Category: Fay Voshell

When the Lie Becomes a Pillar of the State


“Glory to Stalin! He is forever true,” the crowd shouted and sang. They simply could not contain their euphoria.

Stalin, clad in a snow white, bemedaled jacket matched with crisp, sharply creased black trousers, slowly descended the stairs. He then greeted the victorious military leaders one by one, all the while graciously accepting the acclaim of the fevered mob.

Later, Sofiko Chiaureli, the beautiful daughter of the film’s director Mikheil Chiaureli, recalled the initial viewing of the ecstatic scene from the film The Fall of Berlin.  The entire Politburo was gathered to view it.

“The film was running. My father was sitting at the back. Of course, everybody had their eyes glued to the screen, but my father was watching Stalin and observing his reactions because for him it was a matter of life or death.

“In the episode where Stalin emerges from the big plane and the whole of Berlin kneels down before him, my father saw that Stalin slowly raised his hand and then wiped tears from his eyes. Only then could my father breathe freely and say to himself, ‘I’m saved.’”

Chiaureli could breathe again, knowing that at least for a time he would not suffer the fate of Stalin’s portraitist, who was shot dead because he painted Uncle Joe’s face realistically, pockmarks and all.

Sofika added, “Stalin really did like the film. After the showing, he said to my father, ‘Bravo!’”

Then the Man of Steel said regretfully, “If only I had done it and had really gone to Berlin.”

Stalin’s wonderfully inspiring entry to Berlin never happened. The reality was the reality of Potemkinland, a fantasy conjured in order to deceive the masses.

But the fact that a scene never happened did not matter to the Soviet propagandists who wished to make up truth to bolster the Communist Party’s goals of transforming Russian society and indeed, the entire globe. The whole Soviet system was built on lies. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn was later to write, “In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State.”

An unceasing attempt to establish the Lie and to destroy the truth has been as characteristic of the Left here in America as it was in Soviet Russia.

The Lie has become systemic because a reductionist ideology based on lies has thoroughly invaded the academia, the media, and the body politic. It has metastasized to the point that if it is not eradicated — not just modified — the body will die.

What is the chief characteristic of the great Lie that grips so many of America’s institutions? It is that human beings are on their own when it comes to the pursuit of Truth. The issue has been the same since the creation of mankind. It is the belief in the sovereignty of the individual as opposed to the sovereignty of God. For the radicalized modern, humans are on their own to make up and to act on their self-authorized reality, assuming the place of God/gods.

Propagandists, some of whom feared for their lives if they did not lie, made up a hagiography that lionized Stalin. But the stories about the Man of Steel who was ushering in a glorious future for his nation were not true. The new communist reality he created had to be forced down the throats of the Russian people, who died in the millions. The Lie lived only because millions who told the truth were eliminated.

The lie that there is no God except for the Self devoted to power and destruction is the lie behind all twentieth and twenty-first-century ideologies, all of which have an evil simplicity that reduces mankind to a singularity, be it by theories of race, class, economics, or gender.  

To put it another way, the greatest lies are not one-off incidents. They are not the occasional white lie to the wife who asks, “Does this dress make me look fat?” They are not the lies wherein people of conscience say the equivalent of, “No! No Jews are here.” They are not even the lies of the con artist who still knows he is conning people. Most people who tell those sort of lies still know they are lying.

No, the biggest lie, and the one currently afflicting our society, is the total loss of discernment between what is truth and what is a lie. It is the belief there is no truth possible. It is the belief we can make up our own truth as we see fit. It is the belief that we may use power to force others to submit to the lie.

It is to the West’s great shame that its top intellectuals believed and still believe in the great lies that nearly annihilated Russia. As John Sullivan pointed out in National Review some years ago:

“It was in the West that the most extravagant lies of Stalinism were believed most strenuously — and not by ordinary citizens but by the intellectuals who embraced or even merely flirted with Soviet totalitarianism. Some very clever people on the left swallowed the Moscow show trials whole and the myths of the Gulag as reformist prisons whole. French intellectuals continued to do so as late as the 1970s when Solzhenitsyn arrived in the West and finally made them ashamed of their willed gullibility.


As the Soviet experience fades into history, we should probably expect that its crimes will be increasingly denied or marginalized by people sympathetic to its, er, ideals.”

Sullivan goes on to point out how absurd the lies became during the Soviet purges:

“A passage on the Moscow purges and the Gulag includes the story that the director of the Leningrad zoo was accused of forcing the local corps de ballet to perform at night in front of the monkeys’ cages in order to drive the monkeys mad. What is more he confessed to the crime and was given a long sentence.”

In some circles in America today, innocent people are being harassed, targeted for dismissal from their positions in academia and the media. They are being asked to believe the equivalent of the idea that ballet drives monkeys mad and the person responsible for the madness should be put behind bars while the monkeys and their psychotherapists roam free to take power.

While the radical powers that be may not be sending people to jail for making monkeys crazy, they are criminalizing people who believe humanity is divided into two sexes; male and female. They are going after people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman. They are harassing parents who do not want their children subjected to hormone therapy and mutilation because the kids are confused about their identities as boys or girls.

Stalin at least acknowledged he was not really in Berlin at the time of the Russian victory over Nazi Germany. He still grasped the fact he told lies. He told them and enforced them because he was addicted to power.

But the new radical Left has completely lost any idea of what the truth actually is. They have absorbed the Lie completely; but like Stalin, they prefer speaking only power to truth tellers who expose their Lie. Power alone is seen as truth.

Now is the time for all good men and women to stand up and tell the Truth.

To do otherwise is to grant the victory to people who are pathological liars who see no distinction between good and evil or the truth and the lie; and who are intent on silencing those who see the difference.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her the prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many other online publications, including National Review, CNS, Fox News, LifeSiteNews, and RealClearReligion. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

It was the film’s most wonderfully stirring scene.

Cheering crowds, including newly released concentration camp victims still in their black and white striped prison garb, swarmed to meet Comrade Stalin, who had descended from the sky in his personal plane to celebrate the Russian victory over the last Nazi forces in Berlin.

“Glory to Stalin! He is forever true,” the crowd shouted and sang. They simply could not contain their euphoria.

Stalin, clad in a snow white, bemedaled jacket matched with crisp, sharply creased black trousers, slowly descended the stairs. He then greeted the victorious military leaders one by one, all the while graciously accepting the acclaim of the fevered mob.

Later, Sofiko Chiaureli, the beautiful daughter of the film’s director Mikheil Chiaureli, recalled the initial viewing of the ecstatic scene from the film The Fall of Berlin.  The entire Politburo was gathered to view it.

“The film was running. My father was sitting at the back. Of course, everybody had their eyes glued to the screen, but my father was watching Stalin and observing his reactions because for him it was a matter of life or death.

“In the episode where Stalin emerges from the big plane and the whole of Berlin kneels down before him, my father saw that Stalin slowly raised his hand and then wiped tears from his eyes. Only then could my father breathe freely and say to himself, ‘I’m saved.’”

Chiaureli could breathe again, knowing that at least for a time he would not suffer the fate of Stalin’s portraitist, who was shot dead because he painted Uncle Joe’s face realistically, pockmarks and all.

Sofika added, “Stalin really did like the film. After the showing, he said to my father, ‘Bravo!’”

Then the Man of Steel said regretfully, “If only I had done it and had really gone to Berlin.”

Stalin’s wonderfully inspiring entry to Berlin never happened. The reality was the reality of Potemkinland, a fantasy conjured in order to deceive the masses.

But the fact that a scene never happened did not matter to the Soviet propagandists who wished to make up truth to bolster the Communist Party’s goals of transforming Russian society and indeed, the entire globe. The whole Soviet system was built on lies. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn was later to write, “In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State.”

An unceasing attempt to establish the Lie and to destroy the truth has been as characteristic of the Left here in America as it was in Soviet Russia.

The Lie has become systemic because a reductionist ideology based on lies has thoroughly invaded the academia, the media, and the body politic. It has metastasized to the point that if it is not eradicated — not just modified — the body will die.

What is the chief characteristic of the great Lie that grips so many of America’s institutions? It is that human beings are on their own when it comes to the pursuit of Truth. The issue has been the same since the creation of mankind. It is the belief in the sovereignty of the individual as opposed to the sovereignty of God. For the radicalized modern, humans are on their own to make up and to act on their self-authorized reality, assuming the place of God/gods.

Propagandists, some of whom feared for their lives if they did not lie, made up a hagiography that lionized Stalin. But the stories about the Man of Steel who was ushering in a glorious future for his nation were not true. The new communist reality he created had to be forced down the throats of the Russian people, who died in the millions. The Lie lived only because millions who told the truth were eliminated.

The lie that there is no God except for the Self devoted to power and destruction is the lie behind all twentieth and twenty-first-century ideologies, all of which have an evil simplicity that reduces mankind to a singularity, be it by theories of race, class, economics, or gender.  

To put it another way, the greatest lies are not one-off incidents. They are not the occasional white lie to the wife who asks, “Does this dress make me look fat?” They are not the lies wherein people of conscience say the equivalent of, “No! No Jews are here.” They are not even the lies of the con artist who still knows he is conning people. Most people who tell those sort of lies still know they are lying.

No, the biggest lie, and the one currently afflicting our society, is the total loss of discernment between what is truth and what is a lie. It is the belief there is no truth possible. It is the belief we can make up our own truth as we see fit. It is the belief that we may use power to force others to submit to the lie.

It is to the West’s great shame that its top intellectuals believed and still believe in the great lies that nearly annihilated Russia. As John Sullivan pointed out in National Review some years ago:

“It was in the West that the most extravagant lies of Stalinism were believed most strenuously — and not by ordinary citizens but by the intellectuals who embraced or even merely flirted with Soviet totalitarianism. Some very clever people on the left swallowed the Moscow show trials whole and the myths of the Gulag as reformist prisons whole. French intellectuals continued to do so as late as the 1970s when Solzhenitsyn arrived in the West and finally made them ashamed of their willed gullibility.


As the Soviet experience fades into history, we should probably expect that its crimes will be increasingly denied or marginalized by people sympathetic to its, er, ideals.”

Sullivan goes on to point out how absurd the lies became during the Soviet purges:

“A passage on the Moscow purges and the Gulag includes the story that the director of the Leningrad zoo was accused of forcing the local corps de ballet to perform at night in front of the monkeys’ cages in order to drive the monkeys mad. What is more he confessed to the crime and was given a long sentence.”

In some circles in America today, innocent people are being harassed, targeted for dismissal from their positions in academia and the media. They are being asked to believe the equivalent of the idea that ballet drives monkeys mad and the person responsible for the madness should be put behind bars while the monkeys and their psychotherapists roam free to take power.

While the radical powers that be may not be sending people to jail for making monkeys crazy, they are criminalizing people who believe humanity is divided into two sexes; male and female. They are going after people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman. They are harassing parents who do not want their children subjected to hormone therapy and mutilation because the kids are confused about their identities as boys or girls.

Stalin at least acknowledged he was not really in Berlin at the time of the Russian victory over Nazi Germany. He still grasped the fact he told lies. He told them and enforced them because he was addicted to power.

But the new radical Left has completely lost any idea of what the truth actually is. They have absorbed the Lie completely; but like Stalin, they prefer speaking only power to truth tellers who expose their Lie. Power alone is seen as truth.

Now is the time for all good men and women to stand up and tell the Truth.

To do otherwise is to grant the victory to people who are pathological liars who see no distinction between good and evil or the truth and the lie; and who are intent on silencing those who see the difference.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her the prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many other online publications, including National Review, CNS, Fox News, LifeSiteNews, and RealClearReligion. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com



Source link

State-Enforced Paganism in America


But the most powerfully dangerous ideation of the sexual revolution has arisen in the form of transgenderism, which advocates freedom to choose gender, thus distorting, blurring, or even eradicating the distinction between male and female.

How did matters regarding sexuality come to such a pass in a country that once was, and in many ways still is, a deeply Christian nation?

The fact is that Christianity in America has been under relentless attack for decades by the left, which has routinely embraced and promoted the power of the State when it involves encouraging unrestrained human will, particularly in sexual matters. Radical leftists see in practicing Christians, whose mores are antithetical to the new barbarism, as an unwelcome restraint on an ideology that promotes the doctrines that choices of sexual expression and choices of gender are absolute rights.

The antagonism of the left toward Christians has reached such red-hot heat that because of the influence of the transgender movement, the State recently intervened to take a child away from her parents. According to the Washington Times, a Hamilton County, Ohio, judge took the teen “away from her parents because they refused to allow the 17-year-old to undergo hormone treatments as part of a female-to-male transition. The parents objected to the transition procedures because of their religious beliefs and refused to call their daughter by her chosen, male name, court records show.”

How are Christians reacting? Unfortunately, not with enough outrage.

Christians generally see attacks on their brethren in terms of one-off skirmishes — a parent or two here; a calligrapher there; a baker over there. By and large, Christians merely watch as individuals whose consciences won’t permit cooperation with radical paganism are sued and forced out of business; their jobs lost, their children taken away from them, their adoption and counseling services crushed because they are deemed as not “inclusive” enough or as promoting “hate;” their kids forced out of school because they won’t kiss the pagan’s ring by saying gender is a choice. Many Christians feel safe as long as they can attend church services that are not interrupted by SWAT teams breaking in to arrest congregants.

In sum, the broader outlines of the battle against Christians and Christian mores are often not clearly seen.

But as Hilaire Belloc presciently discerned decades ago, what he called the “New Paganism” is not confined to isolated attacks against individuals who happen to be Christian.

The attacks are directed toward Christianity itself. The left’s hope is to exterminate The Way altogether in order their pagan religion prevail throughout American society.

Belloc wrote: “The New Paganism is in process of building up a society of its own, wherein will be apparent two features novel in what used to be Christendom. Those two features have already appeared and will spread each in its own sphere, the one in the sphere of law — that is, of coercive enactment — the other in the sphere of status, that is, in the organization of society…In the first sphere, that of positive law, the New Paganism has already begun to produce and cannot but produce more and more a mass of restrictive legislation.”

The New Paganism utilizes the powers of the State, particularly the law and the courts, in order to change the foundations of a Christianized West and to promote paganism, even barbarism, as the basis of Western society. Barbarism then seeks to use the State to achieve an iron and tyrannous order, beginning with crushing dissenters like Christians, who believe they are to obey God rather than the State.

The first stages of the facilitation of the New Pagan society are achieved by a welter of restrictions against Christians. To promote unrestricted human will, particularly as regards sexual behavior and the self-definition promulgated by the transgender movement, inevitably means Christians who protest must be completely restrained by multifarious regulations and restrictions. Such restrictions include a push to exclude Christians from holding public office and increasingly deprive them of freedom of speech. Joy Behar’s attack against Vice President Mike Pence, in which she dismissed him as “mentally ill” because he prayed to Jesus and so was unfit for office is but one of many attacks. The broader implication is that all devout Christians are inherently unbalanced, irrational people and therefore should be denied office.

For the New Pagans, the inner voice that tells an “otherkin” he is actually a fox is absolutely rational. His choice to be another species is to be ratified by all of society. But Christians who believe the Ten Commandments are an expression of God’s higher laws are irrational and must be expunged from any meaningful role in society.

Persecution of Christians is nothing new, of course; though it has been relatively restrained in America until recent decades.

Instances of persecution abound, both past and present. During the reign of Louis XIV of France, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which had offered some protection of the Huguenot minority, meant Protestants were deprived of any rights whatever. The Sun King’s enforcer, Cardinal de Richelieu, succeeded in breaking any political power held by Huguenots by banning them from holding public office and by decreeing their children be taken from their homes to be instructed in the tenets of the Catholic faith, which was to be absolute.

In similar manner, America’s Christian parents, protestant and Catholic alike — most of whom do not have affordable and easily accessible alternatives — find their children forcibly instructed in the tenets of New Paganism in public schools. The doctrines of the New Paganism, including polytheistic multiculturalism, moral relativism, and political correctness exclude teaching of Christian principles.

