How the Liberal Party of Canada has become the very thing it once despised.

 

As I sit here in beautiful Effingham Valley with the vale of St. John's the next valley over I am reminded how dedicated reformers sought to bring down a corrupt government that refused to listen to the needs of the people and how this very issue is once agains being reflected by the very party which once existed to end such tyranny. So the premise of the following is to demonstrate that it is not liberalism that has failed, rather the failure is due to politicians who have bastardized the very meaning of liberalism!

The Attack on Osterhout’s Tavern in St. John’s, Upper Canada (1838), and local hero and bold reformer, Samuel Chandler

The violent encounter at Osterhout’s Tavern in St. John’s, Upper Canada, in June 1838 stands as one of the most dramatic local episodes of the post‑rebellion unrest that followed the failed uprising of 1837. Although small in scale, the incident encapsulates the broader tensions of the period—cross‑border insurgency, local loyalties, and the persistence of reformist ideals. At the centre of this episode stands Samuel Chandler, a wagon maker from St. John’s, whose involvement illustrates the crucial role of local actors in the Patriot War.

Political Background and the Renewed Conflict

The events of 1838 cannot be understood without reference to the collapse of the Upper Canada Rebellion in December 1837. That rebellion had sought to challenge the entrenched power of the colonial elite, but it was swiftly crushed. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada_Rebellion)

In the aftermath, however, radical reformers and sympathisers did not abandon their cause. Instead, many reorganised across the border in the United States, forming secret societies known as the **Hunters’ Lodges**. These groups aimed to reignite revolution in Upper Canada through coordinated incursions. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada_Rebellion)

The Niagara frontier—particularly the rural settlement of St. John’s—became a natural focal point. Its proximity to American territory and its population of settlers with diverse political sympathies made it vulnerable to invasion and internal unrest.

Samuel Chandler: A Local Figure in a Transnational Movement

Samuel Chandler occupies a distinctive place in this narrative. Unlike many insurgent leaders who came from outside the colony, Chandler was a wagon maker from the village of St. John’s itself. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

His occupation is revealing. As a wagon maker, Chandler would have been deeply embedded in the local economy, interacting with farmers, traders, and travellers. Such individuals often possessed not only practical skills but also extensive knowledge of routes, terrain, and community networks—assets of considerable value in irregular warfare.

Chandler’s involvement demonstrates how the Patriot cause relied not merely on external invaders but also on **local collaborators who could guide and support the insurgents**. In June 1838, he assisted **James Morreau**, an Irish‑American leader of the raiding party, in organising and facilitating the incursion into Upper Canada. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

The Lead‑up to the Tavern Attack

In mid‑June 1838, a small group of insurgents—initially numbering a few dozen—crossed the Niagara River from the United States into Upper Canada. Their objective was ambitious: to provoke a popular uprising among local inhabitants and thereby rekindle the rebellion. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

After crossing, the group moved inland and established a temporary camp in the wooded areas of Pelham Township.  Their expectation was that local sympathisers would rally to their cause. However, such widespread support did not materialise. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

Facing the need to take decisive action, the insurgents targeted a strategic location in nearby St. John’s: Osterhout’s Tavern, where a detachment of **Queen’s Lancers** was lodged.

The Assault on Osterhout’s Tavern on Holland Road

On the night of 21–22 June 1838, the raiders advanced on Osterhout’s Tavern in coordinated groups.  The building, functioning as both an inn and a military billet, was a logical target. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

The attack began with a brief exchange of gunfire between the insurgents and the cavalry stationed inside.  Recognising that they faced trained soldiers, the attackers attempted to escalate the confrontation by **setting fire to the building**, hoping to force a surrender. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

This tactic proved effective. The Lancers, faced with the prospect of being burned alive, surrendered to the raiders. The insurgents thus achieved a temporary and symbolic victory: they had successfully assaulted a government‑held position and captured its defenders.

Chandler’s Role in the Attack

Although detailed descriptions of Chandler’s actions during the assault itself are limited, the available evidence makes clear that he was **integral to the operation as a local guide and collaborator**. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

His contribution can be understood in several ways:

 

Local knowledge: Chandler knew the layout of St. John’s and the location of the tavern, enabling the raiders to approach effectively.

Logistical support: As a craftsman used to transport and equipment, he was well suited to assist in movement and supply.

Legitimacy among locals: His presence may have lent credibility to the insurgents’ appeal to residents, even if that appeal ultimately failed. In this sense, Chandler embodies the intersection between local grievance and external revolutionary ambition.

Retreat and Collapse of the Raid

Despite their success at the tavern, the insurgents’ position quickly became untenable. Realising that British and colonial forces would soon respond, they abandoned the site and retreated westward toward Hamilton. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

At dawn, militia units and allied forces were mobilised to pursue them. The response was swift and decisive. Within a short time, 31 insurgents were captured, effectively ending the incursion. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

Chandler himself was among those arrested. His fate illustrates the severity with which the colonial authorities treated participants in the revolt. He was tried and sentenced to transportation (exile) to Tasmania for life.  Although he later escaped and eventually settled in the United States, his sentencing underscores the high stakes of rebellion in British North America. [\[en.wikipedia.org\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Short_Hills)

Significance of the Tavern Incident

The attack on Osterhout’s Tavern reveals several key aspects of the 1838 conflicts:

1. Reliance on Local Allies: The involvement of Samuel Chandler shows that insurgent success depended heavily on cooperation from within the colony.

