Posts

The Fundamental Dispute

/in , , /by

People who see themselves as their own bottom line define truth as whatever they want to believe in that moment. Anyone who disagrees can then be logically labeled a liar who needs to be silenced.

Why Resisting Authoritarianism Matters…!

That’s the title of a recent Rachel Maddow broadcast.

What is it that Maddow and people who think like her justifies referring to President Trump as a tyrant that needs to be resisted?

And of course, she’s not only referring to the Oval Office, but also to everyone who voted for him, which includes the majority of the country.

Why does she see a President that has already delivered a substantial portion of the platform he ran on as a problem that needs to be solved and a threat that needs to be addressed?

People who see themselves as their own bottom line define truth as whatever they want to believe in that moment. Anyone who disagrees can then be logically labeled a liar who needs to be silenced. This is how Liberals are able to introduce toxic policies into the marketplace while at the same time justify destroying those that oppose them.

Anytime you refer to someone as a tyrant or an authoritarian, you’re implying they can now be disposed of in the same way that dictators have been eliminated in the past. You can’t champion that kind of approach without sounding morally reprehensible, but you don’t have to get people to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you.

By positioning yourself as a victim, you’re not evaluated as much as you’re accommodated. No one is paying attention to what’s real and accurate when people are rushing to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful.

You can’t adjust the perspective of someone who believes that there’s nothing to correct. All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, historical truths, the rule of law, and medical realities are non-existent in the absence of a fixed point of reference. You are never guilty or mistaken if you can say the truth is just someone else’s opinion.

While it’s not always obvious you’re talking to someone who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured, you can tell simply by asking them some revealing questions.

For example, what is a woman?

This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)

However obvious defining a woman may by in terms of their anatomy, their chromosomes, and their ability to bear children – because defining a woman in those terms implies a reality that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels – that question is never answered directly. Rather, as Dr. Michelle Forcier says, “It can be many things to many people.”

In other words, the truth about the way in which you define a woman is whatever you want to believe.

Truth is whatever you want to believe…

This is why Liberals hate President Trump, this is why movie stars are willing to endorse same sex marriage, even if they’re not homosexual themselves. This is why Charlie Kirk was murdered, this is why Socialism is embraced as a superior alternative to Capitalism, and this is why Rachel Maddow says that our democracy is right now consolidating into a would be authoritarian state at the hands of a would be dictator.

Any reference to a transcendent bottom line has to be demonized in order to distract from the lack of substance and positive results that characterizes the Liberal mindset.

While you can’t reason with someone who’s unreasonable, you can still make an impact by holding the Liberal to their own standard and let their reaction prove your point (Prov 26:5).

  • If truth is whatever it is I want to believe, than I can call you a liar and not be wrong.
  • Katherine Maher, in a speech she made at a Ted conference said that truth is based on many things and for that reason cannot be restricted to a singular viewpoint. But then she goes to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” How can she believe that what she’s about to say at that point in her presentation has any credibility if she’s just declared that there is no definitive truth? It’s similar to what happens when you say there are no Absolutes. That statement, in and of itself, is an absolute, so it’s a self-refuting statement. If truth is relative, how can I trust anything you say?
  • If you’ve been charged with a crime, who do you want for your jury? People who define the truth of your innocence according to what actually happened, or whatever they want to believe?

The Left has no recourse once the falsehood of their victimized status becomes evident. Their attempts to establish themselves as people who need to be pitied begin by labeling everyone who disagrees with them as being nonsensical. They’re restricted by the ignorance of those that surround them. When doesn’t work, they proceed to refer to their opponent as unethical. They’re immoral, they’re hypocrites, they’re lying. Now the Liberal is perceived as being the victim of morally corrupt behavior on the part of ignorant degenerates.

When that fails to vindicate the cause of the Left, they resort to referring to their opposition as tyrannical. Trump is an authoritarian, a tyrant, and all those who support a tyrant are then logically categorized as dangerous, fascists, and Nazis.

Notice how each of these tactics focuses on the intelligence and the character of the one who’s speaking as opposed to the substance of what’s being said. That’s what you do when you can’t compete with the credibility of an individual’s platform. Instead, you attack the individual.

