Freedom and the Fate of America

Os Guinness discusses the lateness of the American hour.

Nothing lasts forever. People come and go, and nations come and go. Sadly, once free, democratic and prosperous nations can lose all that and devolve into something much different. The old saying holds: ‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.’

Lord Macaulay once said that democratic nations go through this sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith.
From faith to great courage.
From courage to liberty.
From liberty to abundance.
From abundance to complacency.
From complacency to selfishness.
From selfishness to apathy.
From apathy to dependency.
And from dependency back again into bondage.

Or as another formulation puts it: “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” It seems clear that we are witnessing the end of America. Can it recover or is it doomed to degenerate into oblivion or tyranny?

Sounding a Warning

One person who has written quite a lot about such matters is Os Guinness. He has often written about America and the issue of freedom. If you do not know much about him, see this recent piece of mine.

Here I want to discuss his newest book, Zero Hour America: History’s Ultimatum over Freedom and the Answer We Must Give (IVP, 2022). Although shorter than some of his other works, and devoid of any referencing or footnotes, it is still an important volume.

Those who have read previous books of his will find familiar themes in the book. Here I want to simply highlight some of what he has written. Early on, he says this:Zero Hour America

“This short book is no doomsday pronouncement. It is more of a Paul Revere’s ride, though ironically the call to wake up this time is by a Brit and the warning is not about other enemies coming — the enemies are already within the gates.”

One thing in the book I was interested to see was this: often, English evangelicals can tend to be less politically conservative than American ones. Often, they straddle the middle of the road, claiming both sides are equally bad. Guinness has often been this way in the past. But I see something of a shift here.

Sure, he still warns of shortcomings on both sides, but he seems to be getting more aware of where the real danger is coming from. Consider this quote: “History bulges with examples of authoritarianism from both the right and the left, and both extremes will always be a danger.” But he then goes on to say this:

Which is the greater threat in America is for history to show, but there is no question that the present authoritarian trends are clearer and politically stronger on the left than the right — if only because of their greater power and the prestige of their social location.

For all the extreme ugliness and undoubted menace of the right, it cannot match the left for its presence in and favours from the government, the deep state, the academy, the intelligence community, the press and media, and woke business and woke capital.

The last two are especially vital to the left. Once considered the last redoubt of conservative America, business is both the most surprising scalp of the radical left and one of the most important captures, because of the direct impact of banks and corporations on daily American life.

Later on, he again speaks of the left and of the woke activists:

The radical left is the child of neo-Marxism or cultural Marxism. … The radical left of “social justice warriors” weaponizes the victims and uses them to attack, subvert, and overthrow the status quo in the name of liberation and revolution…

No one should forget the endgame of the radical left. There are too many well-meaning people who know nothing about critical theory and its astute use of dog whistles and crossover words. They naively think that woke simply means “alert to injustice,” so they adopt it for themselves and use it as a compliment for the young, the idealistic, and the kind. That is incredibly foolish. …

Woke not only means “alert to injustice” but “active for revolution.” Many a woke politician, woke journalist, woke CEO, woke teacher, woke pastor, and woke parent will wake up one day to realise they have sawn off the branch they were sitting on and swapped their freedom for despotism.

Worldwide Encroachment

In chapter 5 of this book, he deals with things like globalism and the Great Reset. He writes:

“The globalists openly favour the new over the old, the global at the expense of the local, the universal at the expense of the particular, the collective at the expense of the personal, and the monumental at the expense of the simple.”

I am glad he is alert to all this. Here is a longer quote worth featuring:

Globalism therefore naturally appeals to those such as billionaires Bill Gates and George Soros who are fired by revolutionary utopianism, and it favors the bookend of authoritarianism. In economics, the natural outcome of globalism is a monopoly. (Think of the rise of Google, Amazon, and Facebook and their unprecedented control of our  sources of information).

In politics, the natural outcome of globalism is global governance and a new world order. (Think of the current fashion for state socialism, the emergence of one-party politics in ostensible democracies, the expansion of the ever-expanding European Union, and the global pretensions of “Belt and Road” superpower China.)

The logic of globalism is autocracy, the logic of autocracy is technocracy, the logic of technocracy is bureaucracy, and the logic of bureaucracy is the replacement of genuine politics and representative government by administration and regulation. The result will be a cosmocracy, a beehive society, and an anthill state.

Wake up, Members of Parliament and Congress, you may be lavishly remunerated by the financial seductions of corporate lobbyists, but you are in danger of becoming dupes and ciphers, the “useful idiots” of the globalist world that in effect is giving redundancy slips to you and all who believe in nation-states and representative government.

Wow, great stuff. If you did not know who had penned that, you might have guessed that it was Alex Jones or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. saying it. I for one am glad Guinness is on top of these very real and very dangerous threats from the globalist left.