Many of the victories against Christians have been achieved because Christians themselves have absorbed the left’s false interpretation of the First Amendment, which though guaranteeing religious freedom in its fullest sense, has been distorted by the left to mean that Christians have no place in the public square and that their rituals of faith must be confined within Church walls.

The result is that many Christians have accepted and even promoted the idea that Christians should not be involved in politics and indeed the broader culture. By and large, they have wound up accepting the persecutory policies directed against them, accepting being Christian only behind the closed doors of their churches, their homes, and their narrow church subcultures.

The lack of resistance has meant the New Paganism has succeeded in creating a network of stifling regulations affecting every area of Christian life. As Belloc put it, the regulatory onslaught means each department of life will be affected. Like Gulliver rendered unable to rise, Christians are increasingly hobbled by a legal “network that spread[s] and bind[s] those subject to it under a compulsion which cannot be escaped.”

Belloc pinpoints the problem as lying with “those moderns who will make of religion an individual thing [and no Catholic can evade the corporate quality of religion], telling us that its object being personal holiness and the salvation of the individual soul, it can have no concern with politics. On the contrary, the concern of religion with politics is inevitable.”

He adds that Christian doctrine always has broader implications for all of society. Difference in doctrine is at the root of all political and social differences; therefore, is the struggle for or against true doctrine the most vital of struggles.”

The New Paganism, which in its most current form of transgenderism is both anti-Christian and anti-science — and thus anti-Western — is deeply committed to the use of state power to quell opposition, Christian or otherwise, as has recently been shown in the case of a feminist British woman who was interrogated by police because her tweets questioning the castration of a sixteen-year-old boy were deemed prejudicial to transgenderism. All dissenters, not just Christians, should be appalled by such raw use of state power to suppress opposing views.

The New Paganism is bound to think America would be better if it were rid of Christians. Riddled with pre-science superstitions better belonging to pagan barbarism, the New Paganism is dead set against any restraints whatsoever. Christians, however, know human will is capable of great evil, particularly when it brooks no restraint. They know human will must be restrained by allegiance to a higher law than the state. They know the New Paganism is horribly regressive and inevitably oppressive, as are all ideologies that permit the absolute ascendency of human will, be it the will of an elite class or individuals. The ineluctable descent of the sexual revolution into bestiality, pedophilia and the mutilation of the human body in order to create a facsimile of the opposite sex are revelatory of a truly barbarous religion.

The Christian Church must respond vigorously or sink into paganism itself, as is already happening in some Main Line churches that are creating liturgies to bless bodily mutilation as spiritually transformative and as a way of attaining self-salvation. The Church must reject the new barbarism and its tyrannous assault on Christianity or find itself overwhelmed by the avid worshippers of the new gods. For when the God of Christianity is rejected, new and far, far worse gods arise to demand worship.

As Belloc himself concluded: “Men do not live long without gods; but when the gods of the New Paganism come they will not be merely insufficient, as were the gods of Greece, nor merely false; they will be evil. One might put it in a sentence, and say that the New Paganism, foolishly expecting satisfaction, will fall, before it knows where it is, into Satanism.”

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including American Thinker, National Review, CNN, Fox News and RealClearReligion. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com  

Recently the Huffington Post published an interview with Malcom Brenner, who had sex with a dolphin. He defended his bestiality, saying: “And I’m hoping that in a more enlightened future, zoophilia will be no more regarded as controversial or harmful than interracial sex is today.”

For those who have watched the steady descent of the sexual revolution into an abyss of deviancy, there is not much that surprises. Many predicted the results of following the “If it feels good, do it” mantra of the 60s would mean open season on all Christian sexual mores. They have watched as the so-called freedom of sexual choice has become so absolute that even pedophilia is viewed with increasing acceptance.

But the most powerfully dangerous ideation of the sexual revolution has arisen in the form of transgenderism, which advocates freedom to choose gender, thus distorting, blurring, or even eradicating the distinction between male and female.

How did matters regarding sexuality come to such a pass in a country that once was, and in many ways still is, a deeply Christian nation?

The fact is that Christianity in America has been under relentless attack for decades by the left, which has routinely embraced and promoted the power of the State when it involves encouraging unrestrained human will, particularly in sexual matters. Radical leftists see in practicing Christians, whose mores are antithetical to the new barbarism, as an unwelcome restraint on an ideology that promotes the doctrines that choices of sexual expression and choices of gender are absolute rights.

The antagonism of the left toward Christians has reached such red-hot heat that because of the influence of the transgender movement, the State recently intervened to take a child away from her parents. According to the Washington Times, a Hamilton County, Ohio, judge took the teen “away from her parents because they refused to allow the 17-year-old to undergo hormone treatments as part of a female-to-male transition. The parents objected to the transition procedures because of their religious beliefs and refused to call their daughter by her chosen, male name, court records show.”

How are Christians reacting? Unfortunately, not with enough outrage.

Christians generally see attacks on their brethren in terms of one-off skirmishes — a parent or two here; a calligrapher there; a baker over there. By and large, Christians merely watch as individuals whose consciences won’t permit cooperation with radical paganism are sued and forced out of business; their jobs lost, their children taken away from them, their adoption and counseling services crushed because they are deemed as not “inclusive” enough or as promoting “hate;” their kids forced out of school because they won’t kiss the pagan’s ring by saying gender is a choice. Many Christians feel safe as long as they can attend church services that are not interrupted by SWAT teams breaking in to arrest congregants.

In sum, the broader outlines of the battle against Christians and Christian mores are often not clearly seen.

But as Hilaire Belloc presciently discerned decades ago, what he called the “New Paganism” is not confined to isolated attacks against individuals who happen to be Christian.

The attacks are directed toward Christianity itself. The left’s hope is to exterminate The Way altogether in order their pagan religion prevail throughout American society.

Belloc wrote: “The New Paganism is in process of building up a society of its own, wherein will be apparent two features novel in what used to be Christendom. Those two features have already appeared and will spread each in its own sphere, the one in the sphere of law — that is, of coercive enactment — the other in the sphere of status, that is, in the organization of society…In the first sphere, that of positive law, the New Paganism has already begun to produce and cannot but produce more and more a mass of restrictive legislation.”

The New Paganism utilizes the powers of the State, particularly the law and the courts, in order to change the foundations of a Christianized West and to promote paganism, even barbarism, as the basis of Western society. Barbarism then seeks to use the State to achieve an iron and tyrannous order, beginning with crushing dissenters like Christians, who believe they are to obey God rather than the State.

The first stages of the facilitation of the New Pagan society are achieved by a welter of restrictions against Christians. To promote unrestricted human will, particularly as regards sexual behavior and the self-definition promulgated by the transgender movement, inevitably means Christians who protest must be completely restrained by multifarious regulations and restrictions. Such restrictions include a push to exclude Christians from holding public office and increasingly deprive them of freedom of speech. Joy Behar’s attack against Vice President Mike Pence, in which she dismissed him as “mentally ill” because he prayed to Jesus and so was unfit for office is but one of many attacks. The broader implication is that all devout Christians are inherently unbalanced, irrational people and therefore should be denied office.

For the New Pagans, the inner voice that tells an “otherkin” he is actually a fox is absolutely rational. His choice to be another species is to be ratified by all of society. But Christians who believe the Ten Commandments are an expression of God’s higher laws are irrational and must be expunged from any meaningful role in society.

Persecution of Christians is nothing new, of course; though it has been relatively restrained in America until recent decades.

Instances of persecution abound, both past and present. During the reign of Louis XIV of France, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which had offered some protection of the Huguenot minority, meant Protestants were deprived of any rights whatever. The Sun King’s enforcer, Cardinal de Richelieu, succeeded in breaking any political power held by Huguenots by banning them from holding public office and by decreeing their children be taken from their homes to be instructed in the tenets of the Catholic faith, which was to be absolute.

In similar manner, America’s Christian parents, protestant and Catholic alike — most of whom do not have affordable and easily accessible alternatives — find their children forcibly instructed in the tenets of New Paganism in public schools. The doctrines of the New Paganism, including polytheistic multiculturalism, moral relativism, and political correctness exclude teaching of Christian principles.

Many of the victories against Christians have been achieved because Christians themselves have absorbed the left’s false interpretation of the First Amendment, which though guaranteeing religious freedom in its fullest sense, has been distorted by the left to mean that Christians have no place in the public square and that their rituals of faith must be confined within Church walls.

The result is that many Christians have accepted and even promoted the idea that Christians should not be involved in politics and indeed the broader culture. By and large, they have wound up accepting the persecutory policies directed against them, accepting being Christian only behind the closed doors of their churches, their homes, and their narrow church subcultures.

The lack of resistance has meant the New Paganism has succeeded in creating a network of stifling regulations affecting every area of Christian life. As Belloc put it, the regulatory onslaught means each department of life will be affected. Like Gulliver rendered unable to rise, Christians are increasingly hobbled by a legal “network that spread[s] and bind[s] those subject to it under a compulsion which cannot be escaped.”

Belloc pinpoints the problem as lying with “those moderns who will make of religion an individual thing [and no Catholic can evade the corporate quality of religion], telling us that its object being personal holiness and the salvation of the individual soul, it can have no concern with politics. On the contrary, the concern of religion with politics is inevitable.”

He adds that Christian doctrine always has broader implications for all of society. Difference in doctrine is at the root of all political and social differences; therefore, is the struggle for or against true doctrine the most vital of struggles.”

The New Paganism, which in its most current form of transgenderism is both anti-Christian and anti-science — and thus anti-Western — is deeply committed to the use of state power to quell opposition, Christian or otherwise, as has recently been shown in the case of a feminist British woman who was interrogated by police because her tweets questioning the castration of a sixteen-year-old boy were deemed prejudicial to transgenderism. All dissenters, not just Christians, should be appalled by such raw use of state power to suppress opposing views.

The New Paganism is bound to think America would be better if it were rid of Christians. Riddled with pre-science superstitions better belonging to pagan barbarism, the New Paganism is dead set against any restraints whatsoever. Christians, however, know human will is capable of great evil, particularly when it brooks no restraint. They know human will must be restrained by allegiance to a higher law than the state. They know the New Paganism is horribly regressive and inevitably oppressive, as are all ideologies that permit the absolute ascendency of human will, be it the will of an elite class or individuals. The ineluctable descent of the sexual revolution into bestiality, pedophilia and the mutilation of the human body in order to create a facsimile of the opposite sex are revelatory of a truly barbarous religion.

The Christian Church must respond vigorously or sink into paganism itself, as is already happening in some Main Line churches that are creating liturgies to bless bodily mutilation as spiritually transformative and as a way of attaining self-salvation. The Church must reject the new barbarism and its tyrannous assault on Christianity or find itself overwhelmed by the avid worshippers of the new gods. For when the God of Christianity is rejected, new and far, far worse gods arise to demand worship.

As Belloc himself concluded: “Men do not live long without gods; but when the gods of the New Paganism come they will not be merely insufficient, as were the gods of Greece, nor merely false; they will be evil. One might put it in a sentence, and say that the New Paganism, foolishly expecting satisfaction, will fall, before it knows where it is, into Satanism.”

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including American Thinker, National Review, CNN, Fox News and RealClearReligion. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com  



Source link

The Embarrassing, Hilarious, Can't-Look-Away Trudeau Show


Imagine the reaction of the media if President Trump donned lederhosen and tried to do a German folk dance during a trip to meet with Germany’s Angela Merkel.  Or imagine if India’s president, Ram Nath Kovind, arrived for a state visit to Canada dressed as a red-jacketed Canadian Mountie or as a plaid-shirted lumberjack carrying an axe.

The equivalent of the above is pretty much what Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attempted during his recent trip to India, where he made himself a laughingstock because of his fervid embrace of the religion of multiculturalism.

It was quite a show.  Nothing was too much for Trudeau to do if it buttressed his devotion to national traditions other than the traditions of his own country, which is supposed to be Canada.  Trudeau acted as if he were a representative of India, not Canada.  He dressed like an Indian, tried to dance like an Indian, gestured like an Indian.  

Nothing was off limits when it came to his acting, either.  As Business Insider reported, “At one point, Trudeau, wearing traditional dress, broke into the Indian dance called the Bhangra, to a mixed reaction on Twitter.”

Oh, it must have been something to see.  Or not.

Some observers, such as Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, apparently had had enough of the Trudeau show after three days of the prime minster decking himself out in splendid Indian dress and prancing through the steps of the Bhangra.  Abdullah tweeted, “Is this choreographed cuteness all just a bit much now?  Also, FYI we Indians don’t dress like this every day sir, not even in Bollywood.”

Underlying Trudeau’s obvious cultural appropriation of India’s tradition of sartorial splendor is the belief that identification with any culture but the Western tradition is virtuous.  Pretending to be an Indian from the upper classes or a member of Bollywood is supposedly better than being dressed in a suit or a tuxedo, both of which are ordinary Western dress but both of which may have been deemed by Trudeau as giving off vibes of Western imperialism.

He erred even more by hauling his entire family onto the multiculturalist stage, having them all dress in Indian attire while assuming the gestures typical of an Indian greeting.  It all looked like a badly staged version of the Von Trapp family done Indian style.  Thankfully, the family didn’t sing.

Perhaps some of the messages were unintentional, but at the heart of the Trudeau show is the idea that imitation is the sincerest form of diplomacy.

It isn’t. 

On the contrary, the whole cringe-inducing episode had to have been humiliating for many of the people of Canada, including some of the immigrants from India who are part of Canada’s population.  What are they to think of their prime minister’s ridiculous performances?  Surely, they have seen that Trudeau’s efforts were not truly diplomatic.  Surely, they have noted the insulting fakery.  This is to say nothing of the very bad acting and dancing.

There are some lessons to be learned from Trudeau’s bad stagecraft.

First, ersatz pretenses of multiculturalism coupled with bad acting should never be part of diplomacy.  It is diplomatic to understand the history of the nation one is visiting.  It is gracious diplomacy to avoid egregious offenses by learning what the host country considers good manners.  It is not good diplomacy to present oneself as an imitation citizen of the country that has invited you to visit.

Second, to state the obvious: Mr. Trudeau supposedly was visiting India to represent Canada, not India itself.  Canada has its own integrity and national traditions, which traditions are the ones Mr. Trudeau is supposed to represent.  Some of those traditions include parliamentary government vested in the national interests of Canada, which still technically is part of the British Commonwealth.  In other words, Canada is Western in its history, not Indian.  Mr. Trudeau is a Westerner, though he appears either not to know it or not to like it.

Third, Trudeau’s attachment to the ideals of globalism is obvious.  Even if it is at the expense of his own country, he apparently is committed to following the old adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”  If he were in Tibet, he would probably attempt to take up a prayer wheel and learn throat-singing.  If he were in Japan, he might be inclined to wear a samurai costume and thrum away on the shamisen.  Were he in Australia, he might try the “Kangaroo Hop” on the didgeridoo.  Nor would he neglect trying out the melodious flugelhorn while in the Swiss alps.

In any case, he has revealed himself as a chameleon who will try to assume the cultural identity of any nation he visits – any nation other than Canada.

In view of his bending over backward to be all things to all people, we can hazard a guess that as Trudeau returns to Canada, he will doubtless continue to try to be all things to all peoplekind.

Fay Voshell may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com.

Image via the Toronto Star.

Imagine the reaction of the media if President Trump donned lederhosen and tried to do a German folk dance during a trip to meet with Germany’s Angela Merkel.  Or imagine if India’s president, Ram Nath Kovind, arrived for a state visit to Canada dressed as a red-jacketed Canadian Mountie or as a plaid-shirted lumberjack carrying an axe.

The equivalent of the above is pretty much what Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attempted during his recent trip to India, where he made himself a laughingstock because of his fervid embrace of the religion of multiculturalism.

