Why do so many pro-life leaders support war?

Why do so many pro-life leaders support war?

 

by Don Hank

 

In an article titled “Corey Lewandowski set up by man-hating scammer,” Kelleigh Nelson portrays Michelle Fields as a feminist scammer posing as a conservative.

I also saw reports that Fields is a serial accuser of men but did not forward them, waiting instead for confirmation. I just now found confirmation of her accusation against Allen West here. It is hard to imagine that this woman is constantly being harassed by conservative men — especially when there are plenty of Democrat satyrs like Bill Clinton out there, with whom she must have come into contact plenty of times. It doesn’t smell right.

BTW, I am surprised that almost the entire pro-life community seems to have condemned Trump for saying that if abortion is declared to be a crime, then women who attempt abortions should be punished. Pro-lifers have always said that abortion is murder. A woman who tries to have an abortion would be an attempted murderer in that case, no question. Yet, the pro-life community has done what appears to be an about-face, as if they accept at face value the hype that feminists have been peddling for years.

After all, if women are to be treated as untouchables, then what if the abortion provider is a woman? Wouldn’t she have to be let off as well?

I suspect the whole issue is centered around the fact that Cruz, who glibly condemns Trump no matter what he says or does, has used the same tactics as GW Bush, portraying himself as God’s man.

If Bush was God’s man when he invaded Iraq, why were the Assyrian Christians forced to leave the country after we “won” the war there?

If he is not God’s man, then how can Evangelicals be so sure that Cruz, whose view on war is almost identical to that of Bush, is God’s man?

Has God really chosen a man to lead us to the promised land? Or is this another delusion — like so many many before it?

The Neocons said they wanted to use Christians to do their bidding. If they succeed again in deceiving Christiasn, how are non-Christians to take our faith seriously? Should we not be looking to our Savior instead of seeking an earthly Messiah?

Here is what I wrote about Neoconservatism:

http://laiglesforum.com/the-framing-of-iran-by-the-godless/3443.htm

Irving Kristol, dubbed the “godfather” of the (Neoconservative) movement, “has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere. (using naive Christians to do their dirty work — Don)

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were “a pious fraud.” [my highlighting] (any “Christian who allows himself to be led around by the nose by such ungodly people is disobeying God and committing a grievous sin!)

Jesus said be wise as serpents. That was a commandment, not a suggestion.

This commentary is not intended as an endorsement for any candidate. All of them are grievously flawed. However, there is a contrast in the area that I consider more important than all the rest, and that is, the flippant attitude of so many conservatives toward war, particularly with Russia and its allies (including China). The Neoconservatives have always shown an irrational and virtually racist hatred of Russia and many thoughtless Christians have bought into the now-debunked myth that God and Magog in Isaiah represented Russia (these place names were recently found in the Assyrian court records and were found in what is now Turkey).

Judging by the reckless statements of these people in the GOP campaign, many of them are more afraid of losing political power than they are of nuclear war. Americans have never seen war up close and personal, let alone nuclear war and are wholly unqualified to flirt with it – need I remind you, nuclear war could wipe out all of life or at least set civilization back 4000 years or so.

We ought to know that all the elements for such a war are in place and all we need is a warmongering Russian hating president to usher it in.

Cruz has said we should “push back Russia” in Syria. How can we reconcile this with the fact that the US was a co-creator of ISIS in the first place and has no political will to defeat ISIS? Or that Russian ally Assad is the only Middle Eastern leader who protects Christians? Russia is the only world power in Syria that does not have dirty hands and at the same time, is effectively combating ISIS. How can we therefore ignore our ignominious role in creating and even arming ISIS and pretend that we are morally superior to Russia? Cruz also calls Putin a dictator, hewing to the Neocon party line. Yet Putin is the duly elected president of Russia and enjoys a popularity rating that is the envy of the world.

If Christians, particularly those who are part of the pro-life movement, are seen as supporting a pro-war candidate who recklessly wants to push around another nuclear power, regardless of his pro-life statements, what does this do to their image, their credibility and their effectiveness in the pro-life movement?

I welcome comments both pro and con. This is the time for an honest objective debate on this issue.

Is Putin a sincere Christian? The Bible says it doesn’t matter

Is Putin a sincere Christian? The Bible says it doesn’t matter

by Don Hank

If your young child were drowning in the surf and a swimmer ran toward the water’s edge to save him, would you consider stopping the would-be rescuer and asking him whether he was a Christian before allowing him to proceed to save your precious child?

Of course not. You’d allow even a dog to save the child and you wouldn’t think twice about the worthiness of the rescuer. And yet, the entire world is watching someone save Christians and other minorities in Syria and some Christians are crying “foul” because they think that Putin may not be completely sincere and therefore not morally worthy of saving them. They want only Christians to save Christians. Yet none of them is going to Syria to save these desperate people. Such hypocrisy cries out for a strong response (and even perhaps a severe lashing).

Some Americans keep insisting that Russian President Vladimir Putin must prove his sincerity. Oddly these same people never speak of “sincerity” when assessing US candidates. This is because US candidates are typically insincere and have made us cynical. Many of us assume deceit is part and parcel of politics.

I don’t know whether Putin is sincere, but as I keep saying, he does not owe us an explanation of his faith. He is a political leader of a secular government. Remember that all attempts to create a Christian theocracy have failed. The Chiliastic Christians of the Dark Ages wanted a theocracy. Thinking they were sent by God to save Europe from the autocratic Catholics and feeling called to usher in the Millennium, they massacred priests, burned churches, plundered shamelessly, and finally were subdued and their leaders executed. (I say this as a Protestant. Truth is truth. Life is not a football game where one is obliged to root for the “home team”).

How could such people believe God would bless their bloody endeavors? Such runs counter to Christ’s teachings of free-will choice, whereby each of us makes his or her personal choice whether to accept or reject Him or how to worship Him.