The Antidote

Moreover, the cause of freedom and faith must be passed on, which is why the left hates things like history and family:

If any project is to last longer than a single generation, it requires successful transmission, and successful transmission for a nation requires families, schools, and history. Both faith and freedom share this imperative. They are never more than one generation away from extinction. Faith dies and freedom dies too if it is not handed on. Every generation is a pulse beat in the story of humanity, so a transmission’s breakdown is like a heart attack in the life of a person or a dropping of the baton in a relay race.

In light of all this, God’s people must always be part of the loyal opposition — of the resistance:

The Jewish and Christian faiths are protest faiths. Jews and Christians are protesters. They never simply adjust to the world or resign themselves to life, because the world as it stands is a world gone wrong. It is not what it should have been, and it is not what it should be and will be.

This means that the People of the Book do not accept the world as it is, and while truly conservative, they are never purely conservative. The world has gone wrong, so there are wrongs to put right and things that are right, just, true, good, and beautiful to be restored or brought into existence. Trust in the God of the Bible is automatically a protest against the world as it is in the light of the world, which it should be and one day will be again.

These few snippets from this important book should hopefully interest you enough to get a copy for yourself and have a careful read. The hour is indeed late, and we can be thankful for watchmen on the wall such as Guinness. Whether we will heed the warnings, however, remains to be seen.


Originally published at CultureWatch. Photo by Pixabay.

Thank the Source

Twitter CEO Elon Musk Says He Will Publicly Reveal Twitter’s “Files on Free Speech,” and Implies Coordination with Government

CTH has not visited the various Twitter stories recently, quite frankly because we are ambivalent to them.  It just seems illogical for Elon Musk to have purchased Twitter without any idea of what was happening inside Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop, the public-private partnership that structures the operations of the social media company known as Twitter.

That said, some interesting developments recently as media rail against the platform and organized ultra-leftist groups demand advertising boycotts.  Apparently, Apple and Android are threatening to remove the Twitter App and Mr. Musk is doubling down on exposing the matrix of how the U.S. government was working with Twitter toward controlling speech that was against their interests.

This tweet about releasing internal “files” on “speech suppression” follow on the heels of Mr. Musk noting that government involvement in the blocking of speech is very troubling.

It’s not a secret that FBI and U.S. Dept of Homeland Security offices were in partnership with Twitter. Much has been written about how DHS collaborated with the platform on the definitions and removals of material adverse to their interests.

When Musk uses the word “files” he is probably referencing a set of guidelines from the U.S. government to Twitter for content enforcement.

We see a lot of shocked faces around this as if people are only just discovering the issue.  The general ‘surprise‘ seems rather weird.

It is worth remembering when Twitter became a tool of the U.S. government.  It was back during the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’, specifically the events in Egypt, when members from the Obama administration first solicited Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) for help.

The U.S. State Dept goal was to use these social media platforms as a way for citizens in Egypt and Libya to organize when the government was trying to put down protests.  President Obama wanted to assist the Muslim Brotherhood achieve the goal of removing Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Khaddaffi respectively.

Twitter and Facebook were instrumental in the organization of the protests which were then compromised by the more extreme political elements of political Islam from within the organization of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The relationship between the government and social media grew from there.

While the middle east uprisings were essentially the Beta test, everything in the relationship between govt and those companies evolved toward domestic use in the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.

Twitter and Facebook began promoting the “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” nonsense that was created for national media consumption by the Black Lives Matter group.  … and from that moment the public-private partnership was off to the races.

Fast forward a decade, and yes, now DHS is focused on domestic extremism as the greatest public threat.  Again, controlling speech that runs counter to the interest of government is part of a continuum of the same relationship.

It will be interesting to see what’s in the files.


Neil Oliver asks “I Wonder What Would Happen If”…

Jumpin’ ju-ju bones, Neil Oliver is going to that place publicly and loudly, that many of us have contemplated and discussed quietly with hushed tones and knowing nods.

What Oliver outlines in this monologue does not need much discussion amid the audience awaiting its arrival.  After all, he is basically discussing the logical consequence to the current state of political affairs not only in the U.K but also in the United States.  However, that said, it is rather remarkable in the era of government sponsored fear of rebellion, complete with labels of domestic extremism attached, to see Oliver’s voice bravely citing the outcome.

With 87,000 new IRS agents authorized by the regime quietly assembling for their assault, as Oliver notes, “there is nothing to fear if we have each other” and are willing to stand the gap as an ally for our fellow man.  What Oliver is saying is profound, true and could – in the most significant of ways, lead to a new beginning.  Yes, it is talk of a united rebellion, and that’s exactly what we need.  WATCH: 

[Transcript] – People write to me every day to tell me they fear the future. People from all over the world, all ages, all walks of life. I say this: we should not be afraid. If anyone should be afraid it is our government, the whole of parliament, the State and the Establishment. They should be afraid because they are in the wrong – doing wrong things and behaving unforgivably.

