I discovered this post from Dr. Thio Li-Ann of the Republic of Singapore.
I am sharing her remarks with the general public, since they deserve recognition and reflection.
————————————————————————————————————————
![]("https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z1aEqnAl3kg/XyxHnwf9jpI/AAAAAAAB91k/-TVzNXW4_aIghtNnlLvvtkdGZLvU528LwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Thio%2BLi-Ann.jpg")
History teaches us that nations are destroyed in two major ways:
1. An overwhelming aggressive external force – think Alexander the Great, the Roman empire, Nebuchadnezzar – but history shows that all human empires are temporal, and exist by the leave of El Elyon: Acts 17 :26
2. Internal rot – through moral corruption, through narcissism, through tribalism, pitting tribe versus tribe, "us" versus the "other".
This involves the deployment of the tactics of Cultural Marxism which always involves positing an "oppressor /oppressed" binary, then channeling hatred towards whoever is labelled the 'oppressor.'
We can see this in action in the USA, with the spread of lawlessness and divisiveness, outrage mobs and the virtue signalling 'woke' vigilantes (who prefer to look good or feel good, rather than to be good). All talk of the 'common good' seems to have evaporated, as fast as rain on a tropical steamy day. There is only the world of the 'evil tyrant' and the 'social justice warrior.'
Justice we should seek, but social justice? There is a difference. "Social justice" is determined by those in charge of social opinion; this in the West is wielded by the hard-left liberal elite.
Social Justice ain't Justice: https://www.prageru.com/video/social-justice-isnt-justice/
Is there injustice in the world? Certainly. Are there perfect politicians? Of course not. Politics cannot bring about "utopia" or a perfect state of things (unless you are a deluded ideologue, whether a hard left marxist or illiberal liberal who secretly wants to be a totalitarian).
Politicians can do "some good" and they can do "a lot of harm." Its unfortunately a mixed bag, because politicians want (need?) to be popular and that can devolve into pandering.
A politician may support 3 good causes and 1 terrible one. How do we choose, when one politician can speak up for causes we have sympathy for, and advocate for causes we must resist because of their deleterious impact?
Who has wisdom up to the task? Who has discernment that will transcend emotional "thinking with our feelings," which always betrays the condition of our heart. There is the tendency of orphan spirits to elevate 'compassion', over the hard work of making difficult choices and tolerable trade-offs, which require both our reason and conscience to make decisions, by doing the heavy lifting of understandings the implications and consequences of an action or decision. And for certain fundamentals, we do not budge. Build and Protect, Tend and Keep.
It is hard to be a statesman and to demonstrate moral heft and leadership in such a setting. It sometimes requires a firm principled stand against populism or the demands of those who shout the loudest or who are most skilled in the base art of spin, PR, political pressure tactics like score-carding.
I am sick of 'woke' culture, 'cancel' culture because it seeks to crush viewpoint diversity and freedom of expression borne out of a commitment to the well-being of a polity.
It is the self-righteous strategy of Cultural Marxists who arrogate to themselves the power to determine what is right/wrong, what should or should not be tolerated, all while pretending to speak in the name of "social justice" (who died and made you king?).
The playbook of Cultural Marxists ("cultural" because they foment the "culture war" which is really a debate about public morality and how this affects law and policy) includes
A) POLITICS AS WARFARE NOT DELIBERATION, NEGOTIATION AND LIVABLE COMPROMISES
Seeing politics as apocalyptic warfare, rather than an enterprise requiring the art of compromise, the discipline of civility, an appreciation that politics is the art of the possible and not a way to bring about some form of 'utopian' salvation
B) BINARY WORLDVIEW, REJECTING COMPLEXITY AND EMBRACING THE SIMPLISTIC
Adopting a lens by which everything is classified into the category of "oppressor" and "oppressed." There are wiser perspectives which do not trade in binaries but appreciate that apart from non-negotiable principles, things (in politics) reside along a continuum…there is always some 'third space' for idealistic realists and principled pragmatists.
Cultural Marxists want to destroy their opponents, discredit them, engage in name-calling (argument by chanting slogans, you can see this all over US college campuses). They are not fellow-citizens to be engaged with, they are to be eradicated. Exiled to some kind of cold cultural Siberia. Place them on 'time-out', exclude them (while chanting for a more inclusive society: Ergo, to expose the hypocritical double standards, when someone demands tolerance – ask what they would not tolerate, when someone chants diversity and inclusivity, ask what they would exclude).
Every theory of "consent" has a moral limit – the question is: who gets to determine what this is?
A-ha, stealth power grab!
Valorise 'consent' and choice, demonise what is chosen. Choice is not the ultimate meta value; some choices should not be chosen. Some things ought not to be tolerated. Some things ought to be excluded. This is why you don't eat a slab of butter every day, even if it is appealing to you.
Opportunity costs.
C) DAMN THEM: DEHUMANISE, DEMONISE AND DOWNGRADE DEBATE (TACTICS OF INTIMIDATION, SILENCING AND OBSCURING STRONG COUNTERVAILING ARGUMENTS)
After identifying who is the "oppressor," the strategy is then to dehumanise and demonise your opponent, to engage in the spurious "argument by insult" not because his/her arguments are good or bad, but because you want to turn other people away from assessing the argument, to win an argument by default rather than tenting it to the quick, unpacking it, giving due credit to good points, exposing poor reasoning.
If you give someone or something a bad label e.g. "this mee pok is not tasty", no one will try it. So you may say: e.g. X is a secular / religious fundamentalist and nothing he has to say is worth thinking about.
Think about it, in your certitude that you are right, you can become self-righteous – "I am he who cannot be questioned because I am absolutely right – you are a bigot and I will whack you into silent submission and tolerate you only when you (abjectly) agree with me."