Putin has professed his Christianity, whatever that may mean to him. He has said that he is not publicly entering into detail about his faith because it is a personal matter. This stance is in no way incompatible with Christ’s teachings when we consider that Jesus said we are to pray in the closet instead of flaunting our faith. Why is that commandment almost universally ignored among Christians, many of whom are rushing to be seen as saviors of mankind, even starting foundations and asking shamelessly for donations supposedly in an attempt to “restore a Christian America,” something they must know they will never accomplish? Is it not in fact all about them? Do they not in fact desire to be worshiped? Yet many of these same people condemn Putin for a lack of sincerity! It often seems as if they are vying for the title of Mr. or Mrs. Hypocrisy.

The important thing is not whether Putin is sincere but how his actions are furthering God’s work. We all know how. It is obvious. Traditional Christianity — including the true definition of marriage — is flourishing in Russia and Syrian Christians are being saved from ISIS only because Putin intervened. Once any of Putin’s critics have done this much, they are free to pile on him. Otherwise they are nothing but hypocrites.

God chooses people to do His work and does not have any religious requirements for this.

Nebuchadnezzar and Constantine are good examples.

Historians are not certain whether Constantine was a Christian but he was indisputably enormously instrumental in legitimizing Christianity in Europe and elsewhere. If that is not enough, let his critics do better.

Many readers will be surprised to learn that in another woefully neglected passage, Paul taught that it does not matter whether the one who delivers Christ’s message is sincere or not.

Philippians 1:

…17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What matter? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, 19 for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ…

Though I can’t prove it, I believe that Putin is not acting solely out of selfish ambition. There is abundant evidence that he is working for the good of his people (as well as for a better world — a world he calls multipolar, where no country lords it over others). If the Russians had good reason to suspect otherwise, they would not have reelected him so many times. If only the West had even one leader who did likewise!

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

 

 

Why don’t conservatives and moderates see eye to eye?

Why don’t conservatives see eye to eye with moderates?

by Don Hank

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.   Ephesians 6:12

A good friend of mine (whom we shall call X herein), recently raised a very important question (see title) that we often fail to answer, mostly because most of us simply can’t. This is because there are 2 kinds of true conservatives:

1–the kind who have been brought up to believe in a rigid conservative ideology, whose instincts tell them they are right but who have no idea why or how to defend it. This group is hard put to articulate its ideas and hence often reacts with anger to the Left and to ‘moderates.’ They expect them to understand common sense, and in a perfect world, they would. (They don’t understand the spiritual block against understanding).

2–the kind who have thought things through and can answer the questions of the Left and the ‘moderates’ who are deceived by the Left.

I strive to belong to the latter group. Lord forgive me where I have failed, but I try. Here is my response to X’s question as to why moderates are different from conservatives.

 

Dear X,

I think the main reason for the difference is that moderate conservatives don’t see the ‘continental drift’ of popular social and political thought in recent years. They have no idea what cultural Marxism is and they can’t see how they are manipulated by the MSM. After all, has anyone noticed the physical drift in the American continent in their lifetime? It is too minuscule to notice. Only a scientist can verify its existence. By the same token, most people could not possibly notice how the nation’s definition of ‘conservative’ has been stealthily altered by sly operatives in MSM, ‘education,’ politics, Hollywood, academe, etc.

In particular, they don’t understand that a group of white billionaire elitist men is trying to grab the reins of the planet. To them that is just too outlandish to wrap their minds around. That is also why they still insist that G.W. Bush, an advocate of a borderless US (NAU), of amnesty for the lawless, of the bailout of banks with your money and mine, and of Middle East wars that result in the death and exodus of millions of Christians, is a conservative.

It is all a matter of perception, and of our willingness to face truth head-on rather than simply to dodge the more thorny issues. More importantly, it is a spiritual question and they are spiritually blind.

Ironically, the most powerful apologists for Judeo-Christianity are the atheist-humanist transnational elitists themselves. Even if most people steadfastly believe that our struggle is against operatives of the material world, the behavior of these elitists clearly demonstrates that they know it is a spiritual battle and not a material one. They fight with that realization in mind, while we largely struggle—vainly—on the material level and wonder how it is that we are failing. Yet how could we possibly expect to win if we direct our efforts at a target that is not there?

Read more:

http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/why-don-t-conservatives-see-eye-to-eye-with-moderates

Corporations: A government in the shadows

Are corporations torch bearers of the free market?

Not even close – despite what the “conservative” media and politicians are telling you

 

Don Hank

There is a certain resistance among the public to admit that it is not you and I but the corporations and their lawyers, partnering with the Federal Reserve, that run America. Many conservatives hate to hear anyone “malign” corporations because to them, corporations, including banks, bear the torch of sacred capitalism. The GOP bosses are content with this situation.

On the other hand, since most big corporations donate mostly to the Democrat party, Democrats — especially those in the media and politics – are also loathe to broach the subject of corporate control over government.

Besides, the same corporations lobbying for open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens are also helping build Democrat power. Everyone knows how Latinos tend to vote.

And when it comes to “green” boondoggles, all the fat cats want in on them. They will of course mean a net loss of jobs and enormous subsidies for the most inefficient technologies known to mankind, but “green” subsidies flow freely from government coffers, as anyone following the Solyndra story knows.

Now, many of these corporate lobbyists are pushing very hard for open borders. They donated big bucks to pliable candidates and expect some bang, like more illegal alien labor, for example, and better legal conditions for sending your job overseas. Big corporations and Big Politics want precisely what you dread.

So what about us little people down here?

I wonder what people would say if they knew that the power of their vote is negligible compared to the pressures brought to bear by Big Business lobbies, which effectively dictate policy to your elected officials. I wonder how many have ever figured out that it was your senator’s and congressmen’s utter subservience to corporate lobbyists that made them vote for the TARP bailouts even after receiving phone calls begging them not to vote for it at the rate of 300 calls against the bailouts per 1 call in favor.

I wonder what will happen once the cat is out of the bag.

Maybe We the People will assume our rightful place in this great nation again.

Maybe.