You can tell they are afraid by the way they keep doing more and more, faster and faster, to make the people poor, cold and hungry – also demoralised, anxious and fearful about the present, never mind the future. The fear felt by people around the world is the deliberate consequence of the actions of so-called leaders all across the West and beyond.

I say again, we should not be afraid. Those plotting and working against us, against our interests both as individuals and as sovereign states, have no power and no money other than that which we, the people grant them. They are supposed to use that power and money to protect us, to keep us free and to provide opportunities for those hard working, free people to make happy and successful lives for themselves. Instead, they are working night and day to have us welcome a state of being that is nothing less than digital enslavement.

Many of the people who contact me ask:

What should we do? How can we fight back?

I think about the answers to those questions all the time. Right now, I wonder what would happen if those who are cold in their homes – millions of people – just turned on their heating and turned off their direct debits and standing orders. What would happen if, when the bills came, we all just agreed to toss them on the fire? All of us together? What would happen, if millions of us, peacefully acting as one just stood together in quiet defiance? I could be wrong, but I don’t think there’s enough cells in the prisons, enough judges to hear the cases. If the system wasn’t already broken – by them – such actions would break it.

What would happen if we all withdrew our money from the banks on the same day? What would happen if we all asked, as we are entitled to, for the cash? The banks don’t have the money to meet all those demands and so presumably they would close their doors. Then what? Would their inability to pay out all that cash be evidence of the fraud that is fiat money? I wonder.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the social contract – that notion by which we surrender power to the state in return for services and safety – is broken beyond repair. They broke it, not us. Successive governments – not just the present bunch of cardboard cut-outs … have, over decades, knowingly and deliberately betrayed every aspect of that contract. It is null and void and we, the blameless party, are no longer bound by its conditions.

We the people – the sovereign people of this country – don’t just hold the power: we ARE the power. We loan some of it – a short-term loan – to governments. And those governments are supposed to serve us, do our bidding. NEVER the other way round. We tell them what to do.

Hundreds of years’ worth of governments has quietly and secretively presided over a financial system that is no more than state-sanctioned fraud. Power to create money out of thin air was put in the hands of an entirely private, unelected, unaccountable business and this power has been abused to make a tiny group unimaginably rich by enslaving all of US with debt. That system is now on the point of collapse. The West is bankrupt, and governments and bankers are scrambling to solve a problem: how to subtract every last shekel from the people while still having a handful of wealthy bankers, and their enablers, left over.

Britain has no functioning border against the rest of the world. Hundreds are arriving in this country every day and night, many ferried across the Channel by agencies paid for by British taxpayers. British people have to wait longer for health and social care and accommodation – to make way for economic migrants with their eyes on a soft touch, who have paid illegal gangs thousands of pounds a head to get here. They send their luggage on ahead and collect it at their hotels. We are at the back of the queue while anyone else, from anywhere else, is looked after hand and foot. And always the loudest calls are not for stopping it, but for more money and faster processing. I wonder if the illegal immigration isn’t just convenient for the State … softening up the citizens for a supposed solution … like digital ID perhaps? And then borders open once and for all. I wonder.

The British people are no longer kept safe by the police force they pay for. Burglaries of properties and assaults on the person are barely investigated, while officers prioritise thought crimes on social media. Uncounted thousands of little girls are abandoned to organised gangs of rapists up and down the country, because the State turned a blind eye to the relentless raping of children rather than ruffle community feathers.

A tenth of the population is on the waiting list for treatment by the NHS. The National Health Service is not keeping the nation healthy. All this about free at the point of delivery is about as much use as a magic spell. You can call a lunch a free lunch – but you’ll still be left hungry if you can’t get into the restaurant. So-called free steaks won’t fill you up if you have to wait so long in the queue you starve to death in the meantime. Free becomes another word for something you’ve heard about but can’t have.

I say again, though – we have nothing to fear. Not if we decide to be unafraid. In many ways, the worst has already happened: we have been shown where we stand, in the eyes of the State – which is beneath their contempt.

I don’t have the answers to all of the questions, but I know this much – even just asking them, airing the thoughts, should make the government, the State, the Establishment – sit up and pay attention.

More and more strikes are happening – rail workers, teachers and university lecturers, nurses next. What about the self-employed who were abandoned for the last two years? They can’t strike. What would happen if they withheld their taxes, all at the same time? I wonder.

But history tells us we should never underestimate the power of the many.

Just over a hundred years ago, during World War I, thousands of workers were pulled into the City of Glasgow to work in the munitions factories. At that time there wasn’t a single council house or flat in the whole of Britain. Private landlords owned 100 percent of homes for rent. They could and did raise rents as often as they wanted. Tenants either paid up or were evicted.