While Liberals are incredibly talented when it comes to generating a lot of noisy distractions, after a while the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore, regardless of the tactics used to focus the attention away from the fundamental dispute.

It’s not Racism, it’s not the economy, illegal immigration or same sex marriage.

How do you define Truth?

The way you answer that question is the foundation upon which all of the tension in our society is based.

John Adams said:

Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798)

Pete Buttigieg says that Democrats have been slow in understanding how people get their information. North Carolina Senate minority leader Sydney Batch said, “The Republicans are much better at branding and messaging than we are,” she said. “We will sit here and give you 150 words where we probably should have only used five.”

Regardless of how the Democrats want to communicate or what they want to say, if their message remains grounded in the idea that Truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, they are assuming a country that is distinct from the one for which the Constitution was designed. The extent to which they succeed or fail depends entirely on the resolve of those who see the issues facing our nation, not as positions held by a specific party or reinforced by judiciously selected data, but as a contest between those who see the human experience in terms of principles, and those who dismiss the existence of any reality that doesn’t line up with their preferences.

How do you define Truth?

That is the fundamental dispute.

Executive Summary:

I) The fundamental dispute is what triggers all of the tension we see in our society today. It all comes down to the way you answer the question, “What is truth?”

II) You’re going to answer it in one of two ways: Truth is defined according to what is real, or truth is defined according to how I feel. Those who define it according to the way they feel see truth as whatever the individual wants to believe.

III) You can’t disagree with someone who sees truth according to what they prefer because, in that moment, you’re not speaking the “truth” and you can be logically categorized as a liar. If that’s the case, you’re not merely mistaken, you’re immoral. You’re not just wrong, you are evil. If you’re a politician, you’re not a leader, you’re a tyrant. Those who support tyrants aren’t voters, they’re Nazis. This is how Liberals are able to silence their political opponents.

IV) At some point the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore and the Liberal can’t champion their approach without sounding both selfish and foolish. But you don’t have to get people to agree with you, if you can get them to feel sorry for you. Every major Left wing talking point is framed in the context of a victim because you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being categorized as cruel and hateful.

V) Regardless of how compelling your case may be, as far being able to demonstrate the flaws in a Liberal’s logic, you have to remember that when you’re contending with someone who sees themselves as their own absolute, they are processing your perspective the same way they perceive themselves. If truth is nothing more than what an individual wants to believe, you’re not correcting them as much as you oppressing them by forcing your beliefs on them.

VI) Ultimately, you’re not questioning their logic, as much as you are challenging their authority to dictate the difference between right and wrong. The only way you’re going to make an impact is to allow them the opportunity to function according to the same standards they would impose on everyone else. The moment they’re inclined to say, “That’s not fair,” they’re appealing to a Standard that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels – a concept they want to say doesn’t exist. At that point, even if they’re willing to concede that you have a point, those who are listening to your conversation will recognize the unsustainable characteristic of the Liberal’s platform.

When our forefathers published the Declaration of Independence, they were able to articulate a cause and not just a complaint because of the way they based their platform on the idea that rights are not dispensed by a king as much as they are guaranteed by God. In other words, truth is not based on the preferences of a king or a court. Rather, truth is based on a Reality that transcends any human bias and that’s what makes truth the powerful thing that it is.

There will always be players who attempt to assert their opinion as a bottom line. While they may have a point, the thing that will reveal that more so anything else is the way in which they define truth. If they see it as nothing more than a term used to elevate their preferences to the status of a universal given, you’ll be able to tell by the way they attempt to solicit pity rather than appeal to a legitimate principal. Pity is evil’s favorite disguise and the best way to distract from what is and always will be the fundamental dispute..

How do you define truth?

The person who sees themselves as their own absolute define truth according to whatever it is they want to believe in that moment. You can’t disagree with them because, in the absence of an objective bottom line, you are just forcing “your beliefs” on to them.

Even when the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore, they’re able to maintain their reality as a priority by positioning themselves as a victim. No one is going to ask you to explain yourself or take responsibility for your actions if they know they’re going to be labeled cruel and hateful for doing so.