But not unless we put our thinking caps on and realize what is really happening. Try asking yourself honestly: would corporations spend billions of dollars lobbying if they weren’t getting a financial “kickback” in some form or other? And are these kickbacks free or do they cost you money? 

It’s not that long between now and election time. Will your candidate discuss this with you in town meetings or will he mutter something snide, look around and say “next question”? If he isn’t leveling with you on the economy, fire him. You’re his boss and can’t afford another sluggard on your staff.

Where does your presidential candidate stand? I don’t recall the Fox moderators asking about the power of the corporate lobbies. And yet, business as usual in Washington brought down the world economy and cost millions of American jobs.

It’s time to wake up and make the economy and your job the front-burner issue this time around.

DEMAND:

CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF THE MONEY (NO MORE FEDERAL RESERVE)

STRICT CONTROLS ON LOBBYING, ESP CORPORATE LOBBYING

Now recall that the mainstream “conservative” media keep reminding you that the Occupy people are all a bunch of Marxists. So what about Alex Jones and Ron Paul’s followers? They aren’t Marxists and they have attended the Occupy rallies in significant numbers all over the country, teaching independents about the issues, making converts. So have people like Steph Jasky and Karl Denninger, who played a key role in founding the Tea Party, as well as a ton of other top-notch people. All while you stayed home, paralyzed with fear by what you read in the “conservative” press and blogosphere about being tainted by the lefties supposedly in charge. Like that photo of a young anarchist backed up against a police car, pants at half-mast, in an act of defiant defecation. Think anyone follows him? All in all, whatever Marxists may be participating in the rallies out in the cities and towns across the country are clueless non-contenders and will have almost no power in this movement if we play our cards right for a change. As I have said before, the movement is ours for the taking. Why do you think the Republican leaders and their minions in Big Talk Radio are all bad mouthing the movement?

Clue: Many of these people on the street are on to the lobbying games that the corporations – as well as the Fed — are playing, and threaten to spoil things for Big Politics by returning the power to you.

That is the main factor in all the negative press on the right. So why do leftwing politicians high five these young protesters? That’s easy. So far, they’ve been smarter than us. They know they can control the movement and its narrative if they act like they are behind it all. But they’re bluffing.  Yes, ACORN, Soros, Van Jones and other shadowy types with Obama links have in fact dreamed up schemes like this and undoubtedly had a hand in it, just as they no doubt had a hand in the Egyptian riots. But this isn’t Egypt now. It’s our turf, and no one can control it unless we let them. So far, the Left is spinning its wheels as its power slips away. Protesters interviewed on camera, for example, have ripped Obama mercilessly for his failures. The End the Fed movement is all over these rallies and for whatever faults they may have, they are vehemently anti-Obama and pro free market.

So if people like you can start thinking – and acting – outside the box, the whole football can be stripped from the hands of the corporatist elites and, with God’s grace, you can have your country back.

Sure, it will be hard work. And the propaganda aimed at making you think you are in bad company among the protesters will be non-stop. That’s a given.

Some of my Christian brethren are saying that to join the protests would mean being unequally yoked.

But consider this: If a bunch of atheists lobbied to make churches accountable for the actions of pedophile church workers, you wouldn’t side with the pedophiles, would you?

Voting against the pedophiles would not make you an atheist and it would not make you look like one. It would be doing God’s work because pedophiles not only harmd children, they are a stumbling block to the unsaved and give the churches a bad name. Let’s be real: For every candidate you have ever voted for, some unsavory characters also voted for him. So what?

Don’t be afraid to join forces with new people who are starting to get it and are just as mad as you, but maybe don’t have as clear a grasp of the issues. You may be the person who reaches a wishy-washy fence rider.

After all, I can’t think of a single election cycle when people on both sides of the political spectrum have been so mad for the same reasons – irrespective of their ideologies.

What a gorgeous opportunity!

If you let the political elites who stole your country steal the election this time around, don’t blame it on me.

 

Some statistics to consider:

 

http://allthingsd.com/20101223/what-tech-companies-are-spending-in-washington/

 

Verizon spent $3.83 million lobbying on several issues, including taxes and texting while driving, at numerous branches of the federal government, including the White House, Congress, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Trade Commission. It spent $2.96 million in the same period a year ago.

AT&T spent $3.47 million, up from $3.18 million a year ago. Its agenda items included legislation on calling cards, broadband buildouts and distracted driving.

Hewlett-Packard spent $1.6 million–nearly double the $970,000 it spent in the third quarter of last year–chatting with members of Congress and officials at the Department of Justice and the Commerce Department about taxes, immigration and how government agencies use technology in the areas of health care and law enforcement.

Microsoft spent $1.63 million, an increase from $1.49 million a year ago. It visited Congress, the Pentagon and the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security to talk about computer security, how the government buys software and the competitive state of online advertising. It also lobbied the Federal Communications Commission on net neutrality.

Oracle spent $1.6 million, up from $1.3 million, lobbying Congress, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security on patent litigation and the government’s technology spending plans.

Google spent $1.2 million in the third quarter (which TechCrunch noted in October following a press release by Consumer Watchdog), an increase from $1.08 million in the same period a year ago.

IBM spent $1 million, up from $850,000 a year ago, talking about transportation, the power grid, funding for research and the military, on visits to Congress and the Departments of Transportation, Defense, and Health and Human Services.

Intel spent $830,000, which is notable because the amount decreased from $1.1 million a year ago. Intel was the target of both a private antitrust lawsuit from rival Advanced Micro Devices and a government antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, both of which were intensifying in the fall. Both cases have since been settled. Its efforts were in immigration, government research funding and issues related to trademarks and education.

Yahoo spent $540,000, up from $510,000 a year ago.

Apple, easily the most influential company in consumer technology today, spent relatively little on lobbying efforts: Only $340,000 [BUT they had Al Gore on their board of directors. How cozy. 90% of their political donations went to the Democrats. Did you know that Steve Jobs “invented” mostly cosmetic changes in devices? Can you name an inventor who actually devised the really high-tech stuff like the iPod itself or the Apple computer and monitor electronics? Didn’t think so. They didn’t have dinner with Al Gore—Don Hank].