In February 1915, landlords across the city told tenants their rents were going up by as much as 25 percent. This was against a backdrop of the steeply rising cost of living generally, food scarcity and the rest. There was a war to win – remember – and sacrifices were expected from the people if the enemy was to be defeated.

In the case of many homes, the man of the house was away fighting in the war, leaving just women and children.

Into this crisis for poor people stepped Mary Barbour, an ordinary Glasgow woman with two children. She and others realized their only hope lay in sticking together. A mass non-payment campaign got under way. Arrears built up and soon Sheriff’s Officers were turning up to demand back rent or to evict non-payers.

But whenever anyone got wind of an eviction, hundreds of women would descend on the address and block the entrance to the home. A Glasgow MP, Willie Reid, described a typical incident:

“A soldier’s wife in Parkhead, had an eviction notice served on her, with a warning that if she failed to vacate her house by 12 noon the Sheriff’s Officer would call to enforce it. The strike committee got busy. They instructed every mother in the district with a young child to be there for 11 am on D-Day, complete with prams.

“Long before noon the close and street were packed with prams, and every pram had at least one youngster in it. No raiding party could have got near the house. Moreover, the men of Parkhead Forge and other works in the district decided to down tools at 11.30 am and lend a hand if necessary…”

People began to talk about Mary Barbour’s Army. On 17 November, 18 tenants appeared in court for eviction. Tens of thousands of Glasgow people lined the streets outside. In the end, on 25 November 1915, rents were frozen at pre-war levels. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Act 1915 was passed and some elements of it remained in force as late as 1989.

I wonder what would happen if all of us … opposed to what is going on now … came together like those Glasgow women of 1915 – AND JUST SAID NO.

I wonder.

When thinking about that time, I am reminded of real leaders. I’ve been talking again this week about Ernest Shackleton who, when all seemed lost – his ship sunk beneath the Antarctic ice and with nothing but flimsy tents, three little boats, and 28 men trapped on the pack ice and depending on him for life itself he said,

“Well … now we’ll go home.”

Our so-called leaders tell us our lives must be filled with hardship while they warm themselves in centrally heated homes paid for with our taxes … and look forward to Christmas parties and food and drink and decorations paid for by all of us. That is not leadership. That is an abusive relationship.

Shackleton put himself through every hardship he expected his men to endure. He did it first and for longest. What he asked of them, he did too. He said they should leave behind on the ice anything that would not help keep them alive.

Some saying he walked to a hole in that ice and dropped in his gold watch and cigarette case, to the bottom of the ocean. He led from the front, every step of the way and over nearly a thousand miles of the cruelest sea on earth. And in the end, he got every man home.

They called him The Boss.

He cared not a jot for the comforts of home. Back home once more he wrote:

“We had pierced the veneer of outside things. We had suffered, starved and triumphed, groveled down and grasped at glory, grown bigger in the bigness of the whole.”

He was a leader who saw that it was shared endeavor and shared striving that made all else possible.

Our leaders? … our leaders would pick our pockets for any gold watches and valuables before climbing aboard their private jets and flying home, leaving us behind on the melting ice.

I say we owe them nothing – not our loyalty and not our obedience. If we continue to comply, we build our own prison around ourselves, for their benefit.

They have promised us the earth while stealing it from us – raping and pillaging its resources only for their own enrichment. I say again, there is nothing to fear if we have each other.

Here’s the thing: if we set a course for ourselves and back each other every step of the way, we will cross this ocean of darkness together, all the way to where we want to be. [Transcript End]


Book Review: “Against the Great Reset”

To understand the diabolical nature of the Davos deities, read this book.

This is not the first book to appear in recent times critiquing the Great Reset, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and related matters. Some of these volumes I have already reviewed. But this is the newest and perhaps the best. At nearly 500 pages, the collection of essays found here is first-rate.

The editor has assembled a great lineup of leading intellectual heavyweights, including Douglas Murray, Victor Davis Hanson, Conrad Black, Roger Kimball, Angelo Codevilla, David Goldman and a number of others. All up the book has 16 important essays, plus introductory and concluding pieces by Walsh.

All the key issues are examined here: Covid tyranny, socialism, globalism, economics, politics, China and the social credit system, Big Tech, national sovereignty, the WHO, the WEF, Schwab, Bill Gates, critical theory, green energy, population matters, politicised science, cultural Marxism, climate alarmism, health fascism and so much more.

Against the Great Reset bookIt is good that all the bases are so carefully covered here. Given the rapid pace at which the nefarious agenda items of the Davos elitists are being realised, this book could not be more timely. The plans the activists have for their globalist utopia are not something that lies ahead — all this is already well underway.

Walsh explains early on why such a volume is so very much needed. It will be too late if we wait around for the history books to look back on the Great Reset. The issue NOW is whether “the formerly free world of the Western democracies will succumb to the paternalistic totalitarianism of the oligarchical Resetters.”

