his stomach. The little monk gasped once more, ‘In the name of Christ, stop.’ “Then a strange thing occurred. As the two gladiators and the crowd focused on the still form on the suddenly crimson sand, the arena grew deathly quiet. In the silence, someone in the top tier got up and walked out. Another followed. All over the arena, spectators began to leave, until the huge stadium was emptied. “There were other forces at work, of course, but that innocent figure lying in the pool of blood crystallized the opposition, and that was the last gladiatorial contest in the Roman Coliseum. Never again did men kill each other for the crowds’ entertainment in the Roman arena.” This story of Telemachus from Church historian Theodoret is reprinted with gratitude from, "Loving God," by Charles Colson, pages 241-243. (I heartily recommend this book.) Some further information can be found regarding Telemachus at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Telemachus http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/20284a.htm |
Craig MannersWhile much of what is written in this Blog may currently appear to be counter-cultural, given our post-truth culture, it is in no way counter-human beings. I am always for people no matter what they think, do, or may have done in their past. Where I put forward ideas or debate against certain ideology, behaviour, ideas, movements, politics, I remain very much on the side of the human beings even though I may be opposed to their worldview, behaviour and politics. Such opposition is generally out of concern for the ultimate consequences of such behaviour or ideas, especially for children. |