Facebook spent $120,000.

For a little more on what companies spend on lobbying efforts in Washington, it’s always enlightening to peruse the database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks not only lobbying expenditures but campaign contributions.

As you can see, the CRP shows that, among computer and Internet companies, Microsoft was the leading lobbying spender for the first nine months of the year. The wireless industry’s trade association, the CTIA, led the pack in the telephone equipment and services category, spending more than $6 million. Meanwhile, Verizon and AT&T each spent more than $12 million.

http://www.alternet.org/story/146643/hightower:_washington_overrun_by_11,000_corporate_lobbyists_and_$500_million_in_corrupting_donations

  • 11,195. That’s the number of corporate lobbyists who are presently plying their nefarious trade day and night in Washington’s hallways and back rooms.
  • $2.95 billion. That’s the amount that corporations spent on lobbyists last year alone (a sum more than six times greater than the total spent by all consumer,environmental, worker, and other non-corporate groups combined).
  • $473 million. That’s the sum of money that corporate executives and lobbyists have slipped into Washington’s many political pockets–so far–for the 2010 election cycle, including donations to candidates, leadership PACS, and party committees. We are still seven months from the 2010 elections, and already corporate spending has reached the record-breaking total of $475 million shelled out for the entire 2008 cycle.

 

Christianity and Libertarianism and the Consent of the Governed

Originally Posted here by Laigle’s contributor Anthony Horvath


“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Declaration of Independence


The last few months I’ve seen some strident statements of opposition against libertarians by conservatives. I’m on several email lists where I’m seeing such commentary and of course its on the web, as in this example. I personally didn’t detect a huge uptick in libertarian sentiment, but alright. I describe myself as a ‘constitutional libertarian’ and in explaining why I hope that I can shed light on what I believe are the true reasons for a rise in libertarianism- among Christians in particular. I can’t speak for them all, of course, but I think I recognize in some of their commentary some of my own thinking.

So, to begin with, let me make two important observations. First of all, when one thinks ‘libertarian’ one might immediately think licentious. However, the two are not identical terms. This leads to the second observation, the direction by which one arrives at libertarianism greatly impacts the flavor of that libertarianism. There can be no question that there are a great mass of individuals, who calling themselves libertarians, really are just people who wish to engage in whatever depravity that they want, with no one to tell them otherwise or worse- stop them. By my observation, the people coming from this direction are really your typical atheist secular humanist progressive who is perfectly happy to foist as much government as people can bear onto themselves and others- in the form of nationalized health care, eg- just so long as they can have sex with whatever and whomever they want and smoke whatever happens to come across their path.

However, someone coming at ‘libertarianism’ from the other direction, say, from a Christian perspective and a conservative, is not looking for a reason to misbehave. This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul. Continue reading

Never the twain shall meet

Oh East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.

Rudyard Kipling (the Ballad of East and West)

 

by Don Hank

Recently, a quiet philosophical debate took place without media fanfare between Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho and Alexandr Dugin, Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical strategist and leading organizer of the Eurasian Movement  – considered to be the most influential Russian thinker in the Post-Soviet era. It was a classic clash of East and West.

Both submitted photos of themselves, and no reader could help but be charmed by the kneeling de Carvalho posing with his hunting dogs and shotgun, in contrast to the stern figure of Dugin standing in front of a Russian tank holding a machine gun. One prepared to kill human opponents and the other simply prepared to hunt rabbits or quail.

De Carvalho’s opening remarks are as disarming as the picture:

“I am just a philosopher, writer, and professor, committed to the quest for what seems to me to be the truth and to educating a group of people who are so kind as to pay attention to what I say.  Neither these people nor I hold any public job.  We do not have any influence on national or international politics. We do not even have the ambition – much less an explicit project – for changing the course of history, whatever it may be.  Our only hope is to know reality to the utmost degree of our power and one day leave this life aware that we did not live in illusions and self-delusion, that we did not let ourselves be misled and corrupted by the Prince of this World and by the promises of the ideologues, his servants.  In the current power hierarchy of my native country, my opinion is worthless, except maybe as a negative example and an incarnation of absolute evil[1], which is a source of great satisfaction to me.  In the country where I live, the government considers me at worst an inoffensive eccentric.

“No political party, mass movement, government institution, church or religious sect considers me its mentor. So I can give my opinion as I wish, and change my opinion as many times as it seems right to me, with no devastating practical consequences beyond the modest circle of my personal existence.”

Incredibly, rather than try to assert that he too is writing as an individual and has a personal standpoint of his own, Dugin, in his response, argues against the whole notion of individual thought, saying:

“I accept it fully and agree to recognise the fact that our Russian (Eurasian) individuation consists in the desire to manifest something more general than our individual features. So, being a collective entity … for me is rather an honour. The more holistic is my position, the better it is.”

Now it may be acceptable, even noble, that Russian leaders are willing to sacrifice their own “individual features” for the good of the fatherland, but de Carvalho wasn’t talking about “features.” He was talking about a viewpoint on the nature of vital philosophical issues of government and social thought. Though he doesn’t mention this, the debate actually centers around whether one can think as an individual or only as a collective entity—a notion with overtones of science fiction, evoking dark images of Brave New World and 1984, for example. Just as importantly, Dugin’s unvarnished preference for group think as opposed to individuality touches on the very nature of thought (or cognition) and what it is.

For de Carvalho, thought is modern (as opposed to postmodern) and concrete. Truth can be known and is objective, ie, something that exists on its own outside the self (the debater in this case) and outside the collective. For Dugin, truth is what his powerful autocrat friends decide it is and say it is.  What you or I think is of no consequence.  One of his arguments in a later round was that Olavo de Carvalho was on the losing side, not because his reasoning was faulty, but because his side lacks power in both the East and the West. Unfortunately, he is right. But in a fair debate, which of the two debaters has the most power is irrelevant. His reasoning amounts to bullying, pure and simple.