False Religion

He is right to speak of how the secular left West is so receptive to all this: “In an age of atheism and disbelief, note the religious fervour of neo- and cultural-Marxism and the messianic quality of Schwab’s anti-humanistic Great Reset.” Quite so. Once you ditch Christianity, plenty of false religions will rush in to take its place.

His closing paragraph nicely informs us of just where we are heading in the Schwabian dystopia:

“The satraps of Davos don’t want to simply reset a post-Covid world. Or a post-fossil fuels world. Or even a post-racial world. They want to run it, forever, and while they no longer have need of a god, they’ll always need an enemy. They may not believe in a power higher than themselves, but they certainly believe in demons, and their most irksome devil is you.”

Others pick up on the quasi-religious nature of all this. As Hanson puts it in his essay, “When ‘great’ is applied to a proposed transnational comprehensive revolution, we should also equate it with near-religious zealotry.” Marxism and radical greenism have both been pseudo-religions, and they come together in the Great Reset.

Absolute Control

He and others of course note how Schwab and Co have capitalised on Covid, and want the whole world under their thumb in order to ‘keep us safe’ from further pandemics, including climate change disasters they assure us are just around the corner.

Many of the writers give us terrific descriptions of who these folks are and what they want. But I especially like how Conrad Black characterises our Davos Divines:

Davos is for democracy, as long as everyone votes for increased public sector authority in pursuit of green egalitarianism and the homogenization of all peoples in a conformist world. …

The Covid-19 pandemic caused Davos Man to break out of his Alpine closet and reveal the secret but suspected plan: the whole world is to become a giant Davos — humorless, style-less, unspontaneous, unrelievedly materialistic, as long as the accumulation and application of capital is directed by the little Alpine gnomes of Davos and their underlings and disciples.

John Tierney carefully looks at how science and medicine were politicised during Covid, and concludes his chapter with this dismal outlook:

The Great Reseters will create jobs for the laptop class and subsidies for crony capitalists while stifling the economic growth that lifts people out of poverty. While promising “environmental justice,” they will burden the poor and the despised middle class with regressive taxes and higher energy costs. Their war on fossil fuels will be devastating to sub-Saharan Africa, where half the homes still lack electricity, but it won’t stop technocrats from flying to Davos for conferences on “climate equity.”

Hmm, did we not pretty much see all of that during the past few years? We will just be getting more of the same. The elites then, as during the past few years, will not feel any ill effects from this. It is us mere peons who will fully face the awful consequences.

Revisionism and Fake Compassion

History of course is under attack here. As Jeremy Black writes:

History’s place at the fore of culture wars is no surprise. The destruction of alternative values, of the sense of continuity, and of anything short of a self-righteous presentist internationalism, is central to the attempt at a “Great Reset”.

Moreover, in a variety of forms, including cultural Marxism and, particularly and very noisily at present, critical race theory, such a “reset” is part of a total assault on the past, one that is explicitly designed to lead the present, and determine the future.

With the assault on history goes an assault on open discussion and free debate. He continues:

“What is possibly most striking is the apparent suspension of any real sense of critique of the new order. Maybe, debate is so beneath you when you possess all truth. Much better just to steamroll people into compliance. Debate is seen as oppressive. Those who hold contrasting views are readily dismissed and shunned…”

Of course, freedom itself is going to be the biggest casualty here. As Walsh says in his concluding piece: “The Great Reset’s gambit is to mask and cloak itself, like an obedient handmaiden, in good intentions while stealing you blind and enslaving you. It positively radiates concern for its billions of fellow men even as it consigns them to indefinite house arrest.”

But on a lighter note, humourist Harry Stein manages to find a ray of hope in all this:

When the Soviets banned typewriters, the good guys produced samizdat by hand and continued on with the business of undermining an empire. We’ve now got podcasts and Substack and the emergence of alternative social-media platforms. We’ve got Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais, and The Babylon Bee. The truth is, we couldn’t be more fortunate in our enemy.

Dissident wise guys looking to bring down the Iron Curtain had only the likes of anabolic women weightlifters and a glowering Leonid Brezhnev as material, but in our current war with the elites we’ve got high school “girl” track stars with balls, a non compos mentis Biden, and largely peaceful demonstrators trashing our history and burning down our cities. Tell me that isn’t funny. Better yet, tell it to Klaus Schwab and his band of anti-merry men. We’re already laughing at them, too!

It should be noted that a wide spectrum of views is found here with the authors. Sure, they all oppose Schwab and the Davos madness big time. But other differences exist. Consider religious convictions: we have Christians and non-Christians writing here. Walsh for example prefers talking in terms of ‘Greek and Roman’ instead of ‘Judeo-Christian’. Contrast that with how James Poulos concludes his helpful chapter on Big Tech.

He says our “technoethical elites” are worried about whether they can “wield powers denied them by God. In this fateful moment, our digital politics is revealed to be a spiritual war. To survive victorious, we must remember: the greatest spiritual weapon against errant human reset is divine revelation.”