It was quite a show.  Nothing was too much for Trudeau to do if it buttressed his devotion to national traditions other than the traditions of his own country, which is supposed to be Canada.  Trudeau acted as if he were a representative of India, not Canada.  He dressed like an Indian, tried to dance like an Indian, gestured like an Indian.  

Nothing was off limits when it came to his acting, either.  As Business Insider reported, “At one point, Trudeau, wearing traditional dress, broke into the Indian dance called the Bhangra, to a mixed reaction on Twitter.”

Oh, it must have been something to see.  Or not.

Some observers, such as Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, apparently had had enough of the Trudeau show after three days of the prime minster decking himself out in splendid Indian dress and prancing through the steps of the Bhangra.  Abdullah tweeted, “Is this choreographed cuteness all just a bit much now?  Also, FYI we Indians don’t dress like this every day sir, not even in Bollywood.”

Underlying Trudeau’s obvious cultural appropriation of India’s tradition of sartorial splendor is the belief that identification with any culture but the Western tradition is virtuous.  Pretending to be an Indian from the upper classes or a member of Bollywood is supposedly better than being dressed in a suit or a tuxedo, both of which are ordinary Western dress but both of which may have been deemed by Trudeau as giving off vibes of Western imperialism.

He erred even more by hauling his entire family onto the multiculturalist stage, having them all dress in Indian attire while assuming the gestures typical of an Indian greeting.  It all looked like a badly staged version of the Von Trapp family done Indian style.  Thankfully, the family didn’t sing.

Perhaps some of the messages were unintentional, but at the heart of the Trudeau show is the idea that imitation is the sincerest form of diplomacy.

It isn’t. 

On the contrary, the whole cringe-inducing episode had to have been humiliating for many of the people of Canada, including some of the immigrants from India who are part of Canada’s population.  What are they to think of their prime minister’s ridiculous performances?  Surely, they have seen that Trudeau’s efforts were not truly diplomatic.  Surely, they have noted the insulting fakery.  This is to say nothing of the very bad acting and dancing.

There are some lessons to be learned from Trudeau’s bad stagecraft.

First, ersatz pretenses of multiculturalism coupled with bad acting should never be part of diplomacy.  It is diplomatic to understand the history of the nation one is visiting.  It is gracious diplomacy to avoid egregious offenses by learning what the host country considers good manners.  It is not good diplomacy to present oneself as an imitation citizen of the country that has invited you to visit.

Second, to state the obvious: Mr. Trudeau supposedly was visiting India to represent Canada, not India itself.  Canada has its own integrity and national traditions, which traditions are the ones Mr. Trudeau is supposed to represent.  Some of those traditions include parliamentary government vested in the national interests of Canada, which still technically is part of the British Commonwealth.  In other words, Canada is Western in its history, not Indian.  Mr. Trudeau is a Westerner, though he appears either not to know it or not to like it.

Third, Trudeau’s attachment to the ideals of globalism is obvious.  Even if it is at the expense of his own country, he apparently is committed to following the old adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”  If he were in Tibet, he would probably attempt to take up a prayer wheel and learn throat-singing.  If he were in Japan, he might be inclined to wear a samurai costume and thrum away on the shamisen.  Were he in Australia, he might try the “Kangaroo Hop” on the didgeridoo.  Nor would he neglect trying out the melodious flugelhorn while in the Swiss alps.

In any case, he has revealed himself as a chameleon who will try to assume the cultural identity of any nation he visits – any nation other than Canada.

In view of his bending over backward to be all things to all people, we can hazard a guess that as Trudeau returns to Canada, he will doubtless continue to try to be all things to all peoplekind.

Fay Voshell may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com.

Image via the Toronto Star.



Source link

The Temptation of Terror


“All eyes are on Robespierre’s Tumbril, where he, his jaw bound in dirty linen, with his half-dead Brother, and half-dead Henriot, lie shattered; their ‘seventeen hours’ of agony about to end. The Gendarmes point their swords at him, to shew the people which is he. A woman springs on the Tumbril; clutching the side of it with one hand; waving the other Sibyl-like; and exclaims: ‘The death of thee gladdens my very heart, m’enivre de joie;’ Robespierre opened his eyes; ‘Scelerat, go down to Hell, with the curses of all wives and mothers!’ — At the foot of the scaffold, they stretched him on the ground till his turn came. Lifted aloft, his eyes again opened; caught the bloody axe. Samson wrenched the coat off him; wrenched the dirty linen from his jaw: the jaw fell powerless, there burst from him a cry; — hideous to hear and see.” The truth is that the architect of the Terror perished deluded, still thinking of himself as incorruptible — perfect in vision and actions. A reconstructed death mask shows him as he was in real life, pockmarked and malevolent; not at all the handsome, blemish-free young man portrayed done by propagandists of the time.

Sic semper tyrannis, be it Robespierre still shouting curses at the “corruptibles” he wished to exterminate or his ideological heir Stalin, who, while dying of a stroke and lying in his own urine, still was convinced he was invincibly incorruptible. Both believed themselves justified in exterminating enemies in order the perfect revolution be achieved. Theirs was a righteous persecution for a righteous cause. As Robespierre stated, “Terror is nothing more than justice, prompt, secure, and inflexible. It is therefore an emanation of virtue.”

The demand for complete purity actualized by terror always turns lethal.

No one can ever live up to the ideals required of the incorruptible citizen or the perfect comrade. Any given person is guilty as charged by the more discerning and the unpolluted radicals, qualified as they believe themselves to be to deliver the sentence of death; death to enemies real or perceived being seen as the necessary gateway to utopia.

How did Robespierre and his allies attain the power to deliver death sentences to whomever they wished?

They succeeded the way the Left has always succeeded and still succeeds.

They jettisoned the structures of the society in which they lived, destroying the old institutions (rather than reforming them), and substituting new ones they had dreamed up. Their new structures were intended to destroy the old foundations of state and Church while giving the revolutionaries the power to dispose of their enemies.

Together with his allies, Robespierre developed a legal basis for the Terror.

The “Law of Suspects” ordered the arrest of persons suspected of opposing the revolution. It was followed by a “Decree on Emergency Government,” which ditched the French Constitution and individual rights. Completing the coup was the Law of Frimaire, which essentially handed over all power to Robespierre and his comrades ensconced in the Committee for Public Safety. Topping off the whole was the attempt to create a substitute for Catholicism, one that demanded allegiance to the new state religion honoring the “Supreme Being.”

The Committee of Public Safety’s The Law of Suspects became a template followed almost to the letter by the Left in the Democratic Party, as well as much academia and the media. Robespierre was quite clear about just who “suspects” were:

“The following are deemed suspects:


i. those who, by their conduct, associations, comments, or writings have shown themselves partisans of tyranny or federalism and enemies of liberty;


ii. those who are unable to justify, in the manner prescribed by the decree of March 21st, their means of existence and the performance of their civic duties;


iii. those to whom certificates of patriotism have been refused.”


The Committee also included civil servants not aligned with the Revolution as well as well all members of the aristocracy (their extended families included) who did not constantly demonstrate “their devotion to the Revolution.” Any who had fled France in 1789 were deemed enemies.


If there were additional enemies, the newly established “Surveillance Committees” would be responsible for drawing up “lists of suspects, with issuing warrants of arrest against them, and with placing their papers under seal.”

Have the tactics of the Left changed since the establishment of the Terror’s dictatorial Committee for Public Safety? In fact, it is abundantly clear that all aspects of Robespierre’s new order were and still are part and parcel of the agenda of the Left wherever it is found.

Isn’t it clear the rule of law in America is increasingly disposable when it comes to mob and media “justice” and the decrees of secret committees and tribunals which are authorities unto themselves? This is to say nothing of sanctuary cities whose leaders have essentially established duchies with their own set of rules.

Title IX was and still is used to deny due process to college and university men accused of assaulting women. Similar in-house tribunals have proliferated throughout academia at large.

Workplace show trials for inappropriate behavior or speech have long been standard, with sensitivity seminars dictating elaborate codes of conduct and language. Transgressors are either fired or forced to repent.

Secret examinations and punishment doled out by a few in power in academia have resulted in cases like that of Canadian teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd. She was berated and interrogated for showing a few minutes of a Jordan Peterson tape in which he protested against anyone being forced to use transgender pronouns.

Without the rule of law and due process to establish the guilt or innocence of the hundreds of powerful men who are accused of sexual assault, who is to know just who is really guilty?

When the media and the mob rule, no one is exempt from accusation and condemnation. Mass hysteria is no impartial judge of the facts.

John Keke’s excellent article in City Journal, “Why Robespierre Chose Terror,” notes the results of mass hysteria. He quotes J.M. Thompson:

“The result of this climate of hysteria was Robespierre’s Decree of the 22nd Prairial. It expressed in principle the views of the whole Committee. The Committee was fanatical enough to approve, and the Convention powerful enough to enforce, as a New Model of Republican justice . . . a law which denied to prisoners the help of counsel, made it possible for the court to dispense with witnesses, and allowed no sentence except acquittal or execution; a law which, at the same time, defined crimes against the state in such wide terms that the slightest indiscretion might bring one within the article of death. To any right-minded or merciful man such procedure must seem a travesty of justice.” (Italics mine.)

The basis of Robespierre’s ideology was not reason or facts but angry passion, an ideological anger that justified the execution of many innocents in order the perfect Revolution be established. He never looked back, not even at the end. He never asked if he was wrong because he thought his vision was incorruptible. He did not ask if terror should overrule facts, because facts might get in the way of quickly actualizing the revolution. He would make the world fit his vision by any means necessary.

Does the above not also characterize the Left in all its manifestations?

How ironic that in America, the sexual revolution begun in the 60s, based on passion and the freedom to exhibit passion in any time and way as long as the thin reed of “consent” was leaned on, now has turned in on itself. But that is what happens when rage is the basis of justice. That is what happens when extremes of feeling completely replace the rule of law based on reason and revelation.

When the ideological fever rises to a temperature similar to that of the Terror, guilt or innocence does not really matter — in fact, the very concepts have been drowned out by the screams of the mob. Only raw emotion and power matter. Only ideological purity matters.

Perhaps, knowing the fate before him would be one of the living dead no matter what he did or didn’t do, that is why Dan Johnson, a lawyer in Kentucky accused of sexual assault, committed suicide.

Perhaps Johnson knew, as did Robespierre at the end, the verdict of the mob would be death — of one kind or another, be it actual or a living death.

We don’t know for sure.

But death in one form or another is always what happens when mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

The current hysteria must be opposed and halted. The rule of law and due process must be re-established. Otherwise, we may find the country taking a path to The Terror — American style.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many other online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com. 

What might Robespierre, “The Incorruptible” have been thinking after he attempted suicide only to leave the job unfinished? The man who managed the Terror of the French Revolution succeeded only in shattering the jaw that had enabled his rabble-rousing speeches. He then faced the very mobs he had impassioned. But in the end, they hustled him to the guillotine.

Thomas Carlyle described Robespierre’s last moments:

“All eyes are on Robespierre’s Tumbril, where he, his jaw bound in dirty linen, with his half-dead Brother, and half-dead Henriot, lie shattered; their ‘seventeen hours’ of agony about to end. The Gendarmes point their swords at him, to shew the people which is he. A woman springs on the Tumbril; clutching the side of it with one hand; waving the other Sibyl-like; and exclaims: ‘The death of thee gladdens my very heart, m’enivre de joie;’ Robespierre opened his eyes; ‘Scelerat, go down to Hell, with the curses of all wives and mothers!’ — At the foot of the scaffold, they stretched him on the ground till his turn came. Lifted aloft, his eyes again opened; caught the bloody axe. Samson wrenched the coat off him; wrenched the dirty linen from his jaw: the jaw fell powerless, there burst from him a cry; — hideous to hear and see.” The truth is that the architect of the Terror perished deluded, still thinking of himself as incorruptible — perfect in vision and actions. A reconstructed death mask shows him as he was in real life, pockmarked and malevolent; not at all the handsome, blemish-free young man portrayed done by propagandists of the time.

Sic semper tyrannis, be it Robespierre still shouting curses at the “corruptibles” he wished to exterminate or his ideological heir Stalin, who, while dying of a stroke and lying in his own urine, still was convinced he was invincibly incorruptible. Both believed themselves justified in exterminating enemies in order the perfect revolution be achieved. Theirs was a righteous persecution for a righteous cause. As Robespierre stated, “Terror is nothing more than justice, prompt, secure, and inflexible. It is therefore an emanation of virtue.”

The demand for complete purity actualized by terror always turns lethal.

No one can ever live up to the ideals required of the incorruptible citizen or the perfect comrade. Any given person is guilty as charged by the more discerning and the unpolluted radicals, qualified as they believe themselves to be to deliver the sentence of death; death to enemies real or perceived being seen as the necessary gateway to utopia.

How did Robespierre and his allies attain the power to deliver death sentences to whomever they wished?

They succeeded the way the Left has always succeeded and still succeeds.

They jettisoned the structures of the society in which they lived, destroying the old institutions (rather than reforming them), and substituting new ones they had dreamed up. Their new structures were intended to destroy the old foundations of state and Church while giving the revolutionaries the power to dispose of their enemies.

Together with his allies, Robespierre developed a legal basis for the Terror.

The “Law of Suspects” ordered the arrest of persons suspected of opposing the revolution. It was followed by a “Decree on Emergency Government,” which ditched the French Constitution and individual rights. Completing the coup was the Law of Frimaire, which essentially handed over all power to Robespierre and his comrades ensconced in the Committee for Public Safety. Topping off the whole was the attempt to create a substitute for Catholicism, one that demanded allegiance to the new state religion honoring the “Supreme Being.”

The Committee of Public Safety’s The Law of Suspects became a template followed almost to the letter by the Left in the Democratic Party, as well as much academia and the media. Robespierre was quite clear about just who “suspects” were:

“The following are deemed suspects:


i. those who, by their conduct, associations, comments, or writings have shown themselves partisans of tyranny or federalism and enemies of liberty;


ii. those who are unable to justify, in the manner prescribed by the decree of March 21st, their means of existence and the performance of their civic duties;


iii. those to whom certificates of patriotism have been refused.”


The Committee also included civil servants not aligned with the Revolution as well as well all members of the aristocracy (their extended families included) who did not constantly demonstrate “their devotion to the Revolution.” Any who had fled France in 1789 were deemed enemies.


If there were additional enemies, the newly established “Surveillance Committees” would be responsible for drawing up “lists of suspects, with issuing warrants of arrest against them, and with placing their papers under seal.”

Have the tactics of the Left changed since the establishment of the Terror’s dictatorial Committee for Public Safety? In fact, it is abundantly clear that all aspects of Robespierre’s new order were and still are part and parcel of the agenda of the Left wherever it is found.

Isn’t it clear the rule of law in America is increasingly disposable when it comes to mob and media “justice” and the decrees of secret committees and tribunals which are authorities unto themselves? This is to say nothing of sanctuary cities whose leaders have essentially established duchies with their own set of rules.

Title IX was and still is used to deny due process to college and university men accused of assaulting women. Similar in-house tribunals have proliferated throughout academia at large.

Workplace show trials for inappropriate behavior or speech have long been standard, with sensitivity seminars dictating elaborate codes of conduct and language. Transgressors are either fired or forced to repent.

Secret examinations and punishment doled out by a few in power in academia have resulted in cases like that of Canadian teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd. She was berated and interrogated for showing a few minutes of a Jordan Peterson tape in which he protested against anyone being forced to use transgender pronouns.

Without the rule of law and due process to establish the guilt or innocence of the hundreds of powerful men who are accused of sexual assault, who is to know just who is really guilty?

When the media and the mob rule, no one is exempt from accusation and condemnation. Mass hysteria is no impartial judge of the facts.

