OP Freedom – Feb 3rd, 2023
Bill Cooper Interviews a 32 Degree Freemason
OP Freedom – Feb 3rd, 2023
Bill Cooper Interviews a 32 Degree Freemason
In a world where hard work and rational thinking are conflated with “whiteness,” it makes sense that prohibitions on cheating would be characterized as systemically racist. That’s precisely the “anti-racist” hill one Princeton University sophomore chose to proverbially die upon.
In an article for Princeton’s college newspaper, The Daily Princetonian, sophomore Emilly Santos argues that “American systems of legal administration enact violence against minority populations,” which includes the criminal justice system. “Princeton’s Honor Code, tasked with holding students accountable and honest in academic settings, mirrors the criminal justice system in its rules and effects.”
Santos then outlines that the disciplinary actions imposed — such as suspension, withholding of financial aid, a record on your transcript, or even expulsion — on students who violate the honor code affect minority or “first-generation low-income (FLI) students” the most, whom she argues are unprepared at navigating such a system in the first place. As such, Santos recommends that “the University should lead by example by dismantling the Honor Code system, which acts as a barrier to social mobility and a more equitable society.”
That prohibitions on cheating and plagiarizing are now conflated with systemic racism shows how effectively propagandized the nation’s allegedly best and brightest — at Ivy League schools, no less — have become. That Santos seriously recommends dismantling the honor code solely for racial “equity” implies she believes low-income minority students must cheat or plagiarize to excel academically at Princeton. In other words, Santos is engaging in the soft bigotry of low expectations at the expense of her college classmates.
While low-income and minority students should be given the resources and help they need to excel academically, a free pass to cheat is not one of them. Santos insults her peers’ intelligence by assuming removing academic standards will help them succeed. Ironically, in the name of racial equity, Santos is peddling a new form of pernicious racism adopted by the left.
Besides, Princeton’s honor code is not to blame for the problems Santos highlights. The real culprit is affirmative action.
Many students granted admittance to the nation’s elite colleges solely or partly on the basis of their skin color are woefully unprepared for the academic environment at those schools. As such, many drop out or fail their classes.
For example, according to the Heritage Foundation, one study found that among the top law schools in the country, more than 50 percent of black law students were in the bottom 10 percent of their class. The dropout rate for Black law students was also more than twice that of their white counterparts (19.3 percent vs. 8.2 percent).
Another study found that after California banned race-based admissions for public colleges, there was a 4.4-percentage-point increase in the graduation rates of minority students, which can be attributed to students selecting colleges that were a better academic fit.
What Santos needs to realize is that until colleges base their admissions on merit instead of race, students will repeatedly enroll in schools they are ill-suited for — and no amount of free passes for cheating will make up for that.
Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.
Poor Ilhan Omar.
“I certainly did not or was not aware that the word ‘hypnotized’ was a trope,” the congresswoman told CNN’s Dana Bash this week. “I wasn’t aware of the fact that there are tropes about Jews and money. That has been a very enlightening part of this journey.”
And what a journey it’s been. It’s merely happenstance, Omar would have you believe, that she—along with her bestie, Rashida Tlaib, a woman who gets a “calming feeling” when thinking about the Holocaust’s aftermath and believes pro-Zionist Jews exploit “regular Americans” for “their profit,” etc.—keeps tripping into old-school Jew-baiting. What are the odds?
Omar’s been living in the United States since her early teens. She graduated from high school in a major American city. She earned a BA from North Dakota State University in political science and international studies. One assumes she’s consumed plenty of American culture over the years. You’re telling me that in all this time, in all her many interactions as an academic “fellow” and a government employee, she never once heard a stereotype about Jews hypnotizing nations or being motivated by money? That’s quite an accomplishment.