In sum, the revolutionaries always want to create a new world order, but always end up destroying man and civilisation in the process. Nothing new here. But the Davos elites have no interest in history. We should, however. If we will not learn from history, the prospect looks very bleak indeed. Hopefully, a volume like this will wake up enough people to take a united and forceful stand against this great globalist evil.


Originally published at CultureWatch. Photo: Natalie Behring/Wikimedia Commons

Thank the Source

Critical Theory or Critical Thinking?

These two terms sound very similar, don’t they? Nothing could be further from the truth. Today I would like to explore their differences, as well as the danger of one and the importance of the other.

Critical Theory

Critical theory (CT) can be traced back to the Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy known as the Frankfurt School in the 1920s. Since the 1970s, CT has become immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.

From the 1980s, it has gained an even bigger following on the back of ‘critical race theory’ (CRT), which has proven to be the central backbone of the CT movement. Recently, CRT came to the fore in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. He was a black man, killed in the US city of Minneapolis by Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, the tragedy igniting the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests around the globe.

CT focuses on the twin dynamics of ‘power’ and ‘submission’. It challenges the assumptions of power and seeks to liberate those in slavery. That sounds good, doesn’t it? However, in contrast to the traditional concept of a ‘theory’ that relies on evidence and data to prove or disprove, CT simply relies on ‘perspective’ and a ‘person’s lived experience’ alone. That’s where it gets dangerous.

A theory is, by definition, a cold hard, unemotional objective ‘theory’, until proven to be true. Then it can become a cold hard, unemotional objective ‘fact’. But CT and CRT are ‘right’ only because someone says so. There is no debate, questioning or discussion. What is more, so many in society are following it, not even aware that they are.

CT has its roots firmly in Marxism, a left-wing social and political movement that favours communism and socialism over capitalism. As such, it is at pains to stand up for the underdog, the minority, and those perceived to be discriminated against. That’s good, yes?

Yes, laudable goals, I agree. But with the goal to demolish capitalism and the abolition of the need to provide objective evidence, the outcomes of CT can be tragic for the individual and for civilisation as a whole. I will give a few examples of the effects of CT from the state of Victoria, Australia, under the leadership of Daniel Andrews. You may say I am being extreme. Well, this short piece does not have the space to explore the full chain from CT to the premier of Victoria, but it is quite clear that his regime is firmly rooted in far-left socialism, Marxism without the name:

  1. So as not to discriminate, Victoria became the first state in Australia to adopt same-sex adoption laws.
  2. Again, supportive of minorities, the establishment of the Pride Centre in St Kilda to encourage LGBTIQA+ activism.
  3. The introduction of Hate Speech laws.
  4. In 2008, Victoria was the first state in Australia to introduce abortion on demand right up to birth.
  5. The introduction of a criminal offence for offering alternatives to those seeking abortion.
  6. The “conversion therapy” laws prohibit parents from being able to object to a child wishing to change their gender.
  7. The abolition of Special Religious Education in schools and its replacement with ideological classes which have resulted in an explosion in the number of children with gender dysphoria.
  8. The banning of Christmas Carols in schools.
  9. The funding and promotion of the compulsory Safe Schools Program for children with its overt emphasis on anti-Christian views on morality.
  10. Employment laws are making it extremely difficult for Christian schools to employ teachers who can support their own ethos.
  11. The introduction of doctors into schools so children can consult a doctor without their parent’s knowledge or support.
  12. The politicisation of the police force, that no longer supports the keeping of law and order around Christian events.

These are just some of the legacies of the Daniel Andrews government in Victoria that I have collated from a piece by Martyn Iles, Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL).

Critical Thinking

In a study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defined critical thinking as the ability to think critically, involving three elements:

  1. an attitude of being disposed to consider, in a thoughtful way, the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experiences
  2. knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and
  3. some skill in applying those methods

Critical thinking expects a persistent effort to examine any belief or form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it. It also generally requires an ability to recognise problems, find workable solutions for those problems, gather and marshal pertinent information, recognise unstated assumptions and values, comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, interpret data, appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, recognise the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, and draw warranted conclusions and generalisations. (Glaser, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Teacher’s College, Columbia University)

critical thinking

This figure is from a modern take on critical thinking by Jennifer Herrity (2022). It always starts with careful observation of the facts; it is never sidetracked by a subjective perspective or individual lived experiences alone. The second step returns to the first observation and seeks to collect a deeper understanding of the issue or circumstance.

The third stage is very exciting — it is an exercise in lateral thinking. Namely, an examination of the implications for others and apparently unrelated situations if we progress along this line of thinking. In essence, it is being careful and thoughtful about the impact of our thinking on those around us and society at large.

The fourth stage can be described as testing out our thinking with trusted others, a safeguard against self-deception. And finally, at stage five, the problem is solved, or the situation is understood.