John Keke’s excellent article in City Journal, “Why Robespierre Chose Terror,” notes the results of mass hysteria. He quotes J.M. Thompson:

“The result of this climate of hysteria was Robespierre’s Decree of the 22nd Prairial. It expressed in principle the views of the whole Committee. The Committee was fanatical enough to approve, and the Convention powerful enough to enforce, as a New Model of Republican justice . . . a law which denied to prisoners the help of counsel, made it possible for the court to dispense with witnesses, and allowed no sentence except acquittal or execution; a law which, at the same time, defined crimes against the state in such wide terms that the slightest indiscretion might bring one within the article of death. To any right-minded or merciful man such procedure must seem a travesty of justice.” (Italics mine.)

The basis of Robespierre’s ideology was not reason or facts but angry passion, an ideological anger that justified the execution of many innocents in order the perfect Revolution be established. He never looked back, not even at the end. He never asked if he was wrong because he thought his vision was incorruptible. He did not ask if terror should overrule facts, because facts might get in the way of quickly actualizing the revolution. He would make the world fit his vision by any means necessary.

Does the above not also characterize the Left in all its manifestations?

How ironic that in America, the sexual revolution begun in the 60s, based on passion and the freedom to exhibit passion in any time and way as long as the thin reed of “consent” was leaned on, now has turned in on itself. But that is what happens when rage is the basis of justice. That is what happens when extremes of feeling completely replace the rule of law based on reason and revelation.

When the ideological fever rises to a temperature similar to that of the Terror, guilt or innocence does not really matter — in fact, the very concepts have been drowned out by the screams of the mob. Only raw emotion and power matter. Only ideological purity matters.

Perhaps, knowing the fate before him would be one of the living dead no matter what he did or didn’t do, that is why Dan Johnson, a lawyer in Kentucky accused of sexual assault, committed suicide.

Perhaps Johnson knew, as did Robespierre at the end, the verdict of the mob would be death — of one kind or another, be it actual or a living death.

We don’t know for sure.

But death in one form or another is always what happens when mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

The current hysteria must be opposed and halted. The rule of law and due process must be re-established. Otherwise, we may find the country taking a path to The Terror — American style.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many other online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com. 



Source link

Both Men and Women Can Be Sexual Predators


But just as it seems every man is a predator and every woman has been wrongfully fondled, there is a small cloud on the horizon that augers a storm. The cloud may portend a new revolution.

Revolutions often begin with questions about truth and reality. What is the truth behind the accusations? Are men automatically guilty if accused? Should we consider whether women can be as predatory as men? Are all the accusing women innocent victims? Are none of them looking for power or money?

Maybe there is a little room for realistic cynicism.

As Angelo Codevilla recently pointed out, “Men, but mostly women, have been trading erotic services for access to power since time began.” As he observed sexual power plays during his eight years on the Senate staff, “Access to power, or status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence was the one quality entirely absent on all sides.”

Codevilla’s point is that all sexual transgression, including bargaining and power mongering, is held to be entirely the fault of men. But not all can be blamed on what radical feminists see as an inherently detestable and predatory patriarchy.

Women can be just as predatory as men, sexually and otherwise. Though assigned invisibility by most contemporary feminists who have a vested interest in the myth of women as always and forever victims of men, Phyllis Chesler and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, both cool-headed analysts, have shown that women can be as cruel and heartlessly manipulative toward men and other women as men can be toward women and other men.

Yes, we must recognize it has been and still sometimes is the lamentable truth that women unfairly have been considered the chief sexual polluters of men and society in general. Some medieval (and even contemporary) theologians’ discourses on the temptations the fair sex present to men more than suggest women are more sexually predatory than, as well as inferior to, men.

Such ideas about women began much earlier than the Middle Ages. Tertullian (160-220 AD) addressed women, saying, “Do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? You are the devil’s gateway… you are the first deserter of the divine law… on account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die.”

St. Jerome believed “woman is the root of all evil; Eve in paradise was a virgin… virginity is natural and marriage (and sex) comes after the Fall.” (Parentheses mine.)

The theological reasoning goes something like the following: Eve was not able to resist temptation and so was responsible for Adam’s and mankind’s Fall. All women after Eve bore the consequences of her sin, and all had her predatory sexuality and accompanying weaknesses and sins, one of which was that of a seductress who tempted men into the sins of lust.

Alas, not all such reasoning about the inferior and inherently subordinate status of women is in the dim past. Some contemporary theologians such as Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem, whose ideas are influential in evangelical and reformed circles, insist women will be eternally subordinate to men, as their status of subordination is characteristic of the eternally submissive relationship of Jesus to the Father within the Trinity. For Grudem and Ware, equality of redeemed men and women is not possible even when men and women are resurrected to eternal life. Both men appear to have succumbed to contemporary sexual/gender identity politics as a necessary characteristic of the Godhead. At least Aquinas averred women’s resurrected bodies were as redeemed as men’s. Their unorthodox view concerning the position of women in Heaven vaguely resembles the idea that in Paradise, there are seventy eternally submissive virgins available to men who attain blessedness.

To the credit of some feminists, secular and religious, many have strongly objected to the distorted image of women as inferior to men and as the chief locus of sin, sexual or otherwise.

Thank God.

However, as the current frenzy over the sexual abuse of women begins its descent into sexual McCarthyism, too many contemporary feminists are erring by now assigning the vice of lust almost entirely to the lustful hairy beasts of the male sex, and to the always suspect, but ill defined “patriarchy.” To put it another way, the sins of lust and aggression now have too often been attributed almost solely to men. The predations of women like the pedophile Mary Kay Letourneau, who was convicted of the rape of her twelve-year-old student, are somehow regarded as anomalies.

For some feminists, the idea is that all will be well if and when the patriarchy is destroyed and if and when the sexually rapacious white male is deprived of power.

In sum, as is the case with extremists who believe the evil of racism is part of the genetic makeup of whites, particularly white males; feminist extremists believe men, particularly white men, are automatically predisposed to sexual predation and seldom, if ever, contain their lust. It is assumed that women are never — well very rarely — predators and are to be automatically assumed victims because men have power, the original sin of the patriarchy. Therefore, mere accusation is legitimately enough to condemn any male. Emotional distress is enough to bypass evidence and the rule of law.

Blaming one sex as more intrinsically disordered than the other ignores the fact that each sex is as inclined to evil as the other. As Chesler and others have pointed out, there is more than some truth to the accusation that women are just better at hiding their transgressions than men and that they often direct their worst toward members of their own sex. Ask any woman whose marriage has been destroyed by the pretty young thing at the office just who was preying on whom.

Sin is remarkably evenhanded phenomenon.

The capacity for evil lies in the hearts of men and women. Men are not guilty just because they are men. Women are not guilty just because they are women. Some men are guilty of predation. Some women are guilty of predation. Both can be guilty of using sexual shortcuts in order to achieve power.

If there’s to be an overhaul of the dead end of the sexual revolution we are now witnessing after decades of descent into sexual degradation, it has to start with the idea that though men and women are equally corrupt — each in their own ways toward each other and the members of their own sex — both are redeemable.

The true sexual revolution has never been attained. What we are witnessing now is the dead end of the purely negative sexual revolution begun in the 60s, during which time equality of the sexes was increasingly measured by the calculus of equal degradation, with “Everyman” and “Everywoman” being urged to continue the inexorable slide into the lust-filled second circle of Hell.

Christianity has always held out the hope of redemption for both sexes — equally, both here and in eternity. It offers the hope of both sexes’ redemption and the restoration of equality between the sexes. It urges both to be imitators of Christ.

Sadly, even within the Christian Church, doctrine and cultural practices mitigate against the Edenic and Heavenly ideal. The Church has never taken the ideal of men and women as created equally in the image of God and as equally coheirs of the Kingdom of God with enough seriousness to model those ideals here on planet earth; instead the Church has most often taken its cues from the world.

But all is not lost.

We can hope the spiritual revolution necessary for approaching ideal relationships between men and women and with their God at least will look nearer to Eden than it presently does; and that it might even approach the Heavenly ideal of men and women standing together as redeemed equals who are united to God.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

Men accused of sexual taint continue to be beheaded by the media, falling like aristocrats trundled to the guillotine. The latest in the tumbrel full of miscreants to go under the blade is Matt Lauer, who was fired from NBC’s Today show for sexual misconduct. Apparently, Lauer’s tribe numbers in the hundreds of thousands.

Or more.

But just as it seems every man is a predator and every woman has been wrongfully fondled, there is a small cloud on the horizon that augers a storm. The cloud may portend a new revolution.

Revolutions often begin with questions about truth and reality. What is the truth behind the accusations? Are men automatically guilty if accused? Should we consider whether women can be as predatory as men? Are all the accusing women innocent victims? Are none of them looking for power or money?

Maybe there is a little room for realistic cynicism.

As Angelo Codevilla recently pointed out, “Men, but mostly women, have been trading erotic services for access to power since time began.” As he observed sexual power plays during his eight years on the Senate staff, “Access to power, or status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence was the one quality entirely absent on all sides.”

Codevilla’s point is that all sexual transgression, including bargaining and power mongering, is held to be entirely the fault of men. But not all can be blamed on what radical feminists see as an inherently detestable and predatory patriarchy.

Women can be just as predatory as men, sexually and otherwise. Though assigned invisibility by most contemporary feminists who have a vested interest in the myth of women as always and forever victims of men, Phyllis Chesler and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, both cool-headed analysts, have shown that women can be as cruel and heartlessly manipulative toward men and other women as men can be toward women and other men.

Yes, we must recognize it has been and still sometimes is the lamentable truth that women unfairly have been considered the chief sexual polluters of men and society in general. Some medieval (and even contemporary) theologians’ discourses on the temptations the fair sex present to men more than suggest women are more sexually predatory than, as well as inferior to, men.

Such ideas about women began much earlier than the Middle Ages. Tertullian (160-220 AD) addressed women, saying, “Do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? You are the devil’s gateway… you are the first deserter of the divine law… on account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die.”

St. Jerome believed “woman is the root of all evil; Eve in paradise was a virgin… virginity is natural and marriage (and sex) comes after the Fall.” (Parentheses mine.)

The theological reasoning goes something like the following: Eve was not able to resist temptation and so was responsible for Adam’s and mankind’s Fall. All women after Eve bore the consequences of her sin, and all had her predatory sexuality and accompanying weaknesses and sins, one of which was that of a seductress who tempted men into the sins of lust.

Alas, not all such reasoning about the inferior and inherently subordinate status of women is in the dim past. Some contemporary theologians such as Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem, whose ideas are influential in evangelical and reformed circles, insist women will be eternally subordinate to men, as their status of subordination is characteristic of the eternally submissive relationship of Jesus to the Father within the Trinity. For Grudem and Ware, equality of redeemed men and women is not possible even when men and women are resurrected to eternal life. Both men appear to have succumbed to contemporary sexual/gender identity politics as a necessary characteristic of the Godhead. At least Aquinas averred women’s resurrected bodies were as redeemed as men’s. Their unorthodox view concerning the position of women in Heaven vaguely resembles the idea that in Paradise, there are seventy eternally submissive virgins available to men who attain blessedness.

To the credit of some feminists, secular and religious, many have strongly objected to the distorted image of women as inferior to men and as the chief locus of sin, sexual or otherwise.

Thank God.

However, as the current frenzy over the sexual abuse of women begins its descent into sexual McCarthyism, too many contemporary feminists are erring by now assigning the vice of lust almost entirely to the lustful hairy beasts of the male sex, and to the always suspect, but ill defined “patriarchy.” To put it another way, the sins of lust and aggression now have too often been attributed almost solely to men. The predations of women like the pedophile Mary Kay Letourneau, who was convicted of the rape of her twelve-year-old student, are somehow regarded as anomalies.

For some feminists, the idea is that all will be well if and when the patriarchy is destroyed and if and when the sexually rapacious white male is deprived of power.

In sum, as is the case with extremists who believe the evil of racism is part of the genetic makeup of whites, particularly white males; feminist extremists believe men, particularly white men, are automatically predisposed to sexual predation and seldom, if ever, contain their lust. It is assumed that women are never — well very rarely — predators and are to be automatically assumed victims because men have power, the original sin of the patriarchy. Therefore, mere accusation is legitimately enough to condemn any male. Emotional distress is enough to bypass evidence and the rule of law.

Blaming one sex as more intrinsically disordered than the other ignores the fact that each sex is as inclined to evil as the other. As Chesler and others have pointed out, there is more than some truth to the accusation that women are just better at hiding their transgressions than men and that they often direct their worst toward members of their own sex. Ask any woman whose marriage has been destroyed by the pretty young thing at the office just who was preying on whom.

Sin is remarkably evenhanded phenomenon.

The capacity for evil lies in the hearts of men and women. Men are not guilty just because they are men. Women are not guilty just because they are women. Some men are guilty of predation. Some women are guilty of predation. Both can be guilty of using sexual shortcuts in order to achieve power.

If there’s to be an overhaul of the dead end of the sexual revolution we are now witnessing after decades of descent into sexual degradation, it has to start with the idea that though men and women are equally corrupt — each in their own ways toward each other and the members of their own sex — both are redeemable.

The true sexual revolution has never been attained. What we are witnessing now is the dead end of the purely negative sexual revolution begun in the 60s, during which time equality of the sexes was increasingly measured by the calculus of equal degradation, with “Everyman” and “Everywoman” being urged to continue the inexorable slide into the lust-filled second circle of Hell.

Christianity has always held out the hope of redemption for both sexes — equally, both here and in eternity. It offers the hope of both sexes’ redemption and the restoration of equality between the sexes. It urges both to be imitators of Christ.

Sadly, even within the Christian Church, doctrine and cultural practices mitigate against the Edenic and Heavenly ideal. The Church has never taken the ideal of men and women as created equally in the image of God and as equally coheirs of the Kingdom of God with enough seriousness to model those ideals here on planet earth; instead the Church has most often taken its cues from the world.

But all is not lost.

We can hope the spiritual revolution necessary for approaching ideal relationships between men and women and with their God at least will look nearer to Eden than it presently does; and that it might even approach the Heavenly ideal of men and women standing together as redeemed equals who are united to God.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com



Source link

From Beheading to Scream-Fests: How to Silence Critics – and Yourself


Cicero’s head and hand were fastened for a long time to the rostra in the forum, where he had previously played the popular leader, and more came to see the sight than had listened to him. It is said that Anthony had the head placed before the table at his meals, until he was sated with looking at the vile object.

Leaders of modern democracies and republics, most of which have been and are still committed to some freedom of speech, have generally refrained from beheading outspoken critics outright.

But there are ways of silencing people that, though subtler than execution, are almost as effective as death by beheading.

One way to silence critics is to change the very concept of reality so that old paradigms of truth become irrelevant or even vanish. 

A 1985 video features ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, who outlines the ways believers in ideologies can distort reality and create a new one.  Bezmenov outlines four steps of subversion.  The first is to change the perception of reality so no one is able to come to sensible conclusions about himself, his family, or his community.  The process is also known as brainwashing.

The object of brainwashing experiences demoralization so profound that exposure to truth doesn’t even matter anymore.  As Bezmenov points out, an utterly demoralized Soviet citizen could actually know about or even see concentration camps and still not believe reality, so completely changed was his way of thinking.  Facts did not matter, as the brain had been completely disabled and then reprogrammed.

The brainwashing tactics used by leftist ideologues in America today – they are often ensconced in America’s premier academic institutions – involve an undermining of reality by changing language.  Once the way of speaking and writing is completely overhauled, opposing voices, including those from the past, are rendered unable to speak meaningfully at all.  To put it another way, the idea is to make former interpretive paradigms describing reality absolutely incomprehensible by scrambling language.  

For instance, feminist and genderist theologians sought to rid the Trinity of patriarchal references such as Father and Son, substituting gender-neutral terms like Life-Giver, Sustainer, and Holy Parent.  The idea is that the currently desired social order of the religious left should be reflected in a new permutation of language designed to change the old and hidebound terminology for God orthodox Christianity has utilized with some effectiveness and for good reasons for the last 2,000 years.