When you are your own absolute, truth becomes whatever it is you want to believe. Should anyone disagree with you, you can logically categorize them as a liar because they aren’t speaking the “truth.”

With that dynamic in place, those who oppose you aren’t merely mistaken, they’re immoral. They’re not just wrong, they are evil. If they’re a politician, they’re not leaders, they’re tyrants. And those who support tyrants aren’t voters, they’re Nazis. This is how you’re able to justify silencing those you disagree with. You don’t want them to be fair, you want them to be quiet. You don’t want to be evaluated, you just want to be accommodated.

Even when the authentic truth becomes impossible to ignore, you’re still able to maintain your reality as a priority by posing as a victim. Those who criticize someone who’s in pain are immediately labeled cruel and hateful. Now you don’t have to explain yourself or take responsibility for your actions.

Any evidence that has the capacity to reveal your logic as fundamentally flawed can be dismissed simply by declaring it to be irrelevant. You are your own judge and jury, as well as both the prosecution and defense. Nothing is admitted into your private courtroom that doesn’t reinforce the verdict you’ve already decided on, and you can compensate for the lack of proof you require by simply speaking it into existence.

All the boundaries that would otherwise be established by common sense, the rule of law, medical realities, mathematical certainties, moral imperatives and historical events are now non-existent and replaced with

Division

/in , , /by

People who complain about Division fall into one of two categories.

  • Those who focus on the presence of tension.
  • Those who focus on the absence of truth.

People who lament the presence of tension don’t want to be evaluated, they just want to be accommodated. By pretending to be in pain, they don’t have to prove that they’re right because you can’t criticize or correct someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and intolerant. So, instead of focusing on what’s causing the division, as far as determining who’s right and who’s wrong, the truth is discarded in favor of simply insisting that we all just need to get along and silencing those who dare to assert the reality of a bottom line.

The Bible says…

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. (1 Cor 11:17-19)

You don’t resolve a dispute by pretending it doesn’t exist. Nor do you solve a moral dilemma by suggesting that there are no principles only preferences.

You don’t use legal sounding verbiage to validate a lie. Rather, you use the power of truth to enforce the law.

But those who are a law unto themselves will insist that there are no standards, only situations. They need a toxic and nonsensical environment in order to maintain the idea that they are accountable to no one other than themselves. In order to distract attention from the moral and practical ruin that inevitably occurs, they position themselves as victims of an oppressive society and they call it…

…division.

A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part III

/0 Comments/in , /by

I) Intro

Thus far we’ve looked at how God does care about Politics and He expects us to be engaged. We looked at how the best candidates are going to be those whose platforms take the same approach as the one our Founders took when they defeated the most powerful empire on earth and built a political system founded on Biblical Absolutes.

In Part II we examined the difference between being smart and being wise in the way we process the headlines and the media that we consume.

This week we continue our discussion on being discerning when it comes to the way in which current events are presented by looking at a series of tactics that are sometimes used when you’re listening to someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide.

II) Meet Saul Alinski

“Rules for Radicals” is a book authored by Saul Alinski, a “Community Organizer” that made a name for himself by developing a series of tactics designed to agitate and coerce decision makers to the point where they would be willing to make concessions that they wouldn’t consider otherwise.

It’s not wrong to be persistent or even shrewd in the way you obtain justice from an authority who is neither compassionate nor just (Matt 10:16; Lk 18:1-8). But anything done in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10) translates to something evil.

  • Unity becomes Corruption (1 Cor 1:10)
  • Love becomes Neglect (Prov 19:18; Heb 12:7)
  • Compassion becomes a Subsidy (Prov 23:9; 26:4-8)
  • Peace becomes Indifference (Jud 1:19-26; Prov 6:10-11)
  • …and Change becomes Destruction (Ex 32:1; Jud 2:10-11; 1 Kings 12:28-30)

Saul Alinski aligned himself with noble causes, but his methods and his rhetoric betrayed an unhealthy commitment to the acquisition of power more so than the realization of principle. You see that reflected in the dedication he wrote at the beginning of his book:

Alinski’s Rules…

Saul Alinski may have been spiritually bankrupt, but there’s no denying that his tactics proved to be very effective and continue to be effective to this day. If you’re going to defeat your enemy, you have to know how he works so you can know how to respond. But ideally, you want to have a platform in place that anticipates his strategies to the point where they’re rendered useless because of the way in which your content is structured and presented.