Further, I would like to add an additional dimension to critical thinking, namely the ‘scientific method’ (I wrote about this in the Daily Declaration, 22 December 2021). It seems to me that the rationality, and objectivity of the scientific method of enquiry is a natural partner with critical thinking. At the heart of this method is the assumption that something is ‘not true’ until it can be ‘proven’ by the evidence.

It seems to me that as a society and as individuals, we have lost our appetite for the scientific method and for critical thinking and as a result, we have become prey to the onslaught of critical theory (CT).

I would argue that if we have lived our own lives unaware of the advance of CT into our own lives, our families, and our communities, it is because we have neglected or ignored critical thinking and the scientific method. For me, critical thinking is the clear first line of defence against CT and the march of modern Marxism into every aspect of our lives.

Cosying Up to the CCP

Let me conclude with the story of the Belt and Road Initiative. This is an investment strategy developed nearly ten years ago by the Chinese. This initiative seeks to form a network of Chinese infrastructure and investment that covers the globe an empire in all but name. It has often focused on the takeover of key ports such as Haifa in Israel and Piraeus in Greece, to say nothing of Darwin in the Northern Territory, Australia.

With great fanfare, the Victorian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese government on October 8, 2018, and later a ‘framework’ agreement on October 23, 2019, to develop one of the Belt and Road Initiatives for Victoria. This was done behind the then Prime Minister Morrison’s back; he swiftly wound it back. What does this say about Daniel Andrews’ agenda? Not just the concept of facilitating even greater Chinese investment/ownership in Australia, but his seeking to do this international trade deal without the federal government’s approval!

Let’s never give up on the importance of critical thinking and always be aware of the dangers inherent in critical theory (CT).


Photo by cottonbro.

Thank the Source

Whistleblower Releases Internal FBI Guidance Document Highlighting Disinformation as an Election Crime

Whistleblower Releases Internal FBI Guidance Document Highlighting Disinformation as an Election Crime

The dissidents at Project Veritas have received leaked whistleblower information from the FBI highlighting a guidance document that puts “disinformation” into the category of an “election crime.” [Source Article Here]   According to the internal guidance, sharing “false or inaccurate information intended to mislead others” may lead the FBI to charge people with election crimes.

[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Oct. 27, 2022] Project Veritas published a newly leaked document today provided by an FBI whistleblower.

The document details how the Bureau will tackle what they consider to be “election crimes.”

It lists “misinformation” as a potential election crime, describing it as “false or misleading information spread mistakenly or unintentionally.”

The document also lists “disinformation” as a potential election crime, describing it as “false or inaccurate information intended to mislead others.”

It continues, “Disinformation campaigns on social media are used to deliberately confuse, trick, or upset the public.”

These categories could raise questions about who gets to determine what is “misinformation” and/or “disinformation.” (read more)

Now you know why I continue to say there is no such thing as “disinformation”, “misinformation” or “malinformation”, there is only information.  Once we allow a superseding system within government to start defining ‘information’, we open ourselves to control over thoughts and speech.

Comrades, you were not born with a brain that requires you to believe everything you read or see.  You were born with a brain allowing you to absorb information and make independent decisions as to the validity of it, truthfulness or lies.  Do not abdicate your thinking of responsibility for discernment to anyone – especially the government.




Just a quick notice and alert to highlight some common technological ‘glitches’ and occurrences that are appearing around the internet, coincidentally timed as a result of the pending 2022 midterm election.

By now everyone is familiar with Big Tech control mechanisms like blocking, shadow banning, downgrading and throttling.

Essentially, these are methods within the technology space that are designed to influence opinion and block access to information and communication adverse to the ideology of the provider(s).

Most often we associate those terms with social media platforms; however, within the infrastructure of the internet itself the same intent is also carried in various forms you might not be familiar with.  I am seeing a lot of deployed control systems triggered recently, it is worth mentioning in case you notice something different.

Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) are increasingly directing your background internet travels and blocking you from access to content they define as against their interest.  Major players in the field of providing online access (comcast, Xfinity, AT&T, etc.) as well as regional operators also have a vested ideological stake.  If you find yourself having difficulty navigating the internet, especially during this election season, be aware the ISP provider could be in control.

Cell phone communication networks also have the ability to control data transmitted through their systems.  Text messages containing links to unapproved or dissident websites can be blocked by code and algorithms assigned to monitor traffic.   Phone browsers and portable internet hot spots may also be controlled by the provider.  You may not be aware, but your agreement with your cell phone provider gives them the ability to filter data on your device according to their individual standard.

Again, just be aware.

Browsers are also major players in the field of filtering information and controlling user behavior.  It could be as subtle as an image or link not appearing for you, or it could be total blocking of traffic to website destinations they have defined as adverse to their interests.   Large activist organizations provide lists of websites and content to feed into the filtration system.   Just be aware your browser may indeed be controlling your content and as a result controlling your perspective.