As Wesley Spears-Newsome notes in his helpful essay “Tips and Tricks for Being Gender Inclusive in Worship,” terms denoting the Holy Trinity can be particularly thorny.  However, God’s form and nature must follow the new human perception, and therefore a new lexicon referring to God – whoever that may be – must be created.  The old God names had to go:    






Masculine Phrase/Title

Inclusive Replacement Options

He, Him, His, Himself

God, God, God’s, Godself


You, You, Yours, Yourself


S/He, Her/Him, Hers/His, Her/Himself (alternating)

King, Lord

Almighty (God)


Creator (God)


Sovereign (God)


Maker, Sustainer (God)

Father

Creator (God)


(Holy) Parent


(Holy) Comforter


Father-Mother (one word)


Mother/Father (alternating)


Giver


Maker

Son (of God)

Child (of God)


Christ


Jesus


Savior


Redeemer


Lamb


Light (of the World)


Shepherd


Crucified (One)


Risen One

The changes to God-language that have been de rigueur in seminaries and churches as well as academia for decades have been widely replicated and re-formed.  They are now used as tools for brainwashing by the secular left, which now reaches down in the form of the post-structuralist transgender movement into public schools.  Most who know about the radical fringe of trangenderism are familiar with the new lexicon aimed at changing pronouns denoting male or female to gender-neutral terms.  For those who are not in the know, a handy chart is supplied by the LGBT Resource Center.








HE/SHE

HIM/HER

HIS/HER

HIS/HERS

HIMSELF/HERSELF

zie

zim

zir

zis

zieself

sie

sie

hir

hirs

hirself

ey

em

eir

eirs

eirself

ve

ver

vis

vers

verself

tey

ter

tem

ters

terself

e

em

eir

eirs

emself

The revision of the English language reflects the effects of the linguistics of intellectuals like Jacques Derrida, which, though now considered outmoded, linger on long after the initial shock of Derrida’s theories concerning the ultimate inability of language to convey knowledge wrecked the humanities, especially Western literature.

For the fact is that the new jabberwocky utterly trashes coherent thought, starting with the humanities but gradually affecting every academic discipline, including the sciences.

As Camille Paglia has noted:

Post-structuralism is a system of literary and social analysis that flared up and vanished in France in the 1960s but that became anachronistically entrenched in British and American academe from the 1970s on. Based on the outmoded linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and promoted by the idolized Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault, it absurdly asserts that we experience or process reality only through language and that, because language is inherently unstable, nothing can be known. By undermining meaning, history and personal will, post-structuralism has done incalculable damage to education and contemporary thought[.] … And the end result is that humanities departments everywhere, having abandoned their proper mission of defending and celebrating art, have become humiliatingly marginalized in both reputation and impact.

Well, yes.

Essentially, what Paglia laments is what was bound to happen when deconstruction of language ultimately renders both writing and speaking pointless.  As Richard Ellmann points out, deconstruction is the systematic undoing of understanding.  Jurgen Habermass echoes Ellmann’s thinking when, in his The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, he notes that Derrida actually was advocating an end to rational discourse.

Derrida’s opposition to “logocentricism” – that is, his insistence that ideas do not exist outside language we use to express them – essentially means that language itself is meaningless and communication among us is impossible since no one is conveying any truth to which others may relate.  Of course, such anarchical linguistics makes one wonder why Derrida chose to put his non-thought to paper.  After all, if language is not capable of conveying concepts, why did he bother writing?

People, including Derrida, still will try to talk.

However, when any given person considers one’s self a self-contained god, an entire lexicon reflecting a new reality can be made up on demand.  One can even come to the conclusion that words referring to human being, man or woman, are referring not to reality, but only to other words.  Anyone can play with the language as one wishes and thus change reality.  That same person can then demand that only one’s made up language be spoken.

Is it any wonder that many are in despair about the state of political and religious discourse in the West?  Is it any wonder that the humanities are under constant attack as meaningless excrescences and that those committed to logocentrism – the idea that words and literature actually convey ideas – are rendered inarticulate?  Is it any wonder, if transgenderese prevails, that speaking and writing itself will be rendered meaningless?

It is no wonder. 

If we humans cannot communicate universally recognized truths to one another, all that remains is the primal scream and the will to power.  Apparently, the embrace of the Ginsburgian Howl is all that remains for the left, which itself has reached total incoherence and is embracing scream-fests.  The longish title of the new endeavors is “Scream helplessly at the sky on the anniversary of the election.”

The scream-fests are illustrative of our current dilemma.  The articulate are silenced, but the critics are also reduced to stupefaction.  Everyone is silenced by the triumph of irrationality.  The left has deliberately torn rationality apart so that only animal instinct remains; the right has generally lost the ability communicate its foundational beliefs with power and conviction because its foundational means of communication are being trashed.  It is coasting like a ship whose motor has died, with currents sweeping it along to dangerous shoals.

The exhaustion of the linguistic paradigms of the left and the consequences of that exhaustion create endless opportunities for disruption and chaos.  The left gladly supplies the physical equivalent of scream-fests.  In sum, the left hopes screaming of many permutations will drown out any remaining rational voices.

Today’s enfeebled conservatism, including those holding to orthodox Christianity, must find a strong voice to recover its foundations if it wishes to survive in any meaningful way.

Conservatives, including Christians, need to scream back – but in the King’s English.

Fay Voshell holds an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where she received the award for excellence in systematic theology.  She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  Her thoughts have appeared in many other online publications.  She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com.

Execution has been and still is a tried and true method of silencing critics.

Consider the case of Marcus Tullius Cicero, the gadfly of the Roman senate.  A remarkably gifted rhetorician, his agile and biting tongue was silenced by an affronted Marc Anthony, who had the eloquent orator beheaded.  As the Roman historian Appian later related:

Cicero’s head and hand were fastened for a long time to the rostra in the forum, where he had previously played the popular leader, and more came to see the sight than had listened to him. It is said that Anthony had the head placed before the table at his meals, until he was sated with looking at the vile object.

Leaders of modern democracies and republics, most of which have been and are still committed to some freedom of speech, have generally refrained from beheading outspoken critics outright.

But there are ways of silencing people that, though subtler than execution, are almost as effective as death by beheading.

One way to silence critics is to change the very concept of reality so that old paradigms of truth become irrelevant or even vanish. 

A 1985 video features ex-KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, who outlines the ways believers in ideologies can distort reality and create a new one.  Bezmenov outlines four steps of subversion.  The first is to change the perception of reality so no one is able to come to sensible conclusions about himself, his family, or his community.  The process is also known as brainwashing.

The object of brainwashing experiences demoralization so profound that exposure to truth doesn’t even matter anymore.  As Bezmenov points out, an utterly demoralized Soviet citizen could actually know about or even see concentration camps and still not believe reality, so completely changed was his way of thinking.  Facts did not matter, as the brain had been completely disabled and then reprogrammed.

The brainwashing tactics used by leftist ideologues in America today – they are often ensconced in America’s premier academic institutions – involve an undermining of reality by changing language.  Once the way of speaking and writing is completely overhauled, opposing voices, including those from the past, are rendered unable to speak meaningfully at all.  To put it another way, the idea is to make former interpretive paradigms describing reality absolutely incomprehensible by scrambling language.  

For instance, feminist and genderist theologians sought to rid the Trinity of patriarchal references such as Father and Son, substituting gender-neutral terms like Life-Giver, Sustainer, and Holy Parent.  The idea is that the currently desired social order of the religious left should be reflected in a new permutation of language designed to change the old and hidebound terminology for God orthodox Christianity has utilized with some effectiveness and for good reasons for the last 2,000 years.

As Wesley Spears-Newsome notes in his helpful essay “Tips and Tricks for Being Gender Inclusive in Worship,” terms denoting the Holy Trinity can be particularly thorny.  However, God’s form and nature must follow the new human perception, and therefore a new lexicon referring to God – whoever that may be – must be created.  The old God names had to go:    






Masculine Phrase/Title

Inclusive Replacement Options

He, Him, His, Himself

God, God, God’s, Godself


You, You, Yours, Yourself


S/He, Her/Him, Hers/His, Her/Himself (alternating)

King, Lord

Almighty (God)


Creator (God)


Sovereign (God)


Maker, Sustainer (God)

Father

Creator (God)


(Holy) Parent


(Holy) Comforter


Father-Mother (one word)


Mother/Father (alternating)


Giver


Maker

Son (of God)

Child (of God)


Christ


Jesus


Savior


Redeemer


Lamb


Light (of the World)


Shepherd


Crucified (One)


Risen One

The changes to God-language that have been de rigueur in seminaries and churches as well as academia for decades have been widely replicated and re-formed.  They are now used as tools for brainwashing by the secular left, which now reaches down in the form of the post-structuralist transgender movement into public schools.  Most who know about the radical fringe of trangenderism are familiar with the new lexicon aimed at changing pronouns denoting male or female to gender-neutral terms.  For those who are not in the know, a handy chart is supplied by the LGBT Resource Center.








HE/SHE

HIM/HER

HIS/HER

HIS/HERS

HIMSELF/HERSELF

zie

zim

zir

zis

zieself

sie

sie

hir

hirs

hirself

ey

em

eir

eirs

eirself

ve

ver

vis

vers

verself

tey

ter

tem

ters

terself

e

em

eir

eirs

emself

The revision of the English language reflects the effects of the linguistics of intellectuals like Jacques Derrida, which, though now considered outmoded, linger on long after the initial shock of Derrida’s theories concerning the ultimate inability of language to convey knowledge wrecked the humanities, especially Western literature.

For the fact is that the new jabberwocky utterly trashes coherent thought, starting with the humanities but gradually affecting every academic discipline, including the sciences.

As Camille Paglia has noted:

Post-structuralism is a system of literary and social analysis that flared up and vanished in France in the 1960s but that became anachronistically entrenched in British and American academe from the 1970s on. Based on the outmoded linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and promoted by the idolized Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault, it absurdly asserts that we experience or process reality only through language and that, because language is inherently unstable, nothing can be known. By undermining meaning, history and personal will, post-structuralism has done incalculable damage to education and contemporary thought[.] … And the end result is that humanities departments everywhere, having abandoned their proper mission of defending and celebrating art, have become humiliatingly marginalized in both reputation and impact.

Well, yes.

Essentially, what Paglia laments is what was bound to happen when deconstruction of language ultimately renders both writing and speaking pointless.  As Richard Ellmann points out, deconstruction is the systematic undoing of understanding.  Jurgen Habermass echoes Ellmann’s thinking when, in his The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, he notes that Derrida actually was advocating an end to rational discourse.

Derrida’s opposition to “logocentricism” – that is, his insistence that ideas do not exist outside language we use to express them – essentially means that language itself is meaningless and communication among us is impossible since no one is conveying any truth to which others may relate.  Of course, such anarchical linguistics makes one wonder why Derrida chose to put his non-thought to paper.  After all, if language is not capable of conveying concepts, why did he bother writing?

People, including Derrida, still will try to talk.

However, when any given person considers one’s self a self-contained god, an entire lexicon reflecting a new reality can be made up on demand.  One can even come to the conclusion that words referring to human being, man or woman, are referring not to reality, but only to other words.  Anyone can play with the language as one wishes and thus change reality.  That same person can then demand that only one’s made up language be spoken.

Is it any wonder that many are in despair about the state of political and religious discourse in the West?  Is it any wonder that the humanities are under constant attack as meaningless excrescences and that those committed to logocentrism – the idea that words and literature actually convey ideas – are rendered inarticulate?  Is it any wonder, if transgenderese prevails, that speaking and writing itself will be rendered meaningless?

It is no wonder. 

If we humans cannot communicate universally recognized truths to one another, all that remains is the primal scream and the will to power.  Apparently, the embrace of the Ginsburgian Howl is all that remains for the left, which itself has reached total incoherence and is embracing scream-fests.  The longish title of the new endeavors is “Scream helplessly at the sky on the anniversary of the election.”

The scream-fests are illustrative of our current dilemma.  The articulate are silenced, but the critics are also reduced to stupefaction.  Everyone is silenced by the triumph of irrationality.  The left has deliberately torn rationality apart so that only animal instinct remains; the right has generally lost the ability communicate its foundational beliefs with power and conviction because its foundational means of communication are being trashed.  It is coasting like a ship whose motor has died, with currents sweeping it along to dangerous shoals.

The exhaustion of the linguistic paradigms of the left and the consequences of that exhaustion create endless opportunities for disruption and chaos.  The left gladly supplies the physical equivalent of scream-fests.  In sum, the left hopes screaming of many permutations will drown out any remaining rational voices.

Today’s enfeebled conservatism, including those holding to orthodox Christianity, must find a strong voice to recover its foundations if it wishes to survive in any meaningful way.

Conservatives, including Christians, need to scream back – but in the King’s English.

Fay Voshell holds an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where she received the award for excellence in systematic theology.  She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  Her thoughts have appeared in many other online publications.  She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com.



Source link

Hir Majesty Mix Bressack, the New American Royalty


There is a longstanding but probably apocryphal story about the time a rash equerry told an off-color joke in the presence of Queen Victoria of England. She drew herself up and invoking the royal lingual prerogative said in a chilly tone, “We are not amused.”

The queen’s use of the royal plural pronoun indicated her aristocratic rank and authority over the people of England. The sovereign was “We,” whereas the commoner was something else — something lower. Throughout the height of aristocratic rule, we find the regular use of the plural term by people holding very high position. Czar Nicholas II still used the royal “we” in his abdication speech, saying, “In agreement with the Imperial Duma, We have thought it well to renounce the Throne of the Russian Empire and to lay down the supreme power.”

The last czar’s brutal death was accompanied by the demise of aristocratic nomenclature. “We” was dead. The Bolshevik revolutionists who finished off the 400-year-old Romanoff dynasty ushered in a new way of speaking. A new socialist language indicating the “equality” of all human beings rose up. From about 1917 onward, everyone was to be called “comrade,” much as men and women were to be called “citizen” during the time of the French Revolution.

But as the Communist Soviet Union was to discover, aristocratic tendencies linger on. As it always turns out during and after revolutions based on the ideal of absolute equality, no matter what the ideological system advocating the leveling of a hierarchical class system, some will declare themselves to be more equal than others.

Perhaps the rise of a new aristocracy is increasingly evidencing itself in the USA even as the demands for equality increase.

In an apparent resurrection of hierarchical aristocratic nosism, a teacher here in the Republic of America recently commanded her subjects to call her Mix Bressack. The hapless fifth graders were to use gender neutral pronouns when referring to zi hirself, queen of the classroom.

According to USA Today:

“A new fifth grade teacher at Canopy Oaks Elementary is asking students to use gender-neutral pronouns in the classroom. 


Math and science teacher Chloe Bressack sent the request home in a letter to parents headlined “About Mx. Bressack.”


“… my pronouns are ‘they, them, their’ instead of ‘he, his, she, hers.’ I know it takes some practice for it to feel natural,” the letter reads, “but students catch on pretty quickly.”


The letter also asks that students use “Mx.,” (pronounced ‘Mix’) when addressing the teacher rather than Mr. or Ms.”

Mx. Bessack, who doubtless was teaching the new, tedious, and ultimately incomprehensible mathematics utilizing labyrinth mental procedures to determine 2+2=4, later noted it would take time for the fifth graders to learn how to address her as she preferred to be addressed. But she would forgive errant pupils, who would receive a special dispensation of grace for the first few sins against her.

Mx. Bressack has since been transferred to adult education — aren’t her new students fortunate in that they get to learn a new language! — but we of the lower case “we” still are not amused.

There will be more Mx. Bressacks. Her number is legion.

The fact is that her and others’ attempts to establish gender neutral terminology go way beyond mere amusement to a deadly serious reconstruction of language and consequently thinking, as language is inextricably linked to thought. The danger is worse when the new lingo is backed by state power.

The case of Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto is illustrative of the dangers involved in allowing the new aristocracy to demand the non-royal use their new language of self-identity.

As he puts it, the Canadian legislation that ostensibly “extends protection against hate propaganda in regard to gender identity or expression” actually is stating, “Be it resolved that people should have the legal right to insist upon by force pronouns by which they will be addressed.”