Perhaps you should doubt your certainty. It could belie an infantile blinkered perspective. We live in a plural world. On things that count, there will be differences.
You can believe you are right, you can stand on principles which are true – relativism is not an attractive proposition because it has its own absolutist premise: All views are equal (the same) except the view that A is a better view.
You can believe in absolute principles, defend them, persuade others, fight to spread the wisdom, but you don't have to have an absolutist frame of mind which refuses to think, comforted in your own infallibility or refusal to engage diverse viewpoints. There is a difference between absolute principles and an absolutist mindset. A good debater thoroughly understands, engages with a different view.
As John Stuart Mill argued, if you argue with someone and you discover you are wrong, you can change your mind. If you argue with someone and discover you are right, you can solidify your tested opinion.
As John Milton stated: "Let Truth and Falsehood collide: who ever knew Truth to be put to the worst, in a free and open encounter."
Throw 'truth bombs" not "shut up bombs". Metaphorically speaking of course.
To be 'self righteous' is not having the inclination to engage or the ability to understand opposing arguments: not to say 'all views are equally cogent' (because clearly they are not) but to assess whether an argument makes a valid point, a half baked point, a refutable point or is utter twaddle.
So, Cultural Marxist, demonise someone, silence them by intimidation, clear them out of the public sphere so you can do a power-grab. Are your bullying ways above reproach?
d. MORAL CONFUSION: THE POLITICS OF VICTIMHOOD AND THE STRATEGY OF SUPPRESSION
The victims victimise, and the oppressor, oppresses. The innocent are tarred and feathered, the wicked get off scot- free. "Poor me, I am so oppressed, while I oppress you."
Victim Chic? The Rhetoric of Victimhood
https://www.jubilee-centre.org/cambridge-papers/victim-chic-the-rhetoric-of-victimhood-by-michael-ovey
e. TRUMPING TRUTH WITH NOXIOUS NARRATIVE
There was a video of a white Louisiana couple having dinner in their own home. BLM protesters crashed into their home, broke their gate, threatened to kill them and their dog. They rang for the police, no one was coming to help. The man took his rifle and shouted at the protesters to leave his property.
Who was the victim? Consider how the liberal left media painted the couple as the oppressors, how the liberal left District Attorney wanted to charge them (for the crime of self-defense?). Utterly disgusting. Painting the victim as oppressor and the oppressor as victim: Isaiah 5:20 – woe unto you for calling good evil, and evil good.
Truth is sidelined in favour of Narrative and Narrative always fuels a political agenda. When cultural marxism – the desire to impose a comprehensive ideology and to brook no dissent – is the driving force, totalitarianism beckons.
See for yourself.
1. The leftwing Washington Post reports: "St. Louis couple point guns at crowd of protesters calling for mayor to resign" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/29/st-louis-protest-gun-mayor/
2. And on the right side of things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiIZTVuSUiY
You can see who the real aggressors are. If you faced a mob of 30-40 people invading your house, threatening you what would you do? Say 'well done' and bow the knee?
Brains? Spine? Anyone?
Ah, elections, irritants pollute the air. What inspired this mini-rant of sorts?
A brilliant observation by Bill Muehlenberg, which must get its place in the honour roll of insight.
"The militant left hates Trump, hates America, hates freedom, hates Christianity, hates the police, and hates just about everything decent and honourable. So here is a good rule of thumb: the more the leftists hate something, the more you can count on it being of great value and worth."
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2020/07/08/trump-and-truth-versus-tyranny-and-treason/?fbclid=IwAR01T9HFTQjb8BRz9RpdQQQ7-di4GkPu9V-mO3xG5SGU1D4MAzirUEyfEo4
This is in relation to President Trump's brilliant Rushmore speech, which of course, the left derides.
It is worth reading in full – you can find it here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-south-dakotas-2020-mount-rushmore-fireworks-celebration-keystone-south-dakota/
In it, President Trump says
… Our Founders boldly declared that we are all endowed with the same divine rights — given [to] us by our Creator in Heaven. And that which God has given us, we will allow no one, ever, to take away — ever. (Applause.)
…Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. (Cue Cultural Marxist Sloganeering)
….One of their political weapons is “Cancel Culture” — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values,
…The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats, in every case, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions.
….The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice. But in truth, it would demolish both justice and society. It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance, and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of repression, domination, and exclusion.
….We are proud of the fact — (applause) — that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and we understand — (applause) — that these values have dramatically advanced the cause of peace and justice throughout the world.
……..We believe in equal opportunity, equal justice, and equal treatment for citizens of every race, background, religion, and creed. Every child, of every color — born and unborn — is made in the holy image of God. (Applause.)
….We want free and open debate, not speech codes and cancel culture.
….We embrace tolerance, not prejudice.
Like or dislike President Trump, is there not weight in his words, do they not expose the tactics of Cultural Marxists? Of course there is a difference between aspiration and realisation and of course all politicians are imperfect (I defy you to identify one who does everything right in today's polarised world).
Are you able to assess a view, an opinion, or do you go on automatic demonisation mode? It's like saying 'nothing good can come out of Nazareth' (pace, paraphased).
A brilliant commentary on the speech and the response to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64GgCVqRLzU
It is also worth evaluating the response to Trump's Rushmore address, as it offers a clear demonstration of the nature of the culture war, the battle for the soul of a nation, of many nations, perhaps all nations.
To paraphase a bon mot: If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
How do things stand with you today?
As for me, I will hearten to Bill M's observation: "the more the leftists hate something, the more you can count on it being of great value and worth."
Vote wisely, make good choices, exercise your slice of sovereignty, keep on keeping on until Ps 84:7.