Aside from all the deeper philosophical arguments presented here, this debate boils down to a confrontation of freedom vs. serfdom, individual rights vs. rule by an independent oligarchy.

If Dugin has his way, the world would be ruled by a technocracy. If de Carvalho has his way, you and I can live in a relatively free world where individuals could use the observations and logic to draw our own conclusions about the world and issues that are vital to us. If Dugin has his way, the powerful decide for you. Whether Dugin considers himself a postmodernist or not, he in fact defends an important aspect of that philosophy. For while the postmodernist believes that truth cannot be known, the Eastern philosopher like Dugin believes that — if it exists at all — it is irrelevant and only power matters.

What’s more, he doesn’t seem to understand that the fight of de Carvalho and all free people is not only against the Eurasian viewpoint Dugin represents but also against the Ruling Elite in the West (as de Carvalho later contends). Thus, in terms of power, the fight is unbalanced, favoring Dugin and the vast majority of influential Western thinkers – a true David vs Goliath bout if there ever was one.

The whole notion behind our post-modern way of “thinking” is that the scientific method, consisting of

1— the formulation of a hypothesis through observations (inductive reasoning)

2— the testing of this hypothesis (experimentation)

3— the establishment of a conclusion (deductively) based on the results of that experimentation

4— Subsequent ongoing verification of the results and conclusion by independent researchers

has outlived its usefulness in areas such as philosophy, economics, political science, government, and social thought, no longer applies and must be replaced by a system based on consensus. Note that this conclusion itself was reached by fiat, not by use of a scientific method, but since that method is declared obsolete it supposedly no longer applies. Hence, this is circular thinking as the more astute reader will have observed. I need to point out that Dugin does not admit that he is a postmodernist and probably, he would reject my mentioning that issue, but the commonality lies in the fact that postmodernism in politics does in fact rely on consensus and denies the individual’s ability to reach valid conclusions on his own. That, by inference, is a denial of the scientific method, without which the truth cannot be apprehended.

Despite the abandonment of the above-described scientific method in vital areas that affect our lives, but that fall outside the “natural sciences[2],” these 4 steps remain unquestioned as the requisite procedures by which we infer knowledge in the field of natural science. Thus, researchers in the areas of all natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry and medicine, are required to use this method, and aside from out and out cheating and falsification of results, such as that observed  at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, and aside from the area of origin of life research, most researchers stick to this rigorous method, out of necessity.

As an aside, it is more than intriguing that, in the non-exact sciences, the scientific method was replaced by those who are opposed to a society based on biblical principles. The Left’s age-old notion that Christianity has been an obstacle to scientific thought would seem, a priori, incompatible with the abolition of the scientific method.

Yet it is the Left that wants to abolish it. Also beyond intriguing is the fact that one of the key links in the philosopher chain that led to the development of the scientific method was a monk named Roger Bacon, who was able to publish his three tomes outlining the method (Opus Majus, Opus Minus and Opus Tertium) thanks to a commission granted by Pope Clement in 1265.

None of this movement to eliminate the scientific method in the interpretation of our world is comprehensible without an understanding of the Left’s desire to replace Christianity with their own religion, which could be called “Historicity.” Though never enunciated specifically by anyone, this is the religion whereby History would be God. When the Democrats say “we are on the side of history,” what they mean is that History (I use the capital H because it is their god) is tending toward all the progressive goals they are working toward, such as homosexual marriage, drug legalization, abolition of the words father and mother, abolition of the traditional family, wealth redistribution, abolition of borders, abolition of all immigration laws in rich countries and enforcement of Draconian environmental regulations in rich countries but not in the Third World, abolition of petroleum use, strict China-like population control, and in short, abolition of the traditional concept of law and order and the establishment of a Global Oligarchy with the “progressives” in charge. And to the Left, these agendas are sacred missions.

Though they would never admit it, in an effort to implement these long-term goals, their short-term goal is to eliminate thought, or cognition, as it is traditionally construed, and replace it with the notion of consensus, as reflected by Dugin’s statements quoted above. But what that means specifically is a consensus formed by a majority whose thoughts and attitudes are controlled by the Oligarchs through psychological control techniques designed to make the members of the target group believe that they arrived at their conclusions independently and that, therefore, they are free.

Which leads us to the thorny task of defining freedom.

Most of us derive our own definition of freedom simply by evaluating each individual situation and asking ourselves essentially “do I feel free or do I feel coerced in this situation?”

But, while that cognitive habit is useful in everyday situations, it is fatally flawed when we consider how easy it is, through thought control techniques, to induce the majority to arrive at predetermined conclusions and to convince them that they have arrived at these conclusions independently on an individual basis.

So that definition is a non-starter.

But post-modern “philosophers” have been saying, roughly since Nietzsche, that truth cannot be known. Now, by extension, freedom could not be defined if that were so. This claim, however, negates itself, because if it is true that truth cannot be known, then this statement itself obviously cannot be called the truth and is of no epistemological value.

More indicting of postmodernism is the fact that the scientific method is still used in the exact sciences, not because it is accepted by academics by consensus, but because it is indispensable and because the best minds have not only accepted its use but have not been able to successfully disprove its usefulness or get by without it.

All successful new drugs and new scientific discoveries are tested, verified and authenticated by this method. Any that are disqualified by the method are discarded. Patent specifications routinely contain hypotheses, test results and conclusions.

The claim that this method does not apply to other areas of vital national, global or personal interest would require overcoming a huge cognitive hurdle, and it would fail, because to say the scientific method no longer applies or that truth cannot be known would be analogous to saying that a glass is no longer necessary to hold drinking water. That would be sophism, pure and simple, and would in no way affect our lives because people would continue to use glasses to drink water regardless – not because consensus had made that the accepted method to drink water but because without a drinking glass it would be impossible or unnecessarily difficult to drink water. The musings of idle minds on this subject would be of no consequence in the real world.

