Cancel everything you know
Cancel everything you know
Donald Hank
Soon I will be posting an article by Olavo de Carvalho entitled “The runaway right,” which describes the abject unwillingness of conservatives (or “classic liberals”) to defend against the most outrageous and transparent lies and distortions of the Left. At the beginning, the author lists names of Marxist activists who have introduced their ideas into Western culture. These are not household names. Just as the destination and origin of the bailout trillions are not known, we aren’t supposed to know who controls either our minds or our finances. But when you consider that these men have strongly influenced western culture and thinking- your and my thinking – for decades, it behooves us to pay attention to all the clues as to how they have succeeded in duping so many for so long, even posthumously through their willing disciples in media and education.
Too often the average American mouths opinions that came from the media or schools and universities, most of which are steeped in Marxist thought, and he or she actually believes this thought represents the product of an educated mind when in fact, it is the product of indoctrination. I will go further and say that the beliefs and attitudes of the average American today (even the average “Christian” American) are largely the product of leftist indoctrination.
Many believe, for example, that having borders is no longer a good thing, or at least that in our case, the border with Mexico should not be closed but should be opened to admit those wonderful people “looking for a better way of life” or “willing to do jobs Americans won’t do.” (This became so widely accepted a “fact” that no one even mentioned illegal immigration and border security in the last presidential election).
Many also believed that not voting for far-left stoutly pro-partial-birth-abortion Barack Obama was racist, even un-Christian.
They believe that the bailout of banks and the auto industry was necessary and the bank crisis was due to unknown causes centered around a lack of regulation – hence, the “need” for more regulations (even though the regulations that are in place are not being enforced or worse, regulations that enabled banks to use good banking practice are banned — by bad regulations!).
And, of course, they believe marriage is between any two (or maybe more?) people regardless of sex (and age? And family relationship?).
Many also believe that politicians calling themselves “conservative” are justified in nationalizing our banks and industry “to save our economy.” Many believe the justification for this is a revelation of Divine Will to our beloved President.
They believe without question that FDR “got us out of the depression” when in fact he prolonged it and aggravated it, for example, by paying farmers to slaughter livestock in an insane attempt to raise farm prices during a depression.
Where do you think these absurd notions came from? The Left originated essentially in Europe and spread not only ideas but also mind control techniques developed by activists from Pavlov to Gramsci to the Frankfurt School. Gramsci taught activists to use fear and intimidation – name-calling for instance (the modern version includes racist, homophobe, sexist, to name the most effective ones) – to force people to accept otherwise unacceptable ideas. He called this technique the “psychic iron cage.” What troubles the few conservative observers aware of this technique is the extent to which these threadbare scare tactics actually work, even now when the public could – and should – be fully aware of them and should have developed means to combat them.
Thanks not so much to the success of the Left but more to the abject failure of the right to defend itself (see Olavo de Carvalho’s article “Shadow diplomacy”), the door is wide open for anarchy, of which we have already had a taste (ACORN, bullying banks into making suicidally high-risk loans, for example, Black Panthers terrorizing conservative voters, and Joe Six-Pack turning a blind eye to this, afraid to be called a racist for caring about his family’s safety). They will almost definitely experience this anarchy in massive doses very soon, thanks to gullible Americans who have willingly turned over their minds to mind-control experts of the Left.
Now tell yourself the truth: do you warm up to the idea of wearing a psychic iron cage? I doubt you do, despite the fact that a staggering number of Americans wear them.
Therefore, if you have a vague – or even distinct – sensation of having been bullied at any time into accepting ideas that were not your own or that ran counter to your culture, your common sense, your religion or your upbringing and if you have acquiesced mostly out of peer pressure, shame, fear of rejection, retaliation or the like, you need to find a technique to resist this unfair assault on your freedom of conscience.
None of the aforementioned motivations are legitimate reasons for you to change your beliefs. Nor are the following ones.
You should not change your beliefs because someone suggested you are not intelligent or scientific if you believe in intelligent design or creationism. Many great scientists have believed, and still believe, in creation.
You should not change your beliefs because the activist Supreme Court challenged them, for example, in Wade v Roe or in the Dover School Board case banning all challenges to Darwinism in public schools.
You should not change your beliefs because someone told you you are a homophobe or intolerant if you believe in traditional marriage as opposed to “gay” marriage. The recent spate of homosexual-perpetrated vandalism, threats of arson and church burning and the outrageous arrests of Christians perceived as “homophobic” in Europe and Canada simply for pursuing their beliefs prove that homosexual activists are the ones who are intolerant. And the Left’s refusal to tell the truth about male homosexuality and AIDS is incontrovertible proof that they are the real homophobes.