What the new laws mean in reality is that the rest of us commoners must use the language demanded by the new aristocracy or face the wrath of the almighty state, which now puts its power behind the ideology and language of the new upper classes.

The new one percenters believe what few of the rest of us believe. They think the definition of a human being is a matter of personal choice, not a scientific or metaphysical reality. For them, biological differences are totally subjective; in fact, reality itself is subjective, a mere matter of personal choice.

The problem is that any person who believes in the subjectivity of reality now has the backing of state power, the use of which leads to persecution of dissenters like Peterson.

Professor Peterson, who has been warned by the university administration and who has refused to undergo re-education, asks a simple question to those who believe their subjective choice of identity is infallible: “What if your identity is wrong?”

He adds he retains the right to disagree: “No one has the right to impose their interpretation of identity on someone else…You can’t force me to respect you.”

Apparently, for the gender-neutral crowd, idolatry of one’s self is not enough. Everyone else must idolize them, too. We of the lower case “we” must worship them, too, especially since they belong to the new state religion.

To put it another way, state coercion amounts to forced conversion to transgenderism and its accompanying doctrines eliminating any differentiation between male and female.

To be forced to acknowledge the latest chosen identity as reality and to be forced to speak the language of a sex cult is as persecutory as being ordered to make sign of the cross or die; or to be forced to say I acknowledge Allah is the one true God or be decapitated. It is to be placed in the position of Daniel, Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego, who were told by King Nebuchadnezzar that when they faced the music of the sackbuts and the trumpets, they were to bow down and worship the god or be thrown into the fire. The fire these days takes forms of being sued for hate speech, being forced into bankruptcy, or being fired from your job.

What we are looking at is essentially a religious war, with the power of the state on the side of a leftist cult which, if undeterred, will continually seek to crush opposition to its views of reality. The most targeted are and will continue to be Christians.

As many have pointed out in the case of the Soviet Union and other countries seized by leftist ideologies, putting the power of the state behind an ideology inevitably involves brainwashing resistors.

Brainwashing involves training the mind so it cannot think in the old ways, but only in the new, approved way. While Ms./Mix Bressack probably would not put it this way, the ultimate purpose of her decrees is to get the students to think in terms of her view of reality. She and others of her world view are targeting the young in order to remold young minds to accept unreality as reality; good as bad and bad as good; to cease thinking in terms of things as they are in themselves vs. things as they are in fantasy. Ultimately the goal is the erasure of the old identity in order to create a new one, as Robert Jay Lifton pointed out in his study of brainwashing in the late 1950s.

Ms./Mix Bressack and her ilk were brilliantly portrayed in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, in which the newest generation were taught by the World Director to regard words like Mother and Father as pornographic; to embrace sexual promiscuity as normal and fidelity as outrageous perversion — in short, to assume the identity the New World Order approved and made use of.

But Ms./Mix and those who are the new royalty are the equivalent of fake Anastasias or Louis XVII’s. Impersonator Anna Anderson tried to convince the masses she was the Grand Duchess Anastasia, claiming to have miraculously escaped the Bolsheviks’ hail of bullets. Mathurin Bruneau and others claimed to be the real son of the decapitated Louis XVI. Oh yes, they were the great pretenders; and were they not thoroughly discredited as being charlatans and nut cases, they may well have been entitled to all the perks of royalty.

The new pretenders to royalty belonging to the latest permutation of the ideological cult that is the American Left are fake persona as surely as Anderson and Bruneau were pretenders to thrones.

Americans are usually good at spotting nonsense and pretense; and equally good at rejecting it. Most are inclined to say “Nuts to you,” to those who aspire to be the new royalty deserving to be addressed by the new equivalent of the royal “We.”

Hopefully, even Ms./Mix Bressack’s fifth graders will have seen the new empress is an imposter who has no clothes.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including CNS, Fox News, National Review, Barbwire and Russia Insider. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

There is a longstanding but probably apocryphal story about the time a rash equerry told an off-color joke in the presence of Queen Victoria of England. She drew herself up and invoking the royal lingual prerogative said in a chilly tone, “We are not amused.”

The queen’s use of the royal plural pronoun indicated her aristocratic rank and authority over the people of England. The sovereign was “We,” whereas the commoner was something else — something lower. Throughout the height of aristocratic rule, we find the regular use of the plural term by people holding very high position. Czar Nicholas II still used the royal “we” in his abdication speech, saying, “In agreement with the Imperial Duma, We have thought it well to renounce the Throne of the Russian Empire and to lay down the supreme power.”

The last czar’s brutal death was accompanied by the demise of aristocratic nomenclature. “We” was dead. The Bolshevik revolutionists who finished off the 400-year-old Romanoff dynasty ushered in a new way of speaking. A new socialist language indicating the “equality” of all human beings rose up. From about 1917 onward, everyone was to be called “comrade,” much as men and women were to be called “citizen” during the time of the French Revolution.

But as the Communist Soviet Union was to discover, aristocratic tendencies linger on. As it always turns out during and after revolutions based on the ideal of absolute equality, no matter what the ideological system advocating the leveling of a hierarchical class system, some will declare themselves to be more equal than others.

Perhaps the rise of a new aristocracy is increasingly evidencing itself in the USA even as the demands for equality increase.

In an apparent resurrection of hierarchical aristocratic nosism, a teacher here in the Republic of America recently commanded her subjects to call her Mix Bressack. The hapless fifth graders were to use gender neutral pronouns when referring to zi hirself, queen of the classroom.

According to USA Today:

“A new fifth grade teacher at Canopy Oaks Elementary is asking students to use gender-neutral pronouns in the classroom. 


Math and science teacher Chloe Bressack sent the request home in a letter to parents headlined “About Mx. Bressack.”


“… my pronouns are ‘they, them, their’ instead of ‘he, his, she, hers.’ I know it takes some practice for it to feel natural,” the letter reads, “but students catch on pretty quickly.”


The letter also asks that students use “Mx.,” (pronounced ‘Mix’) when addressing the teacher rather than Mr. or Ms.”

Mx. Bessack, who doubtless was teaching the new, tedious, and ultimately incomprehensible mathematics utilizing labyrinth mental procedures to determine 2+2=4, later noted it would take time for the fifth graders to learn how to address her as she preferred to be addressed. But she would forgive errant pupils, who would receive a special dispensation of grace for the first few sins against her.

Mx. Bressack has since been transferred to adult education — aren’t her new students fortunate in that they get to learn a new language! — but we of the lower case “we” still are not amused.

There will be more Mx. Bressacks. Her number is legion.

The fact is that her and others’ attempts to establish gender neutral terminology go way beyond mere amusement to a deadly serious reconstruction of language and consequently thinking, as language is inextricably linked to thought. The danger is worse when the new lingo is backed by state power.

The case of Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto is illustrative of the dangers involved in allowing the new aristocracy to demand the non-royal use their new language of self-identity.

As he puts it, the Canadian legislation that ostensibly “extends protection against hate propaganda in regard to gender identity or expression” actually is stating, “Be it resolved that people should have the legal right to insist upon by force pronouns by which they will be addressed.”

What the new laws mean in reality is that the rest of us commoners must use the language demanded by the new aristocracy or face the wrath of the almighty state, which now puts its power behind the ideology and language of the new upper classes.

The new one percenters believe what few of the rest of us believe. They think the definition of a human being is a matter of personal choice, not a scientific or metaphysical reality. For them, biological differences are totally subjective; in fact, reality itself is subjective, a mere matter of personal choice.

The problem is that any person who believes in the subjectivity of reality now has the backing of state power, the use of which leads to persecution of dissenters like Peterson.

Professor Peterson, who has been warned by the university administration and who has refused to undergo re-education, asks a simple question to those who believe their subjective choice of identity is infallible: “What if your identity is wrong?”

He adds he retains the right to disagree: “No one has the right to impose their interpretation of identity on someone else…You can’t force me to respect you.”

Apparently, for the gender-neutral crowd, idolatry of one’s self is not enough. Everyone else must idolize them, too. We of the lower case “we” must worship them, too, especially since they belong to the new state religion.

To put it another way, state coercion amounts to forced conversion to transgenderism and its accompanying doctrines eliminating any differentiation between male and female.

To be forced to acknowledge the latest chosen identity as reality and to be forced to speak the language of a sex cult is as persecutory as being ordered to make sign of the cross or die; or to be forced to say I acknowledge Allah is the one true God or be decapitated. It is to be placed in the position of Daniel, Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego, who were told by King Nebuchadnezzar that when they faced the music of the sackbuts and the trumpets, they were to bow down and worship the god or be thrown into the fire. The fire these days takes forms of being sued for hate speech, being forced into bankruptcy, or being fired from your job.

What we are looking at is essentially a religious war, with the power of the state on the side of a leftist cult which, if undeterred, will continually seek to crush opposition to its views of reality. The most targeted are and will continue to be Christians.

As many have pointed out in the case of the Soviet Union and other countries seized by leftist ideologies, putting the power of the state behind an ideology inevitably involves brainwashing resistors.

Brainwashing involves training the mind so it cannot think in the old ways, but only in the new, approved way. While Ms./Mix Bressack probably would not put it this way, the ultimate purpose of her decrees is to get the students to think in terms of her view of reality. She and others of her world view are targeting the young in order to remold young minds to accept unreality as reality; good as bad and bad as good; to cease thinking in terms of things as they are in themselves vs. things as they are in fantasy. Ultimately the goal is the erasure of the old identity in order to create a new one, as Robert Jay Lifton pointed out in his study of brainwashing in the late 1950s.

Ms./Mix Bressack and her ilk were brilliantly portrayed in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, in which the newest generation were taught by the World Director to regard words like Mother and Father as pornographic; to embrace sexual promiscuity as normal and fidelity as outrageous perversion — in short, to assume the identity the New World Order approved and made use of.

But Ms./Mix and those who are the new royalty are the equivalent of fake Anastasias or Louis XVII’s. Impersonator Anna Anderson tried to convince the masses she was the Grand Duchess Anastasia, claiming to have miraculously escaped the Bolsheviks’ hail of bullets. Mathurin Bruneau and others claimed to be the real son of the decapitated Louis XVI. Oh yes, they were the great pretenders; and were they not thoroughly discredited as being charlatans and nut cases, they may well have been entitled to all the perks of royalty.

The new pretenders to royalty belonging to the latest permutation of the ideological cult that is the American Left are fake persona as surely as Anderson and Bruneau were pretenders to thrones.

Americans are usually good at spotting nonsense and pretense; and equally good at rejecting it. Most are inclined to say “Nuts to you,” to those who aspire to be the new royalty deserving to be addressed by the new equivalent of the royal “We.”

Hopefully, even Ms./Mix Bressack’s fifth graders will have seen the new empress is an imposter who has no clothes.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including CNS, Fox News, National Review, Barbwire and Russia Insider. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com



Source link

Genderism Destroys Natural and Moral Law


The whole point of radicals who are leading the transgender movement is to tear down the societal structures that still give meaning to Western civilization in order to create a Brave New World – an insane new world based on untenable abstractions and a sere, reductionist version of “equality” that guarantees that the material entity we know as “man and woman” burns up in the fires of destructive postmodernism.  Differentiation is seen as inherently discriminatory; therefore, destroy the differentiation between male and female, and we will have a more equitable society.

No society in the past or present – aside from a miniscule percentage of people, mostly in the West – has ever denied the reality that the human race is divided into male and female, nor has any civilization, Christian or not, ever thought human beings are capable of changing themselves by mere feeling into the opposite of what they were born as.

But here we are, with some of our so-called best and brightest in academia and politics and even theology writing dense and inherently incomprehensible works about the “fluid” nature of male and female, with some proclaiming that both science and theology support self-transformation.  René Descartes’s dictum, “I think, therefore I am,” has been transformed into “I feel, therefore I am what I determine myself to be.”  If I feel like the opposite of what I was born as, I am what I believe myself to be.

Eloise Brook delineates the new gender ideology succinctly in her article “Trans, Transgender, Cisgender: We Are What We Name Ourselves.” 

As the pernicious and destructive gender ideology has percolated down from academia into mainstream culture and its institutions, including even the Church, its path of destruction can be clearly seen, and prognostications about what the future will look like can be easily surmised.

The consequences for modern feminism are easily noted.  Women like Germaine Greer, for instance, see clearly that if the binary distinction between men and women is not maintained, there is no such thing as women’s rights, no such thing as feminism, no such thing as equality before the law.  There’s only power – re-establishment of the patriarchy, in the pejorative sense of that term.  As Brandon Showalter reports in The Christian Post, women’s rights activists are noting that transgender policies cause the erasure of females, enable voyeurism, and allow eugenics on children.  Mary Lou Singleton, a feminist who is a member of the board of the leftist Women’s Liberation Front, says, “What we are seeing is the legal erasure of the material reality of sex, and this redefinition of sex as a set of, in my opinion, odious sex role stereotypes you identify with.”

Ms. Singleton has identified one of the most deleterious consequences of radical gender ideology – namely, that it makes an ass of the law.

It does so in at least two important ways.

First, the attempt to alter the natural law – what Ms. Singleton identifies as “material reality” – on which human law is based, can end only in profound distortion and eventual destruction of the laws presently undergirding civilization, the immediate effects being felt most clearly in family law as well as in laws pertaining to human rights. 

A natural law as universal as the observable fact that mankind is male and female cannot be altered or suspended at whim without disastrous consequences.  Deciding that human beings are not intrinsically either male or female is not like changing a rule in football.  That will not have earth-shattering consequences – for most, at least.

But making natural law changeable at whim, and then seeking to enforce a disturbed view of reality via law, will result in a civilizational earthquake. Those who substitute madness for reality, substituting their own insanity in place of reason, are as hell-bent on tyranny as the mad emperor Nero, who also thought himself a god who could transcend moral law by fiat.

In brief, there are realities beyond the abilities of human beings to change them.  One of those realities is being born male or female.

To deny reality is madness.  It follows that the only way to facilitate madness is by force, hence the inversion of the fundamental bases of natural law in order to accommodate insanity by fascist tactics.  The complete irrationality exhibited by the genderist radical left is supposed to be embraced by the rest of us unenlightened troglodytes, much as Germans were forced to say, “Heil Hitler”; the citizens of China were forced to read only Mao Tse-Tung’s Little Red Book; and Soviets were forced to have portraits of Josef Stalin in their living rooms.  We are expected to accede to and even applaud insanity.  We must bow to madmen, accepting the dead end of the Nietzschean notion that not only can we create our own values, but we can create and arbitrarily redefine at will our very selves, body and soul.

The idea of “soul” brings us to the second consequence of gender ideology as applied to law.  As Professor Jordan Peterson notes in his lecture “The Idea of God,” jettisoning the notion of “imago dei” – that is, that man and woman are created in the image of God – involves the total destruction of the interpretive structure of Western law, rendering the notion of law as meaningless except as sheer and arbitrary power dictates.  If the value and meaning of the human being is completely arbitrary, and there is no intrinsic reality of the human being as male or female, then the structure of law as presently constituted is moot, beginning with family law.

What the new structure of gender laws might look like is revealed by the statist trends of Canadian law.  According to a recent Breitbart report, the “Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act approved on June 1 by a vote of 63 to 23, the Canadian government may legally remove children from families that refuse to accept their child’s chosen ‘gender identity.'”

The minister of children and youth services, Michael Coteau, declared that “a parent’s failure to recognize and support a child’s gender self-identification is a form of child abuse, and a child in these circumstances should be removed from the situation and placed into protection.”

The report notes that “the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child – present in former laws – has been removed from consideration for assessing the child’s best interests.”

In other words, the state’s embrace of gender ideology leads to the idea that a child belongs to the state, not to parents, whose religious principles are considered dangerous to their children.  The situation resembles the forced participation in the Nazis’ Hitler Youth and the Soviet Union’s All Union Pioneer Organization – both entities infused with ideological correctness that overruled parental rights, both entities in defiance of natural and moral law upheld by the Jewish and Christian faiths.