Rules for Radicals

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
  8. “Keep the pressure on.”
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
  11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.”
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. “

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and how is to know where mythology leaves off and history beings – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer

In his book, Reveille for Radicals, Alinski said that all radicals like himself “want to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism…They hope for a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people.”1

This was the goal.

It wasn’t the elimination of Racism or Poverty as much as it was acquiring the needed power to facilitate a Socialist approach to government.

There are many informed commentaries on the fallacies of Socialism that rightfully underscore everything from the lethal consequences of a Socialist doctrine to the economic chaos of artificial pricing. But there’s one aspect of Socialism that often gets missed which reveals it as something that is diametrically opposed to Scripture.

A) Why Socialism Doesn’t Work

Socialists generally categorize a population under two headings:

  • the rich, who are corrupt and
  • the poor who are oppressed

Those who are not where they want to be financially are, in some cases, drawn to this paradigm because in the mind of the Socialist, among the poor you have only noble and hardworking individuals who have been unfairly victimized by a flawed system.

This is an attractive option for the person who has made some bad choices because if there are no fools and there no fiends among the “downtrodden,” then they cannot be held accountable for their actions and they bear no responsibility for their choices.

But Scripture is heavily populated with verses that contrast the success of those who are diligent and the difficulties faced by those who insist on being foolish. Proverbs 24: 30-34 says:

I went past the field of a sluggard, past the vineyard of someone who has no sense; 31 thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. 32 I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—34 and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man. (Prov 24:30-34)

On the other hand, it says in Proverbs 10:4:

Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth. (Prov 10:4)

While there are situations that can be categorized as tragic and overwhelming, you also have scenarios that are intentionally exaggerated in order to make an irresponsible disposition appear reasonable:

A sluggard says, “There’s a lion in the road, a fierce lion roaming the streets!” 14 As a door turns on its hinges, so a sluggard turns on his bed. 15 A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth. (Prov 26:13-15)

Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. (Ecc 11:4)

In the context of Socialism, there’s no acknowledgement of how poor decision making can contribute to any one of a number of difficult situations. Victor Davis Hanson is a professor emeritus of Classics at California State University, Fresno, the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and visiting professor at Hillsdale College.

He had this to say about the way in which more and more young Americans are gravitating to Socialism:

Many young people claim to be socialists but are instead simply angry that they were unable to afford a home, a new car, or other nice things, or start a family in their “woke” urban neighborhoods during a decade of muted economic growth (2008–17) and high unemployment. In college, they were not warned about the dangers of statism and collectivism, nor given the skills to look at the world empirically. The combination of nonmarketable degrees and skills with burdensome debt helped alter an entire generation’s customs, habits, and thinking.2

Compare the way in which the perspective of someone who has a very limited resume, yet feels entitled to those things that have to be earned and not simply obtained – how does that line up with God’s View as expressed in Proverbs 24:27?

 Put your outdoor work in order and get your fields ready; after that, build your house. (Prov 24:27)

Typically, a person’s situation is going to be characterized by things that constitute both personal flaws as well as challenging circumstances (Jn 16:33; Rom 3:23). To assert the idea that every difficulty you contend with is due to a systemic restriction and you bear no responsibility whatsoever for those choices that contributed to the problem – not only is that a nonsensical philosophy, but it also violates what God says in Galatians 6:7:

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. (Gal 6:7)

In short, Socialism cannot be discussed let alone deployed without minimizing the way in which God expects individuals to take responsibility for their actions (Rom 14:12). However convenient or challenging your environment may be, Scripture makes it clear that you have available to you every Resource that you need to rise above those things that would otherwise limit you or tear you down (2 Cor 9:8; Jas 1:13). Whatever the evil may be that stands between you and your ambition – be it the most desperate desire to survive or a noble passion to succeed – because you are not alone (Matt 28:20) and He promises that all things work together for the good (Rom 8:28) – you cannot blame anything or anyone for having yielded to the temptation to stop striving (Jn 16:33) without accusing God of having stopped caring (Rom 8:32).