The obvious issues with internet search engines (google, duck-duck etc.) are well documented, however increasingly Apps and authorized software additions to your devices come with mechanisms to control what information may be visible to you.   This is where the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” and “malinformation” become useful tools to justify the interception and blocking of your activity.

Sometimes the network may provide a warning or pop-up in their effort to stop you from reaching the information they want to control, but increasingly it just happens in the background, and you have no idea.   This is one of the unspoken benefits in the “cookie” system.  In addition to providing direct advertising experiences based on your browsing history, you as a user, may be identified as a dissident voice and assigned a label within the same cookie identification process.

Most people who use the internet have no idea a unique label has been assigned to them in the virtual space. Those labels can be grouped together and contained within the control systems of cyberspace.

Increasingly the techfiltration process has become a Staziesque public-private partnership.   You can well imagine what happens when the people in control of technological systems have an ideological mission to shape public opinion, simultaneous with the government people who define dis-mis-and malinformation delivering requests from the FBI and DHS to the technological partners who control the techfiltration process.

The bottom line, just be aware that information you may choose to access, research or share, is heavily controlled by the providers you select to facilitate your online information and communication networks.  You are likely right now blocked from accessing information and have no idea it’s happening.

If you cannot reach a website, see an image, view a page, or navigate a system, it’s likely not anything you are doing wrong; most often it’s the result of a tech control system designed to keep you away from the data.  Additionally, valid information like emails or text messages are increasingly identified as spam or blocked completely by the email or cell phone service you have subscribed to.

All of this is just an fyi, because I happen to notice these types of curious conversations taking place with increased frequency right now.  Lots of people are wondering why they cannot access or see things.  These are likely not ‘glitches.’

All the best,

Comrade & Dissident, Sundance


Biden Backs “Every Single Solitary Right” for Trans Community

Biden Backs “Every Single Solitary Right” for Trans Community

As the USA grapples with rising costs of living and the world teeters on the brink of major war, Biden chose to have an interview with a transgender TikTok star.

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are choking on their Weetbix this morning in laughter at the downfall of the West.

By now they would have seen US house plant Joe Biden’s interview with transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney.

Biden told the TikTok star that he backed “every single solitary right” for trans people.

Wrong Priorities

While Americans are worried about fuel prices, crime and the spectre of nuclear war in Europe, the confused man occupying the White House was giving a one-on-one interview with a dude who is famous for documenting his transition to (wink, wink) womanhood.

There is a clip of Mulvaney performing womanface. It’s either hilariously funny or grossly offensive, depending on whether you believe Mulvaney is trolling trans women or seriously depicting actual women.

It’s a mystery as to how Mulvaney has become the woman of the hour despite not actually being a woman, and only “identifying” as one for less than a year.

Joe Biden will almost never sit down for an interview with an actual news reporter. Yet he gladly provided legitimacy to the former Broadway actor who now playacts as a woman.


Mulvaney has amassed more than 7 million YouTube followers by documenting his gender transition.

“I want to be a mom one day — and I absolutely can,” Mulvaney said in a recent interview.

Of course, Mulvaney is a biological man and so he absolutely cannot be a mum one day. But who cares. This week Mulvaney was interviewing the leader of the freak, er free world.

Putin would have been roaring with laughter. This is who is he up against. A rambling old man who doesn’t know what a woman is.

Mulvaney asked Biden, 79, whether states had the right to ban “gender-affirming care”, which includes high-powered medicine to block puberty, and genital-altering surgery.

“I don’t think any state, or anybody, should have the right to do that, as a moral and legal question; I just think it’s wrong,” Mr Biden, who now seems to be campaigning for the Republicans, said.

Just two weeks out from the midterms, this is what Biden wants to talk about — the “moral and legal right” of biological men to access women’s bathrooms and to crash woman’s sports.

Cultural Marxism

Biden told Mulvaney — who comes across more like a character from South Park than as an actual person — that “being seen with people like you” was a critical way to break down stereotypes and reduce discrimination against trans Americans.

One wag suggested that Biden is only backing transgenderism because he himself is so confused that he doesn’t know if he’s Arthur or Martha.

That is, of course, a great line.

But it fails to understand that what Biden (or more likely those directing him) is doing is actually Marxism 101 — destroy the family unit, dismantle traditional gender norms, shift cultural guideposts like the Church, history and tradition. Get rid of anything and everything that stands in the way of loyalty to the State. Nothing can be greater than the State.

This is a war alright — it’s just that one side hasn’t yet worked out they are at war.

And then there are America’s other enemies such as Putin, and Jinping, and the Ayatollahs in Iran, waiting in the wings, licking their lips.

God help us all.


Originally published at The James Macpherson Report.

Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.

Thank the Source


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)