2. Strategic Importance of Taverns: Taverns served as military billets and community hubs, making them natural focal points in both rebellion and counterinsurgency.

3. Limits of Popular Support: Despite their hopes, the insurgents failed to trigger a widespread uprising, highlighting the limited appeal of armed revolution among the broader population.

4. Swift Government Response: The rapid capture of the raiders demonstrates the effectiveness of colonial military organisation in suppressing such incursions.

Conclusion:

The 1838 attack on Osterhout’s Tavern in St. John’s stands as a vivid episode in the closing phase of the Upper Canada disturbances. While small in scale, it encapsulates the complexities of the period: international involvement, local participation, and the persistence of reformist aspirations.

At the heart of the event, Samuel Chandler represented the critical role of ordinary individuals in extraordinary circumstances. As a wagon maker drawn into rebellion, he bridged the gap between everyday colonial life and the transnational revolutionary movement that briefly disrupted it.

Ultimately, the failure of the raid—and the harsh consequences faced by its participants—marked the decline of armed resistance in Upper Canada. Yet, paradoxically, such events contributed to long‑term political reform, helping to pave the way for more responsible government in the decades that followed.

How the Rebellions of 1837–1838 Led to Limited Suffrage in Canada

The Rebellions of 1837–1838 in Upper and Lower Canada marked a turning point in Canadian political development. Although the uprisings themselves failed militarily, they exposed deep flaws in the colonial system and forced the British government to reconsider how the colonies were governed. One of the most important long-term outcomes of these events was the gradual expansion of limited suffrage—that is, the extension of voting rights to a broader segment of the population, though still restricted by property, gender, and status.

This essay argues that the rebellions did not immediately introduce democracy or universal suffrage, but instead set in motion reforms—especially responsible government—that gradually widened political participation while maintaining important limits on who could vote.

---

Pre‑Rebellion Political System: Limited and Controlled Suffrage

Before the rebellions, British North America already had some form of electoral system. Under the Constitutional Act of 1791, colonists in Upper and Lower Canada could elect members to legislative assemblies. However, this system was highly restricted and largely ineffective.

Although elections existed, real power remained in the hands of appointed elites—the Family Compact in Upper Canada and the Château Clique in Lower Canada—who controlled executive councils and influenced policy regardless of election results. [britannica.com]

Furthermore, suffrage itself was limited. Voting rights generally depended on property ownership and social standing, meaning that only a minority of adult residents—mostly male landowners—could vote. While this system allowed for some political participation, it excluded large portions of the population and prevented elected assemblies from exercising real authority.

---

Causes of the Rebellions: Demand for Representation and Accountability

The rebellions were rooted in dissatisfaction with this political structure. Reformers argued that a system in which elected representatives lacked real power was unjust. They demanded responsible government, meaning that the executive should be accountable to the elected assembly rather than to British-appointed officials. [thecanadia...lopedia.ca]

In both Upper and Lower Canada, reformers were motivated by broader democratic ideals. They sought a political system that better represented the will of the people and reduced the power of entrenched elites. [quizlet.com]

When peaceful efforts to achieve reform were repeatedly blocked, some reformers turned to armed rebellion in 1837–1838. Although these uprisings were ultimately crushed, they forced the British authorities to confront the depth of colonial discontent.

---

Immediate Aftermath: The Durham Report and Structural Reform

In response to the rebellions, the British government sent Lord Durham to investigate their causes. His report became one of the most influential documents in Canadian history.

Durham concluded that unrest stemmed largely from the lack of responsible government and recommended sweeping reforms, including greater self-government and the union of Upper and Lower Canada. [canadahistory.com]

These recommendations led to major political changes:

• The Act of Union (1840) merged the Canadas into a single political entity. [thecanadia...lopedia.ca]
• Over time, the principle of responsible government was introduced, meaning the executive would depend on the support of the elected assembly. [thecanadia...lopedia.ca]

These changes did not directly expand suffrage, but they transformed the importance of voting. Once elected assemblies gained real power, elections began to matter in a way they had not before.

---

Responsible Government and the Expansion of Political Participation

The introduction of responsible government in 1848 marked a crucial step toward wider suffrage. Under this system, political leaders were drawn from and accountable to the elected assembly, making elections the primary mechanism of власть. [historymuseum.ca]

This shift had several important consequences:

1. Increased Incentive to Broaden the Electorate
   Because elected officials now held real governing power, there was greater pressure to ensure that a broader segment of the population could participate in elections.
2. Growth of Political Legitimacy
   Governments required public support to function effectively. Expanding suffrage, even modestly, helped reinforce the legitimacy of the new political system.
3. Gradual Reform Rather than Revolution
   Unlike the radical democratic revolutions seen elsewhere, Canada’s transition was incremental. Voting rights expanded slowly, reflecting a compromise between reformers and conservative elites.