Like the drinking glass, sound objective thinking based on the tried-and-true method generally going by the name “scientific method” is nothing but a tool and is not subject to sophist argumentation.

Therefore, by extension, Alexandr Dugin’s argument that consensus (“being a collective entity” and hence thinking collectively) is superior to the individual’s own thought processes, based (by implication) on the scientific method (even though neither debater uses this term), should also be rejected by anyone of sound mind. That is, if the free world itself is to survive.

Yet, the fact that fantasy-based Keynesian economics continues to be the dominant orientation in Western universities, and the fact that banks are allowed to gamble fraudulently with their clients’ money and then receive unconstitutional bailouts instead of a jail sentence, is a reminder that, in spite of a sovereign debt that threatens our dollar and our children’s future, Western society has yet to acknowledge the usefulness of practical tools – common sense and free market economics – as vital to our welfare as the common drinking glass.

I think even Alexandr Dugin would agree with me on that.

The author is a technical translator who has translated, since 1971, over 10,000 scientific and medical documents and patents.


[1] Olavo de Carvalho has been a thorn in the side of the leftist government in Brazil, which sides with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and imprisons or fines Christians, for example, who stick to biblical teachings on homosexuality.

[2] By natural sciences I mean sciences involving observable regularly behaving phenomena whose regular behavior can be used to derive laws by observation and experimentation.

The debate:

http://www.theinteramerican.org/blogs/98-olavo-de-carvalho/247-olavo-de-carvalho-debates-aleksandr-dugin-i.html

We are all loonies now

We are all loonies now

by Don Hank

There is at least one report that Jared Lee Loughner may be associated with the so-called “patriot movement,” sort of second cousins to the Libertarians. Indeed, he thinks (if it can be called thinking) exactly like one.

In the early 90s a business acquaintance of mine invited me to a meeting of a group he called “patriots.” They sat around discussing the Constitution and heroic people who defy the government on the basis of what they considered to be their constitutional rights. One of the first things I noticed was a frequent ear-grating misuse of the word “whom” (in the subjective case) by some of the speakers who seemed to be accepted as authorities by the rest of the group.

I was told that one of the guys in the group specialized in baiting the cops by driving around in a car without a tag. Whenever he was pulled over, he pulled a copy of the Constitution out of his glove compartment and showed the officer a clause protecting the right of free travel. This he interpreted to mean that the government could not force anyone to buy a license to use a car. This same gentleman was unemployed, spending most of his time fighting the “fascist” government. He couldn’t afford to pay his mortgage but claimed no one had the right to evict him, again, supposedly based on the Constitution. He had a sign on his door stating that the “owner of this house is a Christian gentleman” and something to the effect that no one had the right to evict him, alluding to the dear Constitution he claimed as his all-purpose personal shield. The group seemed to accord him a special degree of respect.

Another guy in the group, who was dependent on a prescription antidepressant, was obliged to leave his apartment upon expiry of his lease. He had made a pest of himself, going around challenging people, including his fellow tenants and his landlords, on the constitutionality of various laws. Like Jared Lee Loughner, he had made himself unwelcome everywhere, including in areas he had staked out as his turf.

This evicted “patriot” sued the landlord in court and told the judge it was his Constitutional right to have his lease renewed, but did not cite any particular part of the Constitution. It was as if that document was for him what a silver cross is to a vampire’s intended victim. Just brandishing it before the enemy makes you invulerable. The best he could come up with, following disjointed statements, was “my freedom was bought at the price of patriots’ blood.” 

He seemed to be conflating the Founders with Jesus. At any rate, the judge did not accept the argument.

This “patriot’s” case best spotlights what is wrong with a very tiny segment of the US population, who are neither leftists nor conservatives.  They claim to love their country but what they mean is themselves. The Constitution in no way calls for security for renters or restricts the right of property owners to rent to whomever they want to. It is in fact Statists who argue that landlords should not be entitled to freely choose whom they may or may not rent to but should rather be constrained by the State to rent to a percentage of minorities corresponding to the general demographics. The plaintiff in this case was in fact arguing for a kind of affirmative action for himself.

Claiming to be a “sovereign citizen,” this plaintiff was in fact demanding that the State intervene on his behalf against the wishes of his landlord. While claiming the Constitution as his defense, he was in fact using a liberal-progressive interpretation of that document.

It was just such a tragic and self-centered misunderstanding of the Constitution that seems to have motivated Jared Lee Loughner in his war against his Pima Community College. The college had learned early on that Loughner was extremely disruptive and posed a potential threat to his professors and classmates, and as a result, had seen fit to expel him. But Loughner asserted on his web page that they had deprived him of his First Amendment right to free speech.

There always will be people out there like Loughner and the patriots to whom I was introduced in the early 90s.

But these people most certainly are not conservatives, quite the opposite. They outwardly pretend to share our concern for the Constitution and for the way it is being trampled in our courts and legislatures.

But in fact, their concern is for themselves, their own selfish interests, and they are, in their own way, attempting to usurp and distort the Constitution for personal gain and power. In this way they are no different from the power happy activist judges in our courts. What these Statist patriots demand on their own behalf, the Statist Left demands in the name of social and economic justice. The difference is razor-thin.

Thus, seen in this light, the loony Left, in accusing conservative talk radio and TV hosts and politicians like Sara Palin of inciting loony Loughner to kill, is in fact trying to distance itself from a man who is arguably one of their own. They are succeeding in part so far because naive people on the other side have allowed themselves, out of fear, to be branded by their lies and people in the amorphous center believe them. They really ought to see through the subterfuge.

But looniness – in this case, manifested as the mental incapacity to see through a relatively transparent smoke screen — is spreading epidemically thanks to the wondrous distortive power of the press.

Deceit: let’s leave it to the Left of us

Only he who does nothing makes no mistakes.

Russian proverb

by Don Hank

Every time an American patriot falls for a hoax, as I did with a hoax video showing Obama apparently admitting he was born in Kenya, the devil laughs out loud.