Of course, Omar shouldn’t lose her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee because she believes rootless cosmopolitans are brainwashing the world for the “Benjamins.” She should lose it because she downplays 9/11 and equates the United States with theocratic terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Taliban. She is neither ideologically nor morally prepared for the job. She should be denied a seat because Nancy Pelosi created a new precedent by not only denying Kevin McCarthy his choices for the Jan. 6 committee, effectively creating a show trial, but also stripping Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor-Green of their committee appointments over ugly things they said. Republicans should unseat Omar using her standards.
When Democrats introduced a resolution to strip Lauren Boebert of all House committee assignments over a stupid bigoted joke about Omar, the congresswoman told CNN’s Jake Tapper that “we should punish and sanction Boebert by stripping her of her committees, by rebuking her language, by doing everything that we can to send a clear and decisive message to the American public that, if the Republicans are not going to be adults and condone — condemn this, that we are going to do that.”
When Democrats had a chance to be adults and “send a clear and decisive message” to the American public about Omar’s bigotry, they backed a watered-down resolution teeming with platitudes denouncing the treatment of Alfred Dreyfus and Leo Frank, and condemning anti-Japanese discrimination during World War II, Islamophobia, and the America First Committee, but not Omar. And that’s fine. Congressional resolutions are performative nonsense. Every member can tell us what he thinks directly. But other than occasional tepid rebukes from some fellow Jewish Democrats, Omar has been exempt from any meaningful criticism.
Omar’s rhetoric is already the norm in academic and activist leftist circles, so it’s unsurprising. She could read the Hamas Charter into the Congressional Record and her defenders would claim she was merely being “critical” of Israel. No matter what she says, no matter how often she lies, the partisans at The Washington Post will contend criticism of her is “inextricable from her religion.” The bigot is actually the victim.
Of course, Omar has the right to believe anything she likes. Her constituents have the right to keep sending her to Congress. And the House majority has the right to refuse her seats on committees. McCarthy can unilaterally deny Adam Schiff, perhaps the most corrupt person in Congress, and Eric Swalwell, a man duped by a ChiCom honeypot, from serving on the intelligence committee, but a full House vote is needed to deny Omar a seat — and it doesn’t look likely. Republicans like Ken Buck, Victoria Spartz, and Nancy Mace have already come out against removing her. Perhaps, as a policy, it’s a bad idea to make a habit of blocking partisan committee appointments. But so is unilateral disarmament.
Forget the division. Australia’s national holiday is an opportunity for unity and forgiveness.
My children say to me, “Happy Invasion Day, Dad.” But I say to them, “Happy Unity Day.”
These powerful words come from Pastor James Dargin, a recognised Indigenous leader and elder in Wollongong, who has a deep love for people and for Australia.
James has seen much pain and suffering in his life and his message is simple: we need to forgive so we can build a united future for our children. The only way to do that, he believes, is to stop the division and work together.
According to James, there is no better opportunity to practice this than on Australia’s national holiday. “Let’s not change the date of the 26th of January,” he says. “But let’s change our heart on the 26th of January.”
In explaining why he is such a strong believer in forgiveness, James opens up about his childhood:
I grew up with mental abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse. I was tied to a bed, my brother was tied under our house. My brother was put on a stove. I grew up with racism. I grew up with a lot of abuse. And it got to a point for me to hide that abuse is that I was on alcohol and drugs for 40 years straight.
But that was not the end of his story. He recounts that “At the age of 50, I gave my heart to the Lord. He changed my heart. I have forgiven the people that have hurt me and I’ve forgiven family members.” Why? “When I gave my heart to the Lord, I realised He forgave me. He died on the cross for me.”
As a result, James is convinced that division over issues like Australia Day is unproductive and ultimately destructive. He has a better vision for how we can celebrate:
Let’s come together and call it Unity Day, Forgiveness Day — to forgive each other, to love one another. It should be a day of celebration, of love. Hug someone. Forgive somebody. Love somebody. That’s what we should be celebrating. What happened in the past was horrific. Let’s come together, let’s build a future for the next generation.