You should not change your beliefs because someone told you you are narrow-minded if you believe the Bible. Jesus said “narrow is the way,” and you have an unalienable right to believe that and act upon it without compromise.
Nor should you start believing that nations should open their borders or allow illegal immigration, even if church leaders try to sell you this malarkey by telling you Christ endorsed open borders or discouraged people from loving their homeland. He didn’t.
And you should not stop believing in the free market because someone – talking heads in media, for example – suggested that that capitalism is outdated. Even communist countries are sustained by a healthy black market based on capitalism. Socialism does not work, anywhere or ever.
I asked Mr. de Carvalho if he could shed light on the leftist authors he lists as prime movers in the movement to brainwash the West, and he recommended 2 books:
“Roger Scruton gives a brief but efficient summary of Lukacs’ ideas in his book ‘Thinkers of the New Left.’ Lukacs’ texts are heard to read without a previous knowledge of the entire Marxist tradition and also of the Wilhelm Dilthey school to which Lukacs was attached before becoming a Marxist. A good starting point for such a study is Leszek Kolakowski’s ‘Main Currents of Marxism.’ I believe this book should be mandatory reading for every conservative. [my emphasis -- DH]
Lukacs is a very interesting type, a kind of romantic spiritualist who lost his way and fell into Marxism, becoming a docile pet of stupid Stalinist chieftains.”
So what to do when the Left tries to bully you into accepting its ideas, calling you a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, a wing-nut, a sexist, a nationalist or whatever the insult du jour is?
Try turning the tables and saying:
“Wow, you really enjoy bullying people, don’t you?”
“Bullying” is one of the PC terms used pejoratively against their enemies. This should change their tone and shut them up at least long enough for you to make your exit. And it will give them something to think about.
They may even start respecting you.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
You wrote: “Many great scientists have believed, and still believe, in creation.”
Before Darwin some scientists probably did believe in magical creation. Modern scientists laugh at it, and you’re being extremely dishonest to say any respectable scientist believes that childish nonsense.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
F–k you Christian retard.
[I edited this comment somewhat but approved it so that the reader can get an idea of the absolute hatred out there toward Chrsitianity. We are headed back to Roman times, just before the collapse. I want my readers to understand that there is no compromising with evil. We either defeat this or we will be their slaves. --DH]
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Hello Don,
BobXXXX’s foul language proves that the barbarians are knocking at the gates of Rome. I never ever judge people by their language but unfortunately this person proves that there are halfwits aplenty. May his soul rest in peace, one day..
Here is part of an article which BobXXXX intellect may have difficulty in appreciating ~
For Christmas week, we asked some eminent scientists if it’s possible to reconcile reason with religious faith ~ By Jonathan Margolis:
“… So how, I’ve always wondered, do religious scientists explain their beliefs?
Perhaps it is the tough times we live through, perhaps just the inevitable questions you ask as you get older, but in the run-up to this Christmas and the anniversary of the Apollo 8 mission, I asked a variety of scientists how they square their work with their faith.
What united these men and women was a certainty that there is more to life than meets the eye, or even the electron microscope. All saw their role as scientists as one of exploring and experimenting with the natural world but, at the same time, always knowing that this world was the creation of a higher intelligence.
Surprisingly, I found them, like Einstein, more openminded and humble than the majority of their arguably more blinkered, hyper-rationalist, atheist colleagues.
For example, there is Professor Sir John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University, one of the world’s most renowned particle physicists, a Fellow of the Royal Society, who became an Anglican minister when he retired from academia. ‘Faith isn’t a question of shutting your eyes, gritting your teeth and believing six impossible things before break-fast because some unquestionable authority has told you to. It’s a search for truth,’ he said.
‘Science is great, but it’s not the whole story. It deals with repeatable experience, but we all know that in our personal lives, experiences aren’t repeatable. And you simply couldn’t demonstrate how someone is your friend, or what music is.’
Moreover, he insists that there is no lack of evidence of God. ‘I believe God reveals his nature in many ways. They’re not demonstrations that knock you down, but they are very striking things about the world that are best understood as the work of God.
‘The wonderful order of the world, which we scientists investigate, is a sign that there is a divine mind behind that order.’
Similarly, Oxford mathematics professor John Lennox argues: ‘This misapprehension that faith is a religious thing not involved in science is simply false. I see the two as belonging together.’
The softly-spoken Ulsterman added: ‘But science is limited. That’s no insult to science, but as I recently told Richard Dawkins, I could dissect him, run his brain through a scanner, reduce him to chemicals and tell a great deal about him. ‘But I’d never get to know him as a person. For that, he must reveal himself to me.’
Professor Lennox said that God has revealed himself at several levels, in the universe and creation.
‘Science gives us pointers towards God, but you don’t get proofs; you get evidence. And faith is evidence-based – not based on lack of evidence, as Dawkins says.’