Anthony Horvath, author of Birthpangs and owner of the site Athanatos, sent me the below link to the original of that video, clearly showing that Obama did not admit he was born in Kenya on that occasion (Laigle’s Forum partner Horvath has since posted a column on this at Laigle’s):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/The-President-Talks-with-Students-in-Turkey?category=9

It hurts our cause when we fall for these hoaxes. After I sent out my acknowledgment that this was false and that I had been fooled by this, one friend emailed back saying he was discouraged from ever reading emails disparaging Obama.

That is, of course, exactly what the Left wants, and it may very well be the Left that is behind this. At the very least, it is not a person who loves truth. It is wrong, it is a sin against God to perpetrate a hoax of this kind or to act dishonestly in a way intended to bring gain or false honor to ourselves. It leaves our cause of freedom with mud all over its face. Leave the hoaxes and fake data up to the Left. Do not borrow this trait from them. You become complicit when you do.

Let’s play clean. If you find yourself forwarding an email without paying enough attention, you owe it to every recipient to admit you were fooled. It is hard, but they will forgive you and sympathize because all of us have been had a time or two.

Pick yourself up after that confession, realizing you did the right thing, a brave thing, and then just march onward in pursuit of truth.

That is what smart scientists do all the time. They find some data that seems to suggest a hypothesis, and they go about finding more data to support it. The honest ones, if they are proven wrong, write up the conclusion reflecting that their hypothesis was wrong, and then they turn around and research something else.

Losers make mistakes and then try to hide them. Winners make mistakes, admit them and then dust themselves off and move on.

Of course, this “post-Christian” era is also post-scientific, which demonstrates that when you give up on the Lord, you have also given up on science and wisdom. This dismissal of science (that is, of facts) in favor of utopian fancies has led us down the primrose path almost to the point of no return. Banks can’t do science — the science of numbers — any more. They are guided by utopian dreams of “social justice,” which is neither Christian nor scientific. In other words, what they put to paper doesn’t work in the real world. In fact, this pursuit of an impossible and unworthy goal brought down banks, mortgage companies and brokerages that packaged and sold bad subprime mortgages (along with some good and mediocre ones) all over the world in a dirty scheme to save their own hides after committing the sin of giving away what was not theirs to give (by lending to the non-creditworthy). Likewise our lawmakers make unconstitutional bankruptcy laws that in fact lead to “legal” theft of goods and property, ultimately leading to equally criminal bailouts and stimulus packages, which also have failed, leading in turn to our official figure of 9.5% unemployment, which translates to over 20% unemployment in real numbers.

Likewise, scientists, like those at the University of East Anglia, can’t do meteorology any more. Instead of honestly reporting the data, as was done in the Old World Order, they tailor the data to suit the needs of world politicians subscribed to the New World Order.

We are a society of deceivers and deceived. It is no exaggeration that even we conservatives have become our enemy.

I was recently invited to join a recently founded conservative foundation as a fellow. Thinking of it as a stepping stone of sorts, and putting aside a slight anxiety over being used, I agreed to join but shortly thereafter, once I saw the shenanigans and petty politics, turned down the “honor” of being a fellow.  For one thing, the director asked me to write a press release billing this brand new foundation as “prestigious.” Sorry, but a brand new foundation hasn’t had the time to be prestigious. Lying is bad enough, but asking someone with conservative credentials to lie for you is beyond the pale.

If only people could see the harm they are doing by stretching the truth. Many of the same people who rear up in outrage against liberals for taking liberties with truth will not hesitate to do the same thing if they think it will bring them gain. For shame!

We can break free only if we are rigorously honest with ourselves and others.

Let me kick off the movement by saying:

I have been had, more than once. I’m sorry, but I definitely am not quitting. I will continue to move on, making mistakes at times, but will never quit.

In fact, I have only just begun to fight. Now let’s move on, America. This is no time to hide our heads in the sand. We have study and work to do. And — in the learning process — mistakes to make and confess.

Revolution USA, repeat history with a twist

by Don Hank

A look back at the French revolution reveals many surprising commonalities with today’s situation in America.

Yet, if the Tea Party Revolution succeeds, it will not be due to a revolutionary mindset as best described by Olavo de Carvalho (my review; full text). It will be the opposite, but with a similar historical lead-up and tactics ( hopefully with less bloodshed).

The main factors in both revolutions are:

Economic

Intellectual

Spiritual

Political

One of the main factors in the French Revolution was an economic one: worldwide famine caused by a weather anomaly. What later came to be known as the Little Ice Age contributed mightily to the timing of the revolution, as detailed by Brian Fagan.

In our case, while there is no famine, there is a shrinking economy, and a looming double-dip recession or even a full-blown depression, as predicted by economist Paul Krugman. Many realize government policy actually caused the initial failure of banks and the consequent economic slide. Most do not.

Regardless of the origin of this current economic malaise, it will eventually parallel the situation in France in 1788/9. Already, the number of unemployment recipients is staggering and is further gnawing at our national treasury, just as the excesses of Louis XV and XVI gnawed at and eventually drained, France’s treasury.

Added to this in France was the intellectual factor, i.e., the wide circulation of the ideas of the enlightenment, which generally called for equality among all people, undermining the notion of divine right of the nobility. In fact, the successful American Revolution added fuel to this equality movement.

But the American Revolution also contributed in a political way to the revolution: In an attempt to vindicate his father’s waste of national funds in the unsuccessful Seven Years War against traditional enemy Britain, Louis XV, Louis XVI, the incompetent king and husband of Marie Antoinette, decided to help the Americans in their war with Britain. Success in that war did not translate into political success for Louis XVI, however, because the aid the French had sent us bankrupted France and further undermined the King’s authority and popularity. Other political factors include the popularity of revolutionary-minded Minister Jacques Neckar and of Maximilien Robespierre. The former’s dismissal gave more fuel to the movement while the latter’s oratory inspired the people to revolt.