Socialism’s True Result
Josef Stalin liquidated twenty million people to create the collective basis for the Soviet Union. Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward cost China forty-five million dead. Pol Pot’s back-to-the-land experiment murdered well over one million in Cambodia. Various disasters in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe turned once-prosperous states into murderous, impoverished socialist dictatorships.3

It is God Who is in control and it is His Purpose and Power in and through a person that makes the difference both individually (Rom 12:1-2) and collectively (Ps 33:12; 84:11). Still, the temptation to take the wheel from your Heavenly Father and insist that it’s your turn to drive is alluring despite the fact that it is toxic (Prov 14:12).

This is why Socialism appeals despite the Truth it ignores and the lives it has taken. And this is why you want to be aware of what’s going on and what’s being said.

This is why you want to Pop the Hood, Keep Your Balance and Kick the Tires.

It’s also why you want to be aware of the some of the more frequently used tactics deployed by those who have something to hide more than they have something to say.

This is where Saul Alinski comes in.

His book, Rules for Radicals details 13 tactics that can be used to get your way by virtue of the manner in which they extort, embarrass and manipulate your opponent.

In today’s discussion, we’re going to build on some of Alinski’s rules, not for the sake of glorifying them but for the sake of exposing them. And then we’re going to get more detailed in how Alinski’s approach is manifested in the media according to five easy to remember and recognize tactics we’re going to call the Progressive Pentagon.

Here we go…

III) The Progressive Pentagon

There are five tactics you can be listening for when you’re being told by someone that they have a point, when in fact they’ve got something to hide. I call it the “Perspective Pentagon” because, taken together, they serve as the way in which the Left both defends its stance and attacks its opponents. It’s bogus, but it’s brilliant. Here’s the five tactics we’re going to look at:

  • They spend more time talking about labels, mobs and crowds than they do a name, a person and a choice.
  • They spend more time attacking their opponent’s character than they do discussing their opponent’s content
  • They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right.
  • They spend more time trying to appear honest than they do telling the truth.
  • They spend more time defending bad decisions and demonizing personal responsibility than they do applauding wise choices and holding people accountable for their actions.

Let’s start by looking at “Mobs…”

A) Mobs

They spend more time talking about labels, mobs and crowds than they do a name, a person and a choice.
God Knows…

“Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance, for the Lord is a God who knows, and by him deeds are weighed.” (1 Sam 2:3)

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7)

…then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Forgive and act; deal with everyone according to all they do, since you know their hearts (for you alone know every human heart), (1 Kings 8:39)

I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (Rev 2:23)

You can conceal a person’s lack of judgment by presenting them as part of a supposedly virtuous group. You can do the same thing, only in reverse, by making a sinister collective appear innocent by associating them with an honorable person or intention. Both approaches are part of a heinous tactic that seeks to assign whole demographics a specific morality, regardless of the individuals who do or do not qualify… …and it’s often used by that person who has something to hide.

1) God Doesn’t Look at Your Appearance

God doesn’t look at your appearance, He looks at your heart. So, however you would try to elevate or justify yourself by insisting that your membership in a particular tribe, company or movement is sufficient to validate your status as a moral individual, those efforts will not only fall short in the sight of God, they also tend to fail in the marketplace as well (Pro 1:32, 3:35; 10:10; Gal 6:7-8).

Jews in the time of Christ saw themselves as justified before God because of their last name (Dt 14:1-2). As a result, they felt comfortable being critical of others, despite the fact that they were just as guilty before God as those they were criticizing.

Paul takes all of that apart in Romans 2:17-29. He summarizes everything beginning in verse 28:

A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. (Rom 2:28-29)

It’s not about a label, a mob or a crowd. Ultimately, the credibility of your platform is going to be measured according to the character and conduct of the individual in question and not the assumed morality of the collective.

B) Character

They spend more time assaulting their opponent’s character than they do discussing the content of their opponent’s platform.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, Alinski documents Rule #13 as: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

What you’re doing here is identifying a particular individual as the one who’s “responsible” for whatever the problem may be. Once you have your target, you focus all of your attack on them as opposed to anyone else who may bear some responsibility.

That’s how you “freeze” them.