As noted, the demolition of the Jewish and Christian faiths is exactly what is desired by the genderists.

The consequences to Canada and the United States, which is rapidly falling prey to the genderists, will be nothing short of disaster.

As Dorothy Sayers points out in her discussion about the consequences of disregarding both natural and moral law – also formerly known as “sin” – to future generations (The Mind of the Maker):

Defy the commandments of the natural law, and the race will perish in a few generations; co-operate with them, and the race will flourish for ages to come.  That is the fact; whether we like it or not, the universe is made that way.  This commandment [God’s natural and moral law for the universe] is interesting because it specifically puts forward the moral law as the basis of the moral code; because God has made the world like this and will not alter it, therefore you must not worship your own fantasies, but pay allegiance to the truth.

The genderists have severed themselves from the truth, moral and natural, scientific and religious.  Their success will mean utter chaos and confusion.

It is up to the Church to confront the utter corruption of truth represented by the genderist insanities presently being inflicted on humanity, male and female alike.  

Is the Church up to the task?

Only if she regards the truth as worth defending.  The future will tell.

Fay Voshell holds an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology.  Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including Fox News, CNS, Barbwire, National Review, RealClearReligion, and Russia Insider.  She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com .

The leftist genderist radicals attempting to eliminate the distinction between male and female may have societal breakdown in mind, for certainly, their current insanity will achieve the destruction of Western civilization, built as it has been on the twin foundations of Christianity and science. 

Alarmism?  Scarcely. 

The whole point of radicals who are leading the transgender movement is to tear down the societal structures that still give meaning to Western civilization in order to create a Brave New World – an insane new world based on untenable abstractions and a sere, reductionist version of “equality” that guarantees that the material entity we know as “man and woman” burns up in the fires of destructive postmodernism.  Differentiation is seen as inherently discriminatory; therefore, destroy the differentiation between male and female, and we will have a more equitable society.

No society in the past or present – aside from a miniscule percentage of people, mostly in the West – has ever denied the reality that the human race is divided into male and female, nor has any civilization, Christian or not, ever thought human beings are capable of changing themselves by mere feeling into the opposite of what they were born as.

But here we are, with some of our so-called best and brightest in academia and politics and even theology writing dense and inherently incomprehensible works about the “fluid” nature of male and female, with some proclaiming that both science and theology support self-transformation.  René Descartes’s dictum, “I think, therefore I am,” has been transformed into “I feel, therefore I am what I determine myself to be.”  If I feel like the opposite of what I was born as, I am what I believe myself to be.

Eloise Brook delineates the new gender ideology succinctly in her article “Trans, Transgender, Cisgender: We Are What We Name Ourselves.” 

As the pernicious and destructive gender ideology has percolated down from academia into mainstream culture and its institutions, including even the Church, its path of destruction can be clearly seen, and prognostications about what the future will look like can be easily surmised.

The consequences for modern feminism are easily noted.  Women like Germaine Greer, for instance, see clearly that if the binary distinction between men and women is not maintained, there is no such thing as women’s rights, no such thing as feminism, no such thing as equality before the law.  There’s only power – re-establishment of the patriarchy, in the pejorative sense of that term.  As Brandon Showalter reports in The Christian Post, women’s rights activists are noting that transgender policies cause the erasure of females, enable voyeurism, and allow eugenics on children.  Mary Lou Singleton, a feminist who is a member of the board of the leftist Women’s Liberation Front, says, “What we are seeing is the legal erasure of the material reality of sex, and this redefinition of sex as a set of, in my opinion, odious sex role stereotypes you identify with.”

Ms. Singleton has identified one of the most deleterious consequences of radical gender ideology – namely, that it makes an ass of the law.

It does so in at least two important ways.

First, the attempt to alter the natural law – what Ms. Singleton identifies as “material reality” – on which human law is based, can end only in profound distortion and eventual destruction of the laws presently undergirding civilization, the immediate effects being felt most clearly in family law as well as in laws pertaining to human rights. 

A natural law as universal as the observable fact that mankind is male and female cannot be altered or suspended at whim without disastrous consequences.  Deciding that human beings are not intrinsically either male or female is not like changing a rule in football.  That will not have earth-shattering consequences – for most, at least.

But making natural law changeable at whim, and then seeking to enforce a disturbed view of reality via law, will result in a civilizational earthquake. Those who substitute madness for reality, substituting their own insanity in place of reason, are as hell-bent on tyranny as the mad emperor Nero, who also thought himself a god who could transcend moral law by fiat.

In brief, there are realities beyond the abilities of human beings to change them.  One of those realities is being born male or female.

To deny reality is madness.  It follows that the only way to facilitate madness is by force, hence the inversion of the fundamental bases of natural law in order to accommodate insanity by fascist tactics.  The complete irrationality exhibited by the genderist radical left is supposed to be embraced by the rest of us unenlightened troglodytes, much as Germans were forced to say, “Heil Hitler”; the citizens of China were forced to read only Mao Tse-Tung’s Little Red Book; and Soviets were forced to have portraits of Josef Stalin in their living rooms.  We are expected to accede to and even applaud insanity.  We must bow to madmen, accepting the dead end of the Nietzschean notion that not only can we create our own values, but we can create and arbitrarily redefine at will our very selves, body and soul.

The idea of “soul” brings us to the second consequence of gender ideology as applied to law.  As Professor Jordan Peterson notes in his lecture “The Idea of God,” jettisoning the notion of “imago dei” – that is, that man and woman are created in the image of God – involves the total destruction of the interpretive structure of Western law, rendering the notion of law as meaningless except as sheer and arbitrary power dictates.  If the value and meaning of the human being is completely arbitrary, and there is no intrinsic reality of the human being as male or female, then the structure of law as presently constituted is moot, beginning with family law.

What the new structure of gender laws might look like is revealed by the statist trends of Canadian law.  According to a recent Breitbart report, the “Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act approved on June 1 by a vote of 63 to 23, the Canadian government may legally remove children from families that refuse to accept their child’s chosen ‘gender identity.'”

The minister of children and youth services, Michael Coteau, declared that “a parent’s failure to recognize and support a child’s gender self-identification is a form of child abuse, and a child in these circumstances should be removed from the situation and placed into protection.”

The report notes that “the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child – present in former laws – has been removed from consideration for assessing the child’s best interests.”

In other words, the state’s embrace of gender ideology leads to the idea that a child belongs to the state, not to parents, whose religious principles are considered dangerous to their children.  The situation resembles the forced participation in the Nazis’ Hitler Youth and the Soviet Union’s All Union Pioneer Organization – both entities infused with ideological correctness that overruled parental rights, both entities in defiance of natural and moral law upheld by the Jewish and Christian faiths.

As noted, the demolition of the Jewish and Christian faiths is exactly what is desired by the genderists.

The consequences to Canada and the United States, which is rapidly falling prey to the genderists, will be nothing short of disaster.

As Dorothy Sayers points out in her discussion about the consequences of disregarding both natural and moral law – also formerly known as “sin” – to future generations (The Mind of the Maker):

Defy the commandments of the natural law, and the race will perish in a few generations; co-operate with them, and the race will flourish for ages to come.  That is the fact; whether we like it or not, the universe is made that way.  This commandment [God’s natural and moral law for the universe] is interesting because it specifically puts forward the moral law as the basis of the moral code; because God has made the world like this and will not alter it, therefore you must not worship your own fantasies, but pay allegiance to the truth.

The genderists have severed themselves from the truth, moral and natural, scientific and religious.  Their success will mean utter chaos and confusion.

It is up to the Church to confront the utter corruption of truth represented by the genderist insanities presently being inflicted on humanity, male and female alike.  

Is the Church up to the task?

Only if she regards the truth as worth defending.  The future will tell.

Fay Voshell holds an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology.  Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines, including Fox News, CNS, Barbwire, National Review, RealClearReligion, and Russia Insider.  She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com .



Source link

Beheading King Trump XVI


“He,” of course, was King Louis XVI, who was guillotined in January of 1793 by Jacobins egged on by the brilliantly evil Maximilien Robespierre. 

 A cartoon of the dead king’s head, bearing an uncanny resemblance to the infamous Kathy Griffin photo of a beheaded Trump and entitled “Matter for Reflection for Crowned Jugglers” soon appeared after the king was dead. Under the depiction of the severed head of king Louis was the line from La Marseillaise, “May an impure blood water our furrows.”

Leaders of many of the subsequent variants of the French Revolution, such as the Bolsheviks and Maoists, wind up beheading people, economically, politically, socially and often literally, especially those undesirable classes considered ideologically “impure.” 

Therefore, it is not much of a surprise to see a known figure such as Kathy Griffin, who is very much aligned with the radically ideological Democrats, indicate she wants Trump dead.

It took decades for the Left in America to reveal itself to be as radical as the French Jacobins howling for the execution of the feckless Louis. His father, Louis XV, had seen disaster coming, at one time uttering the famous words, “Après moi, le déluge” (“After me, comes the flood”).  American conservatives have been warning about the leftist inclination to tyranny for decades, some seeing the apogee of the leftist tide during the Obama administration; but knowing a nearly beheaded Left is still capable of dangerous talk and behavior.

As the Elizabethan poet John Donne pointed out, a severed head can still give the appearance of life even as the oxygen drains from the brain. He wrote:

Or as sometimes in a beheaded man,


Though at those two Red Seas, which freely ran,


One from the trunk, another from the head,


His soul be sail’d to her eternal bed,


His eyes will twinkle, and his tongue will roll,


As though he beckon’d and call’d back his soul:


He grasps his hands, and he pulls up his feet,


And seems to reach, and to step forth to meet


His soul.

Even so, though the Left has been nearly decapitated, it still natters on as if it has life; as if it has something significant to say.  It still does its zombie imitation, hoping to instill dread and fear into the opposition by impersonating real life and vitality.

Ms. Griffin’s excess is an indicator not only of the deathly fatuity and grossness leftist radicals have been resorted to, but she is also representative of the high tide of an essentially nihilist deluge that has threatened America for decades.

Not even Trump’s children are spared. TMZ reported Barron Trump was watching TV when he saw Griffin holding what he thought was his dad’s head and started screaming for his mom in a panic. Former Jeopardy whiz Ken Jennings thought Barron’s panic amusing. 

One is reminded of Marie Antoinette, King Louis’s wife.  Her children were also treated with callous cruelty, the young dauphin dying of what was almost certainly tuberculosis from being in a dank, dark prison cell for two years.  Some historians relate that she could hear her children being beaten by guards. Accused of treason and of sexually abusing her own son, the queen was executed after enduring years of ridicule and baseless accusations, some of which were similar to the accusations leveled at Melania Trump; namely, that she was at one time a prostitute.

In sum, the contemporaneous Left utilizes the same methods as its French progenitors and progeny: ridicule, slander, lies and threats.

The twentieth century is replete with examples. 

Josef Stalin decided to hire an assassin to drive an ice pick through the brain of his ideological rival, Leon Trotsky. Mao Tse Tung, hearing of his rival Lin Biao’s attempt at a military coup, conveniently arranged for Lin’s plane to crash as the man tried to flee China.  Mao also targeted academia for politically incorrect thinking during the so-called Cultural Revolution.  His infamous Red Guards fought against all authorities in every level of society, resulting in chaos and revolt against all law and order.

While here in America presidents are not yet guillotined, the effect desired is the same: effectively killing or completely sidelining an undesirable and ideologically incorrect target one way or another.  While utilizing some of Mao’s tactics, especially in our colleges and universities, here in America, the preferred tactic of the Left is relentless character assassination and the endless manufacture of conspiracy theories designed to render the ideologically impure helpless and to gunk up the legislative and executive processes via what amount to kangaroo courts and the equivalent of Jacobin congressional representatives.

Why? Why the intense hatred and the unbridled desire to decapitate the current administration?

For the Left, Trump seen as illegitimate and the great pretender to the throne, not a duly elected president. He is seen as not belonging to the royal lineage of the Clinton and Obama dynasties. He is considered an imposter, a pretender to the throne, which was to have been forever occupied by the politically correct.  He does not spring from nor adhere to the political class of the privileged. His ideas and behavior are not those of the deeply religious progressives, so he is seen as the equivalent of the antipope.

Trump is seen by progressives as an imposter with wholly fabricated claims.  He is thought of as having assumed an identity that does not belong to him; namely the identity of the President of the United States. Therefore, being a pretender, he deserves the fate dealt the phony royal Emilian Pougatchiff, who was executed in 1775 during the reign of Catherine II of Russia.  Another salutary example is the execution of the Stuart Catholic King Charles I in 1649, whose Catholicism rendered him as illegitimate in the eyes of those seeking the power of the English throne.  His son Charles II was a “pretender” until his restoration to the throne of England eleven years later.

For the fact is that the deeply religio-ideological leftists of America want restoration of their royal lineage as surely as Catholics wanted Bloody Mary and King Charles I on the throne because of their devotion to the Catholic faith; and as surely as Protestants wanted Elizabeth I on the throne because of her faith.  Deeply religious wars permit no peaceful yielding of the throne lest the entire edifice come crashing down.

Politics will always be full of both pretense and pretenders; the good and the bad—often a mixture of both.  It’s the human condition.  The perfectionism of the politically correct has never allowed error or even nuance.  Death to the imperfect.  Off with your head.

However, the truth is that President Trump was duly elected and put into office by the Americans who voted for him.  He did not seize the office.  He was not put there by a coup. He is the legitimate president.

For those who believe the wrong person is in office and that a great pretender is living in the White House, it is high time to remember we do not live under an aristocracy but under the rule of the Constitution of the United States. We do not believe in aristocratic succession to the presidency.

It is high time everyone who desires the exit of any president remembers the great remedy our constitutional republic has firmly in place; a remedy that has been effectively utilized for hundreds of years: Voting to elect the person the American public wishes to be in high office.

And…stop suggesting the guillotining of Donald Trump, the president of the United States of America.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her a prize for excellence in systematic theology.  She has contributed to many online publications, including American Thinker, RealClearReligion, CNS, Barbwire, National Review and Fox News.   She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

He was unlike our current president in many respects: He was extraordinarily indecisive, timid and distracted. He seemed not to know his own country at all, isolated as he was from the public. 

But his position was very like that of President Trump in that he had a mob calling for his beheading.  That the mob succeeded in their efforts changed European history, effectively bleeding the continent’s aristocracy to death until royalty was dealt the final coup de grace during WWI and its aftermath.

“He,” of course, was King Louis XVI, who was guillotined in January of 1793 by Jacobins egged on by the brilliantly evil Maximilien Robespierre. 

 A cartoon of the dead king’s head, bearing an uncanny resemblance to the infamous Kathy Griffin photo of a beheaded Trump and entitled “Matter for Reflection for Crowned Jugglers” soon appeared after the king was dead. Under the depiction of the severed head of king Louis was the line from La Marseillaise, “May an impure blood water our furrows.”

Leaders of many of the subsequent variants of the French Revolution, such as the Bolsheviks and Maoists, wind up beheading people, economically, politically, socially and often literally, especially those undesirable classes considered ideologically “impure.” 

Therefore, it is not much of a surprise to see a known figure such as Kathy Griffin, who is very much aligned with the radically ideological Democrats, indicate she wants Trump dead.

It took decades for the Left in America to reveal itself to be as radical as the French Jacobins howling for the execution of the feckless Louis. His father, Louis XV, had seen disaster coming, at one time uttering the famous words, “Après moi, le déluge” (“After me, comes the flood”).  American conservatives have been warning about the leftist inclination to tyranny for decades, some seeing the apogee of the leftist tide during the Obama administration; but knowing a nearly beheaded Left is still capable of dangerous talk and behavior.

As the Elizabethan poet John Donne pointed out, a severed head can still give the appearance of life even as the oxygen drains from the brain. He wrote:

Or as sometimes in a beheaded man,


Though at those two Red Seas, which freely ran,


One from the trunk, another from the head,


His soul be sail’d to her eternal bed,


His eyes will twinkle, and his tongue will roll,


As though he beckon’d and call’d back his soul:


He grasps his hands, and he pulls up his feet,


And seems to reach, and to step forth to meet


His soul.