It bodes ill for Michelle Obama that her extravagant vacations and leisure life are garnering her the monicker “Michelle Antoinette” – even among Democrats.

It is intriguing that the scenario of the French Revolution is now being turned upside down:

Economically, while most of the ills caused by the government in France were unrelated to the will of the public, the ills in our country were by consent of the governed, who foolishly installed politicians imbued with Keynesian economic ideas. A close look at globalist G.W. Bush, son of globalist George Bush Sr., would have shown us this flaw in his character. Obama, obviously driven by leftwing ideology, could scarcely have been expected to reject the idea of bailouts for banks and businesses, which then could be controlled by the government. This amassing of power in the hands of globalists and Marxists was accomplished by stealth, but it was ultimately the uncritical masses who chose them.

Intellectually, while the ideas that bolstered the French Revolution were strictly leftist revolutionary, the ideas of the Tea Party, promulgated by media personalities and a few politicians, and increasingly, by bloggers and internet activists, are spreading and causing a new kind of movement that could best be called antirevolutionary, if we accept the definition of the Revolution as set down by revolutionaries themselves over the centuries (again, I refer to the masterful work by Olavo de Carvalo).

Spiritually, the French revolution marked an upsurge in the religion of humanism, which has held for centuries, while the tea party revolution marks a turn toward traditional Christian values and beliefs that the French would call “reactionary.” It is no exaggeration to call humanism a religion in this context. The spiritual descendants of Voltaire include Sartre, Camus and a host of artists dedicated to proselytizing for atheistic humanism. A look at French cinema (works like “Jean de Florette,” “The Stranger” and “Madame Bovary,” for example) make this fanatical missionary spirit abundantly clear. Meanwhile, in America, the new heretics, like Jim Wallis and wishy-washy feel-good, “cool” pastors are being rejected for what Americans see as the “real thing,” solid men of God dedicated to the winning of souls from perdition.

Politically, the situation is similar between France then and the US today. The National Assembly in the 1780s had been at loggerheads with the King over issues like equality of taxation (only the commoners were taxed, nobility and clergy were exempted). It was the people against the tyrant at the top. Today we see the will of the people in Arizona, for example, being thwarted by the heavy hand of Obama and an activist court.  In reaction to the general perception of such tyranny, the true patriot tea party candidates (as distinct from the GOP-led imitations) are overthrowing incumbents in many elections. The GOP establishment, even with endorsements from once-popular heavy hitters like Sara Palin and Jan Brewer, is no longer able to sell their wishy-washy candidates at face value. Given the economic climate, the established church is no longer able to sell open borders and amnesty to their parishioners. Even popular icon Ann Coulter can’t pied-piper her followers into accepting a coalition with the homosexual agenda. The establishment is slowly cracking.

Conservatives and libertarians are forming a natural coalition and spreading the ideas of liberty and constitutional government but without the leftwing claptrap.

It is too early to predict anything, but the climate is right for a revolution that is, like the first American Revolution, not a revolution at all but rather a return to common sense, natural law and the God of our fathers.

Many conservatives dismally ill-informed

Many conservatives dismally ill-informed

Don Hank

I recently got an email with a link to a presentation by Lou Dobbs on CNN quoting John Boehner referring to a bill before Congress that would have given all kinds of benefits to illegal immigrants. Boehner had called it “a piece of sh…t.”

The guy who forwarded it apparently thought it was current information and said ‘Well, folks, what do you think of Obama now?”

I took a quick look at the Youtube still and realized I had seen this at least a half-dozen times over the last few years, and that it was made during the Bush administration. (May of 2007 to be exact, as you can see here.)

It was in fact G.W. Bush who had pushed this miscreant bill. Yet the sender thought it was recent and was using it as an example of how pro-invasion the Obama administration is!

I have always said that Obama is one of the best things that ever happened to this country because now, the unconstitutional legislation that was given a pass in the Bush years is happening under a lefty, and finally it is being acknowledged for what it is: a leftist attempt to take over America and change it radically.

Too bad we needed to elect a self-proclaimed lefty to show people how bad – and far-left – our immigration policies always have been.

What worries me is that many of the same people who are outraged by this nonsense – and rightfully so – are backing Sara Palin. Yet during her last campaign Sara was silent as the Sphinx on immigration. You couldn’t get a rise out of her except for a boilerplate comment about how immigrants made America great. And she was, of course, running with – and enthusiastically endorsing – one of the biggest RINOs and pro-amnesty politicians in the Senate. Need I also mention Palin’s selection of a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court?

The fact that she now benefits from photo-ops with Jan Brewer does not put new spots on this leopard.

America has two vital missions that can’t be put off:

1 – to kick the far left out of power

2 – to kick out RINOs, their enablers

If we only accomplish mission one, that will be worse than a total failure, because, by anesthetizing the conservative public, as was done under the Bushes, it will enable the RINOs to accomplish all the things the far left could not do. And on top of that, it will make you complacent enough again to like what you see.

But how do we tell the difference between a true conservative and a phony who will run with the Dems once elected?

Some things you can do to prevent disinformation:

1– Compare what the Left is promoting to see if your favorite “conservative” is pushing the same thing. (Example: Both Bush and Obama signed the first bailout bill),

2 – Verify everything you read in “conservative” news sources and every email you receive from conservative friends. Their hearts are in the right place. But it’s up to you to find out where their heads are.

3 – Never “follow your heart” instead of your head. Feel-good policies are the hallmark of the Left.

4 – Always be more cautious with news sources from groups, including religious and conservative groups, that are making money off of donations or are selling news or teaming up with other conservatives in speaking engagements. These groups, even the more solid ones like WorldNetDaily (they’re behind Sara Palin), usually feel they have to be more mainstream to survive. (Some, like Judicial Watch for example, seem to have avoided that pitfall).

5 – Subscribe to Laigle’s Forum (http://laiglesforum.com/mailing/?p=subscribe&id=1). We do not solicit your money, just your attention. You can make me — and yourself — more prosperous by defending the Constitution.

zoilandon@msn.com