And the one thing you want to keep in mind when selecting your target is that they must qualify as an intuitive personification of the problem you’re trying to solve. You make them the “poster child” for your cause and by giving your campaign a face and a specific behavior or quality to despise, you give your platform emotional momentum that draws people in because of the way they want to be perceived as compassionate and justifiably indignant.

1) A Nazarene and a Son of Mary

Jesus of Nazareth… His hometown wasn’t especially noteworthy and some saw that as one more reason to doubt His Authenticity as the Messiah. Even when Nathanael was skeptical. When first told about Jesus, Nathanael said:

“Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked. “Come and see,” said Philip. (Jn 1:46)

In addition, Jesus was never referred to as “Joseph’s son.” Rather, He was always referred to as “Mary’s son…”

Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mk 6:3)

Reason being is that, in the mind of His detractors, He was an illegitimate child which made Him all the less likely to be “Divine.” Christ’s critics spent more time attempting to discredit Him than they did actually listening to Him. And the more people that were drawn to His Message, the more the Pharisees resolved to attack His Character, even to the point where they made Him out to be an enemy of the state.

IV) Conclusion

In Part IV we’re going to conclude our series by wrapping up the remainder of the “Progressive Pentagon” as well as take apart some examples where you can hear these tactics being deployed. In the end, it’s not about winning elections or being overly cynical as much as it’s about being aware and being wise when it comes to the way in which we process current events.

To read “A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part IV,” click here. To read Part II, click here.

  1. Sanford Horwitt, Let Them Call Me a Rebel: Saul Alinski, His Life and Legacy (New York: Vintage Books, 1992); Saul Alinski, Reveille for Radicals, p25, books.google .com
  2. Hoover Institution, “Our Socialist Future?”, Victor Davis Hanson, https://www.hoover.org/research/our-socialist-future-0, accessed February 16, 2022
  3. Andreas Kluth, “Why Germany Will Never Be Europe’s Leader,” Bloomberg Opinion, April 29, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-30/coronavirus-crisis-why-germany-will-never-be-europe-s-leader; Jennifer Rankin and Daniel Boffey, “Tensions Mount between EU Members Ahead of Budget Talks,” The Guardian, February 19, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/19/tensions-mount-between-eu-members-ahead-of-budget-talks; Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi, “Will Coronavirus Kill the European Union?,” City Journal, March 27, 2020, https://www.city-journal.org/covid-19-european-union.

The Progressive Pentagon – A Practical Guide to Fake News

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There are five tactics you can be listening for when you’re being told by someone that they have a point, when in fact they’ve got something to hide. I call it the “Perspective Pentagon” because, taken together, they serve as the way in which the Left both defends it’s stance and attacks it’s opponents.

It’s bogus, but it’s brilliant.

1) They spend more time attacking their opponent’s character than they do discussing their opponent’s content .

By making your opponent look immoral, their platform is interpreted as being immoral as well, regardless of how sound it may be (Matt 11:19; 2 Cor 10:10). When you hear this tactic being used, chances are the person who’s speaking doesn’t have something to say as much as they have something to hide.

2) They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right.

You can’t criticize someone who’s in pain let alone the person who’s trying to help without immediately being categorized as cruel and insensitive. Because of the way this tactic has the ability to shut down any transparent dialogue, chances are the person who uses this technique can’t afford to be cornered by a direct question and they have something to hide (Prov 22:13)

3) They spend more time trying to appear honest than they do telling the truth.

You can be ethical without telling the whole truth. When you’re hearing this tactic being used, it’s then that credible evidence is usually being dismissed for no good reason because of the way it threatens to expose the truth. Again, this person has something to hide (Matt 4:1-11).

4) They spend more time talking about labels, mobs and crowds than they do a name, a person and a choice.

You can conceal a person’s lack of judgment by ignoring their individuality and seeing them instead as part of a supposedly virtuous group. You can do the same thing, only in reverse, by refusing to see a person’s virtue and instead see them as part of a sinister collective. Both approaches are part of a heinous tactic that seeks to assign whole demographics a specific morality, regardless of the individuals who do or do not qualify…

…and it’s often used by that person who has something to hide (2 Thess 3:10).