James has not always thought this way about Australia Day. He grew up thinking about it as ‘Invasion Day’. He said that perspective often stirred up anger in his heart. But no longer: “Now that I forgive, that pain, that anger, has been removed and replaced with love and joy and unity.”
Now he wants everyone to know the freedom that forgiveness brings. “Let’s share Unity Day with the whole nation. Draw it anywhere, put it on your t-shirt, share it on social media.” James concludes his reflections saying, “So on the 26th of January, Unity Day, love somebody, hug somebody, forgive somebody, because we are one.”
1. It’s premised on the lie that Indigenous Australians have no voice to our parliaments. Our state and federal governments all have Indigenous affairs ministers that regularly liaise with many Indigenous organisations. Don’t accept the lie. The first thing you say when someone asks if you support the voice is: “Of course, and Indigenous Australians have had direct voices to our parliaments for years.”
2. It’s racist. It assumes that all Indigenous Australians agree on everything and therefore their will can be expressed in a single voice. We’d never say that about other races.
4. It’s a boondoggle — a pointless exercise designed for professional activists and academics who have little idea of how to address practical problems to be able to point to something and say: “This is what we’re doing.” As Ralph Wiggum would say: “I’m helping!”
5. We really don’t know how it will work in practice, and people pointing to 750 pages of details without being able to summarise its workings in a few sentences is no help and shows that those 750 pages don’t tell us much about its operation.
6. Discussion of the Voice has often led to a discussion of a separate and sovereign Indigenous nation in Australia — a Treaty. Indeed, this Voice is seen by many of its engineers as another step closer to two Australias. Two Australias will in reality be non-Indigenous Australians perpetually funding a failed Indigenous state.
7. The so-called Voice will eventually turn into a perpetual call for a Treaty, a Treaty that Australians will never allow, which means the Voice will eventually merely stoke cynicism and resentment among younger Indigenous Australians. It will make social divisions and integration worse, not better.
8. The Uluru Statement from the Heart disgracefully tells Indigenous Australians that they are powerless over their own lives and destinies unless there is this Voice. What a horrible thing to say to a whole generation of Aboriginal Australians. The Statement is thoughtless, lying, and destructive.
9. The Voice and Statement further entrench the idea of two separate and opposed nations, which will dissuade Indigenous Australians from integrating into mainstream Australian “colonist” (“white”) culture. But the only way the Gap will ever be closed is through more integration.
10. We are never told what the Voice will say that has not already been said. If there is nothing new for it to say, why do we need it? If its advocates believe it will say something new and of practical benefit, why not just say it now?
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution tapped into the eugenic mindset of his age. Now, we are seeing the pendulum swing to the opposite extreme in a misguided, unfair attempt to atone for the terrible errors of the past. This will neither solve the issues nor heal the trauma faced by indigenous Australians. We must all turn to the Gospel.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated.
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or [Aboriginal] Australian and the gorilla.”
That sounds awfully racist! And it is! However, those aren’t my words. Those are the words of Charles Darwin, as quoted from The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (2nd edition, 1887, p156). Darwin saw an evolutionary progression from lesser apes to gorillas to Aboriginal Australians to Negros to Caucasians to an-even-more-advanced-but-yet-to-evolve form of humans.
Now, to be fair, such racism did not originate with Charles Darwin. It is characteristic of humans to think of themselves and their own people group as superior, stronger, and more worthy than other peoples. That explains why human history is a story of war, conquest, and oppression. That’s human sinfulness.
But Darwin’s concept of evolutionary progression provided a supposedly scientific framework in which to fit a rank of ‘races’. The language of ‘survival of the fittest’ easily suggested connotations of rank, with one ‘race’ proving ‘fitter’ than another due to its cultural or technological dominance.
Herein was the pseudo-scientific justification for the ‘inherent superiority’ of some races over others, and the foundation for official government policies of the late 1800s and early 1900s that sought to ‘manage’ the extermination and replacement of the “savage races”. After all, it was just “following the science”!