Even so, though the Left has been nearly decapitated, it still natters on as if it has life; as if it has something significant to say.  It still does its zombie imitation, hoping to instill dread and fear into the opposition by impersonating real life and vitality.

Ms. Griffin’s excess is an indicator not only of the deathly fatuity and grossness leftist radicals have been resorted to, but she is also representative of the high tide of an essentially nihilist deluge that has threatened America for decades.

Not even Trump’s children are spared. TMZ reported Barron Trump was watching TV when he saw Griffin holding what he thought was his dad’s head and started screaming for his mom in a panic. Former Jeopardy whiz Ken Jennings thought Barron’s panic amusing. 

One is reminded of Marie Antoinette, King Louis’s wife.  Her children were also treated with callous cruelty, the young dauphin dying of what was almost certainly tuberculosis from being in a dank, dark prison cell for two years.  Some historians relate that she could hear her children being beaten by guards. Accused of treason and of sexually abusing her own son, the queen was executed after enduring years of ridicule and baseless accusations, some of which were similar to the accusations leveled at Melania Trump; namely, that she was at one time a prostitute.

In sum, the contemporaneous Left utilizes the same methods as its French progenitors and progeny: ridicule, slander, lies and threats.

The twentieth century is replete with examples. 

Josef Stalin decided to hire an assassin to drive an ice pick through the brain of his ideological rival, Leon Trotsky. Mao Tse Tung, hearing of his rival Lin Biao’s attempt at a military coup, conveniently arranged for Lin’s plane to crash as the man tried to flee China.  Mao also targeted academia for politically incorrect thinking during the so-called Cultural Revolution.  His infamous Red Guards fought against all authorities in every level of society, resulting in chaos and revolt against all law and order.

While here in America presidents are not yet guillotined, the effect desired is the same: effectively killing or completely sidelining an undesirable and ideologically incorrect target one way or another.  While utilizing some of Mao’s tactics, especially in our colleges and universities, here in America, the preferred tactic of the Left is relentless character assassination and the endless manufacture of conspiracy theories designed to render the ideologically impure helpless and to gunk up the legislative and executive processes via what amount to kangaroo courts and the equivalent of Jacobin congressional representatives.

Why? Why the intense hatred and the unbridled desire to decapitate the current administration?

For the Left, Trump seen as illegitimate and the great pretender to the throne, not a duly elected president. He is seen as not belonging to the royal lineage of the Clinton and Obama dynasties. He is considered an imposter, a pretender to the throne, which was to have been forever occupied by the politically correct.  He does not spring from nor adhere to the political class of the privileged. His ideas and behavior are not those of the deeply religious progressives, so he is seen as the equivalent of the antipope.

Trump is seen by progressives as an imposter with wholly fabricated claims.  He is thought of as having assumed an identity that does not belong to him; namely the identity of the President of the United States. Therefore, being a pretender, he deserves the fate dealt the phony royal Emilian Pougatchiff, who was executed in 1775 during the reign of Catherine II of Russia.  Another salutary example is the execution of the Stuart Catholic King Charles I in 1649, whose Catholicism rendered him as illegitimate in the eyes of those seeking the power of the English throne.  His son Charles II was a “pretender” until his restoration to the throne of England eleven years later.

For the fact is that the deeply religio-ideological leftists of America want restoration of their royal lineage as surely as Catholics wanted Bloody Mary and King Charles I on the throne because of their devotion to the Catholic faith; and as surely as Protestants wanted Elizabeth I on the throne because of her faith.  Deeply religious wars permit no peaceful yielding of the throne lest the entire edifice come crashing down.

Politics will always be full of both pretense and pretenders; the good and the bad—often a mixture of both.  It’s the human condition.  The perfectionism of the politically correct has never allowed error or even nuance.  Death to the imperfect.  Off with your head.

However, the truth is that President Trump was duly elected and put into office by the Americans who voted for him.  He did not seize the office.  He was not put there by a coup. He is the legitimate president.

For those who believe the wrong person is in office and that a great pretender is living in the White House, it is high time to remember we do not live under an aristocracy but under the rule of the Constitution of the United States. We do not believe in aristocratic succession to the presidency.

It is high time everyone who desires the exit of any president remembers the great remedy our constitutional republic has firmly in place; a remedy that has been effectively utilized for hundreds of years: Voting to elect the person the American public wishes to be in high office.

And…stop suggesting the guillotining of Donald Trump, the president of the United States of America.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her a prize for excellence in systematic theology.  She has contributed to many online publications, including American Thinker, RealClearReligion, CNS, Barbwire, National Review and Fox News.   She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com



Source link

The Left's Progressive Pilgrimage


If anyone had doubts about progressivism being a religious movement, those doubts should be laid to rest by a recent article in New York magazine dedicated to promoting a pilgrimage of faithful liberals to secular shrines dedicated to “equality:”

“Need a spiritual vacation? A new ad and tourism campaign from New York takes you on a road trip through the state’s historic equal-rights monuments, from Manhattan’s Stonewall National Monument to Harriet Tubman’s home in Auburn. The campaign, announced today by Governor Andrew Cuomo, is running in conjunction with the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New York State.”

The ad for the proposed pilgrimage of the faithful features a mother and a daughter visiting the home of Susan B. Anthony. The daughter’s worshipful gaze resembles that of an acolyte looking at a crucifix.

Some may recall St. Andrew Cuomo, who in a secular interpretation of St. Patricks’ expulsion of snakes from Ireland, attempted an exorcism of people who were pro-life and pro-gun from the sacred soil of New York. If he had been able to put his threat into action as did kings of old, Cuomo, who considers himself Catholic even though he is almost violently pro-abortion, may have imitated Louis XIV’s revocation of the Edict of Nantes, effectively sentencing conservative and religious New Yorkers to exile or worse.

At the same time the newly established holy sites of progressivism are being promoted with an assiduity similar to priests’ promotion of the Christian ceremony of the stations of the cross, progressives continue their campaign to rid the South of anti-progressive graven images.

Pilgrims of the faith, masked and wearing bulletproof vests, are busy taking down offensive monuments. In New Orleans, a Jefferson Davis monument is now gone. A statue of Robert E. Lee is being removed from public view and put into a museum lest a monument to racism and lack of diversity offend passersby. It’s as if the honorable and brilliant Lee, who decided to fight for his homeland of Virginia, not slavery, was the equivalent of Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin all rolled into one. Evidently monuments to Northerner William Tecumseh Sherman are to remain in place, despite his contributions to total war, a concept anathema to faithful progressives.

What such activities amount to, of course, is erasure of history in order to reinforce what progressives see as the sole and only legitimate narrative of the South’s past and of history in general. For progressives, the South remains always in Deliverance mode, with inbred and degraded whites in remote regions of Georgia hanging on to cousin marriage, perversion, violence, and old time religion. Mississippi is always burning. The Bible Belt remains inherently racist.

It is not the first nor the last time competing paradigms of religious/political thought resulted in destruction of monuments deemed as representing heretical views. Jacobins plotted to blow up Notre Dame. French revolutionists succeeding in demolishing the great Abbey of Cluny while plundering its treasures. Bolsheviks destroyed icons and blew up Orthodox Russian cathedrals. Currently, ISIS vandalized the ancient city of Palmyra and destroyed one of the most ancient and venerated monasteries in the world. The Islamist organization also plotted to obliterate Notre Dame.

One of the most recent ISIS inspired attacks involved the desecration of the ancient, historic church Of San Marino ai Monti, Italy by a Muslim immigrant from Ghana, whose rampage was recorded by the building’s security cameras.   

A bit of history is in order, as attacks on monuments involve more than just the joy of smashing things. Attacks on historic monuments are attacks on the ideas, history, and peoples they represent. They involve the destruction of history and of cultural and spiritual paradigms that are foundational to a given culture.

The basilica of San Marino ai Monti the ISIS-inspired culprit vandalized was founded in the 4th century and initially was devoted to all the martyrs slaughtered for their faith during the centuries preceding the building of the basilica. It was within this ancient building a meeting in preparation for the Council of Nicaea was held in 324. The current building dates from the Carolingian era. It stands as a monument to the history of the Christian faith and to Christians themselves. The attack on San Marino ai Monti was clearly an attack against Christianity itself.

In a similar manner, here in the United State, the smashing or removal of monuments on which the Ten Commandments are engraved reflect an animus far deeper than sheer vandalism would indicate. Rather, the attempts to obliterate such monuments are actually efforts to symbolically and truly to destroy the Western foundations of law and morality centered in Judaism and Christianity. The ideology of progressivism is to prevail, and its rituals, pilgrimages, monuments, and statues are to replace what has been and continues to be destroyed.

Of course, tyrants never stop at destruction of monuments and statues. Symbolism is the spiritual language of real people, of humans who have strong and often unbending faith. The targeting of offending monuments is nearly always followed by targeting people. It was only a short time ago that ISIS sympathizers slit the throat of 85-year-old Father Jacques Hamel as he celebrated mass.

The last stage of persecution exemplified by attacks on and destruction and defacement of revered monuments historically is exile to the backwaters of civilization and/or the extermination of the peoples whose beliefs are represented by these monuments, be they statues of people whose beliefs are deemed offensive or documents or slabs with Ten Commandments written on them. Banning the Bible from public schools and the military, for instance, is followed by persecution of professing Christians. Creation of sacred spaces on campus means others are kept out, by force if necessary. Defacement and destruction of Jewish synagogues and grave sites presaged the increasing persecution of Europe’s Jews.

In the short and the long run, taking down the statues of Robert E. Lee, destroying slabs with the Ten Commandments engraved on them, plotting to blow up Notre Dame, destroying the city of Palmyra, and vandalizing Christian churches all have one impetus behind them: No voice or history other than one must be heard or read. Society must be a monoculture free of contradicting or opposing voices.

History has shown and current times still reveal what such monocultures look like and how their leaders behave. They look like Soviet Russia. They resemble Pol Pot’s Cambodia. They have the face of present day Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.

All were and are places where only memorials to tyrants were and are allowed. All were and are places where history — in all its ragged glory and ignominy, with all its heroes and villains, in all its exaltations and degradations — is erased in order that mere banality of evil prevail.

God forbid America would imitate such countries.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

If anyone had doubts about progressivism being a religious movement, those doubts should be laid to rest by a recent article in New York magazine dedicated to promoting a pilgrimage of faithful liberals to secular shrines dedicated to “equality:”

“Need a spiritual vacation? A new ad and tourism campaign from New York takes you on a road trip through the state’s historic equal-rights monuments, from Manhattan’s Stonewall National Monument to Harriet Tubman’s home in Auburn. The campaign, announced today by Governor Andrew Cuomo, is running in conjunction with the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New York State.”

The ad for the proposed pilgrimage of the faithful features a mother and a daughter visiting the home of Susan B. Anthony. The daughter’s worshipful gaze resembles that of an acolyte looking at a crucifix.

Some may recall St. Andrew Cuomo, who in a secular interpretation of St. Patricks’ expulsion of snakes from Ireland, attempted an exorcism of people who were pro-life and pro-gun from the sacred soil of New York. If he had been able to put his threat into action as did kings of old, Cuomo, who considers himself Catholic even though he is almost violently pro-abortion, may have imitated Louis XIV’s revocation of the Edict of Nantes, effectively sentencing conservative and religious New Yorkers to exile or worse.

At the same time the newly established holy sites of progressivism are being promoted with an assiduity similar to priests’ promotion of the Christian ceremony of the stations of the cross, progressives continue their campaign to rid the South of anti-progressive graven images.

Pilgrims of the faith, masked and wearing bulletproof vests, are busy taking down offensive monuments. In New Orleans, a Jefferson Davis monument is now gone. A statue of Robert E. Lee is being removed from public view and put into a museum lest a monument to racism and lack of diversity offend passersby. It’s as if the honorable and brilliant Lee, who decided to fight for his homeland of Virginia, not slavery, was the equivalent of Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin all rolled into one. Evidently monuments to Northerner William Tecumseh Sherman are to remain in place, despite his contributions to total war, a concept anathema to faithful progressives.

What such activities amount to, of course, is erasure of history in order to reinforce what progressives see as the sole and only legitimate narrative of the South’s past and of history in general. For progressives, the South remains always in Deliverance mode, with inbred and degraded whites in remote regions of Georgia hanging on to cousin marriage, perversion, violence, and old time religion. Mississippi is always burning. The Bible Belt remains inherently racist.

It is not the first nor the last time competing paradigms of religious/political thought resulted in destruction of monuments deemed as representing heretical views. Jacobins plotted to blow up Notre Dame. French revolutionists succeeding in demolishing the great Abbey of Cluny while plundering its treasures. Bolsheviks destroyed icons and blew up Orthodox Russian cathedrals. Currently, ISIS vandalized the ancient city of Palmyra and destroyed one of the most ancient and venerated monasteries in the world. The Islamist organization also plotted to obliterate Notre Dame.

One of the most recent ISIS inspired attacks involved the desecration of the ancient, historic church Of San Marino ai Monti, Italy by a Muslim immigrant from Ghana, whose rampage was recorded by the building’s security cameras.   

A bit of history is in order, as attacks on monuments involve more than just the joy of smashing things. Attacks on historic monuments are attacks on the ideas, history, and peoples they represent. They involve the destruction of history and of cultural and spiritual paradigms that are foundational to a given culture.

The basilica of San Marino ai Monti the ISIS-inspired culprit vandalized was founded in the 4th century and initially was devoted to all the martyrs slaughtered for their faith during the centuries preceding the building of the basilica. It was within this ancient building a meeting in preparation for the Council of Nicaea was held in 324. The current building dates from the Carolingian era. It stands as a monument to the history of the Christian faith and to Christians themselves. The attack on San Marino ai Monti was clearly an attack against Christianity itself.

In a similar manner, here in the United State, the smashing or removal of monuments on which the Ten Commandments are engraved reflect an animus far deeper than sheer vandalism would indicate. Rather, the attempts to obliterate such monuments are actually efforts to symbolically and truly to destroy the Western foundations of law and morality centered in Judaism and Christianity. The ideology of progressivism is to prevail, and its rituals, pilgrimages, monuments, and statues are to replace what has been and continues to be destroyed.

Of course, tyrants never stop at destruction of monuments and statues. Symbolism is the spiritual language of real people, of humans who have strong and often unbending faith. The targeting of offending monuments is nearly always followed by targeting people. It was only a short time ago that ISIS sympathizers slit the throat of 85-year-old Father Jacques Hamel as he celebrated mass.

The last stage of persecution exemplified by attacks on and destruction and defacement of revered monuments historically is exile to the backwaters of civilization and/or the extermination of the peoples whose beliefs are represented by these monuments, be they statues of people whose beliefs are deemed offensive or documents or slabs with Ten Commandments written on them. Banning the Bible from public schools and the military, for instance, is followed by persecution of professing Christians. Creation of sacred spaces on campus means others are kept out, by force if necessary. Defacement and destruction of Jewish synagogues and grave sites presaged the increasing persecution of Europe’s Jews.

In the short and the long run, taking down the statues of Robert E. Lee, destroying slabs with the Ten Commandments engraved on them, plotting to blow up Notre Dame, destroying the city of Palmyra, and vandalizing Christian churches all have one impetus behind them: No voice or history other than one must be heard or read. Society must be a monoculture free of contradicting or opposing voices.

History has shown and current times still reveal what such monocultures look like and how their leaders behave. They look like Soviet Russia. They resemble Pol Pot’s Cambodia. They have the face of present day Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.

All were and are places where only memorials to tyrants were and are allowed. All were and are places where history — in all its ragged glory and ignominy, with all its heroes and villains, in all its exaltations and degradations — is erased in order that mere banality of evil prevail.

God forbid America would imitate such countries.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com



Source link