5) They spend more time defending bad decisions and demonizing personal responsibility than they do applauding wise choices and holding people accountable for their actions.

Of all the tactics represented by the “Progressive Pentagon,” this is the most obvious in that the person speaking is calling “good” bad and vice versa. It’s accomplished by insisting that, as part of a flawed system, there are no “bad decisions” because of the way your environment obligates you to fail. Hence, you are not responsible for your actions and it’s not you that has to change, rather, it’s the ideals that the current system is based on that need to be altered if not destroyed.

It’s as nonsensical as it is sinister, yet it is a hallmark of those who have something to hide (Is 5:20).

You can remember those five tactics by using this mnemonic:

Mobs of Characters Hurt Honest Decisions

Anytime you hear any of these tactics being deployed, you’re listening to someone who has something to hide. And generally, what they’re trying to conceal is either;

  • the fact that their argument can’t bear up under the weight of a direct question, or…
  • there’s a darker purpose being accomplished that has nothing to do with the subject matter but is nevertheless advanced by the topic being discussed

You defeat the “Pentagon” by first being aware of it, then you you remind your audience that it’s not about the way they, “feel,” rather, it’s about what’s true. You insist on an evaluation of all the facts and as opposed to a manipulation of just some of the facts and you demand specific examples as opposed to a manufactured majority.

Finally, you demonstrate how what’s being debated is a natural compliment to the sinister agenda that’s hoping to go unnoticed. You avoid anything that can be potentially dismissed as an outrageous conspiracy, but you don’t allow the obvious to be dismissed as a meaningless coincidence.

In short…

You stand.

You speak.

…and you silence the evil disguised as compassion and the lie that poses as the truth.

There is No Referee

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 The Liberal disposition towards God is similar to a football player who’s on the field, playing the game, but doesn’t believe in a Referee. There are no penalties, only plays. The idea is to move the ball down the field and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from putting points on the board. That is not only his goal, it is his right and with that sense of entitlement comes the authority to define the standard by which his conduct on the field is measured.

Should someone challenge his approach, because he’s unwilling to acknowledge the Reality of a “higher authority,” he sees it as a situation where he’s being compelled to adjust his perspective according to only the traditions and preferences of those on the other team and he will look at them and demand to know why he has to play by their rules and refer to them as judgmental and fascists.

There is no Referee.

This is why any conversation pertaining to morality or politics or the cultural in general is destined to fall short of anything influential because until he’s willing to acknowledge the Reality of God, he is his own bottom line. And his philosophical apparatus will interpret anything that comes across as critical of his behavior as not only a negative appraisal of his performance, but an attack on his dominion over all that constitutes the difference between right and wrong.

There is no Referee.

The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints.

Oftentimes the debate that happens between Democrats and Republicans ceases to be about policy as much as it becomes an argument about morality. The moment it becomes a moral issue, it is therefore a spiritual topic in light of what God specifies in Scripture. But if there is no Referee, than the only Standard by which moral conduct is defined and measured is whatever best promotes the humanistic agenda lurking behind the behavior being discussed. And what applies to one team may or may not apply to the other and what may be an infraction today may not even resonate as a headline tomorrow.

On the surface, the argument that defends the idea that there is no Referee can sound compelling in the way it suggests that to assert a Biblical position is to violate the separation of church and state and force a person to adopt a particular religious disposition that may or may not coincide with their personal convictions.

But the idea that there is no Referee is a religious disposition in that it establishes man as his own deity. It’s not just a question of what the Liberal doesn’t believe about God as much as it’s what they assert as an acceptable replacement for the Role that God plays in, not only determining the difference between right and wrong, but the origin of the universe, the question of life after death as well as the purpose for one’s existence. The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints. And to strip our nation of it’s Christian foundation by insisting that any reference to a religious framework is to violate the separation of church and state is revealed as a sinister absurdity once it becomes apparent that the atheist’s perspective on the human experience is just as much of a “religion” as much as Christianity and in that regard they are the very thing they claim to despise.

Yet, hypocrisy is only recognized as such when there’s a concrete Truth in place to flag when a person is being hypocritical. But that’s not something that concerns a Liberal because…

…there is no Referee.