For decades, Australia has struggled to come to terms with our Aboriginal peoples. From policies that once viewed Aboriginal Australia as “savage races” destined to disappear, to a policy that now seeks to grant Aboriginal Australia special race-based privileges in influencing our national parliament, our nation has stumbled from one erroneous plan to another. It hasn’t worked and it’s not going to work!
We need to go back to the beginning… not the beginning of January 1788, and not the supposed beginning of 60,000 years ago. We need to go back to view history through the Biblical lens, which tells us that all human beings are descendants of one God-created human couple. In the first man and the first woman were the origins of every group of human peoples. There are not many ‘races’, but one race! It’s the human race!
Yes, there are differences in the appearance of human groups, and there are differences in cultural beliefs and behaviours. These differences can be understood in the dispersal and subsequent isolation of the various human groups following God’s judgment on humanity at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). It is not that some groups are more ‘evolved’ than others. We are all human beings.
So, why the differences? The Biblical perspective is that all human beings, and the cultures that they form, are fallen. Those people groups across the globe that had access to God’s special revelation of Himself in the unfolding written Word and then in the Person of Jesus Christ have had the opportunity to shape their lives and cultures on the Truth.
In contrast, those people groups that had access only to the general revelation of God in the created order could know that the supernatural existed but not how to relate to the true God, to gain forgiveness of their sin, and to shape their cultures in accordance with the Truth.
And the more that Australia as a whole forgets about God and His truth, the more broken and dysfunctional our culture becomes. We all need the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
Photo by Eugene Zhyvchik.
Did you know the term ‘pure blood’ is completely demonic?
It comes directly from J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter witchcraft books and movies.
The phrase was picked up by some extreme anti-vaxxers and has gone viral. Sadly Christians are using this phrase without grace or humility or concern for the Body of Christ.
In the Harry Potter series, wizards and warlocks with the most magical progeny are termed ‘pure-bloods’ or ‘half-bloods’, as opposed to ‘muggles’ who are mere humans who practise magic.
The character of Lord Voldemort in the book series was inspired by the same ideologies that gave rise to Adolf Hitler’s crusade during World War II.
Lord Voldemort’s ideology is centred around the superiority of ‘pure blood’ wizards, and his desire to rid the world of Muggle-born wizards and half-bloods; like Hitler who wanted to rid the world of Jews and non-Aryan ‘lesser races’.
According to Hitler, ‘blood purity’ would ensure the survival of the Aryan race and the ‘1000 Year Reich’. Laws were introduced to ensure blood purity within Nazi Germany and anyone who acted outside of these laws was deemed to have committed the crime of rassenschande, which translates roughly as ‘racial pollution’ or ‘racial crime’.
Refer to this article for more information.
The fruit of this language is, sadly again, division in the Ekklesia, the Body of Christ.
Many Christians have very strong views either way; debates on this issue are fruitless and bring deep division in the body. Please read Romans 14 and understand the division issue.
By using such language, Christians are opening up curses and attacks on themselves and their brothers and sisters in Christ. This grieves me, and more importantly grieves the Lord.
These bible verses need to be prayed with a humble heart if needed.
Romans 16:17 ~ Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.
Proverbs 6:16-19 ~ These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him … And one who sows discord among brethren.
This division, is again, from the pit of hell and has no part in the Body of Christ. If you are using this phrase I humbly ask that you repent for the damage you are causing and potential curses upon yourself.
Jude shows us how to deal with these sorts of words. In verses 20 and 21, Jude calls us to pray in the Holy Spirit, keeping love central, and recognising the Lord’s mercy.
Jude 1:16-21 ~ These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. These are sensual (fleshly) persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
We stand for freedom of choice, recognising that many Christians in good faith and good conscience before God have had vaccinations and others are against them. Each person must be able to choose for themselves and their children.
Please don’t conflate the two issues and have abundant grace for others’ point of view and convictions.