So what, I asked, is the evidence? ‘The evidence is cumulative and of two sorts – objective evidence that comes from science, and what I see in Jesus Christ who, as Christmas reminds us, is the Word become flesh, God encoded in humanity. ‘The subjective side is my experience of God through Christ in my daily life.’
London and Oxford-trained biologist Professor Pauline Rudd, based at University College Dublin, is another Christian who successfully balances religious belief with scientific rigour.
Bristol (UK) University’s Stuart Burgess, a mechanical engineer, says, ‘The miraculous bright star which appeared over Bethlehem was an evidence of a special birth.’
‘Science is a good system for understanding materials and material things, but there are plenty of things in life that don’t fall into that category,’ she said.
‘Poetry, music, art, the love I have for my grandchild. Even if I could, I wouldn’t want to weigh and measure that, or my relationship with my friends, or with the sunset.
‘But equally, I do want the ideas I formulate about God to be consistent with my knowledge of science. So I’ve never needed to believe in impossible things. With miracles, for example, I would say most have a perfectly natural explanation.
‘So if you took the Feeding of the 5,000, I’m sure there was enough food, but people just weren’t generous enough to share it until someone started. Things like that moved people, and in those days they might have called it “miraculous”.’ So who or what, I wondered, was Jesus?
‘I think he was a person in whom our highest ideals and values somehow emanate,’ said Professor Rudd.
‘What is opaque in most of us, in him was transparent. So love and power and courage and all the highest human values were expressed in him.
‘To that extent, he was the expression of God in a way that almost nobody else has ever really been. But I think the idea of him being God was superimposed later and that’s not what I believe. It’s too simplistic.’
It was notable how these religious scientists balked at the more simple-minded ‘creationist’ views (the belief that the world was created in six days) that have been exploited by Professor Dawkins and his supporters.
‘The creationists mistake the first chapter of Genesis for a divinely dictated piece of science,’ said Sir John Polkinghorne. ‘It’s deeper than that. Its purpose is to say that nothing exists except through the will of God.
‘The irony is that while seeking to be respectful to scripture, these people abuse it.’
Miracles, simplistic propaganda fodder as they may be to some sceptics, are less of a problem to Stuart Burgess, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University.
‘I’m not ashamed to believe in miracles,’ he said. ‘It is actually the claim that miracles are impossible which is anti-science because science should always be openminded. It is not just religious people who have faith without proof.
‘Despite expensive equipment and the promise of the most famous Nobel Prize in history, no scientist has reproduced the spontaneous generation of life in the lab.
‘As things stand, atheists must have faith the size of a mountain to believe that life arose without an intelligent designer.
‘The mix of faith and evidence that a Christian has can be seen in the Christmas story.
‘The miraculous bright star which appeared over Bethlehem was an evidence of a special birth. But the Wise Men had to have enough faith to take the risk of following the star all the way to Bethlehem.
‘The most moving evidence for Christianity I have seen is when a person with a broken life puts their trust in the Lord Jesus and finds healing, peace and purpose.’
According to Professor Burgess, a spacecraft specialist who designed the solar panels of a £1.4 billion satellite: ‘This is what the Christmas message is really about.’ ……”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1098831/For-Christmas-week-asked-eminent-scientists-possible-reconcile-reason-religious-faith.html
January 4th, 2009 at 9:05 am
“Wow, you really enjoy bullying people, don’t you?”
…is a phrase you can try if it would be imprudent to pull out your service revolver, point it at the leftist bastard’s head and say “Do you want to repeat that?”
January 4th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
A lot to respond to here.
First off, I think Jan and X-rated Bob meant to post their comments in the article on Hitchens.
Jan, I agree with whoever wrote
“The most moving evidence for Christianity I have seen is when a person with a broken life puts their trust in the Lord Jesus and finds healing, peace and purpose.”
AMEN! I learned about this the hard way.
Say, Hitchens, if you ever face a life-threatening situation, don’t be afraid to ask GOD for help. He will forgive you for the foolishness of denying him. Just don’t forget to to set the record straight when he saves you.
As for levotb, if he has a service revolver, then I guess he is a cop, so watch out for this guy. He seems to have missed out on his sensitivity training.
As for Bobxxxx, thanks so much for your comments. This is exactly what I was looking for. Your first comment was terse but civil. But your second exposed you for what you are and it goes a long way to show that atheists just are not civilized.
The sad state of morality in Europe and the US is vivid additional proof.
A Spanish proverb says it best: You can dress up a babboon but he’s still a babboon.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:10 am
[...] been some name calling, some intimidation, and some bullying, but Donald Hank has some help for those who are making New Year’s Resolutions (and recommitments) to fight [...]