---

The Persistence of Limits: Property, Gender, and Social Barriers

Despite these reforms, suffrage remained limited throughout the mid-nineteenth century. The reforms that followed the rebellions did not establish universal voting rights. Instead, they maintained important restrictions:

• Property requirements continued to determine who could vote, excluding poorer citizens.
• Gender restrictions meant that women were largely barred from voting (with very limited earlier exceptions later removed).
• Indigenous peoples and other marginalised groups were generally excluded from political participation.

Thus, the expansion of suffrage after the rebellions was real but incremental and unequal. It reflected a cautious approach to reform, balancing demands for greater democracy with the desire to maintain social order.

---

Long-Term Impact: Foundations for Democratic Evolution

Although the immediate changes were limited, the rebellions of 1837–1838 had a profound long-term impact on Canadian political development. They established key principles that would eventually lead to broader suffrage:

• Accountability of government to elected representatives
• Recognition of popular participation as a basis of legitimacy
• Acceptance of gradual reform as a means of resolving political conflict

Over time, these principles supported further expansions of the franchise, including the eventual removal of property qualifications and the extension of voting rights to wider groups in later decades.

---

Conclusion

The Rebellions of 1837–1838 did not directly create democratic suffrage in Canada, nor did they immediately transform the electoral system. Instead, their significance lies in the chain of reforms they triggered. By exposing the weaknesses of the colonial system and forcing the British government to act, the rebellions led to the Durham Report, the Act of Union, and, most importantly, the establishment of responsible government.

These developments gave real power to elected institutions, making voting meaningful and gradually encouraging the expansion of the electorate. However, the suffrage that emerged in their aftermath remained limited, constrained by property, gender, and social inequalities.

In this way, the rebellions can be understood as a starting point rather than an endpoint—a catalyst that set Canada on a path toward broader democracy, even though the journey toward truly inclusive suffrage would take many more decades to complete.

From Rebellion to Liberalism — How the Leaders and Ideas of 1837–1838 Helped Shape the Liberal Party of Canada

The Liberal Party of Canada, one of the country’s foundational political institutions, did not emerge suddenly in the late nineteenth century. Instead, its roots lie deeply embedded in the political movements and reform struggles of the early nineteenth century—especially the Rebellions of 1837–1838. Although these uprisings were defeated militarily, they articulated principles and produced leaders whose ideas evolved into the political ideology and organisation that later became the Liberal Party.

This essay argues that the rebellions contributed to the creation of Canadian liberalism—and ultimately the Liberal Party—by advancing the ideas of responsible government, political accountability, and reform, and by fostering a network of reform-minded leaders who later transitioned from rebellion to constitutional politics.

Reform Ideology: The Core of Canadian Liberalism

At the heart of the rebellions was a demand for greater democracy and political reform. Reformers in both Upper and Lower Canada objected to systems in which power was concentrated in unelected elites, such as the Family Compact and Château Clique.

Their central demand was responsible government—a system in which the executive would be accountable to the elected legislature rather than to the British-appointed governor. [\[nfpl.histo...niagara.ca\]](https://nfpl.historicniagara.ca/s/images/item/397476)

This demand is crucial because it later became the defining principle of Canadian liberalism. Rather than advocating for radical revolution (as in some contemporary movements), many reformers believed in gradual reform within constitutional structures. This preference for evolutionary change rather than violent upheaval became a hallmark of the Liberal Party’s political culture.

The Transformation from Rebels to Reformers

While some leaders of the rebellions initially supported armed resistance, most surviving reformers eventually turned toward peaceful political action. This transformation was essential in shaping the Liberal Party.

Figures such as William Lyon Mackenzie in Upper Canada and Louis‑Joseph Papineau in Lower Canada helped articulate early reform demands. Though their rebellions failed, their critiques of colonial governance influenced subsequent generations of politicians.

However, the true bridge between rebellion and party formation came from more moderate reformers who emerged after the uprisings. The British authorities, responding to the unrest, implemented recommendations from the Durham Report, which led to the gradual introduction of responsible government. [\[thecanadia...lopedia.ca\]](https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/timeline/rebellion-in-upper-canada)

By the 1840s, political leaders began to organise around reform principles within the new constitutional framework. This marked a shift from rebellion to organised party politics.

Key Leaders Who Shaped Liberal Tradition

The rebels themselves did not directly found the Liberal Party, but their successors did. The most important figures in this transition were Robert Baldwin (Canada West) and Louis‑Hippolyte La Fontaine (Canada East).

These leaders:

* Accepted the principle of responsible government.

* Worked within the unified political system created after the Act of Union. The Act of Union was a British law passed in July 1840 and proclaimed on February 10, 1841. It formally merged Upper Canada (now Ontario, renamed Canada West) and Lower Canada (now Quebec, renamed Canada East) into a single political entity: the Province of Canada.

* Built alliances across linguistic and regional divides.

Their partnership is particularly important. By cooperating across English and French communities, they demonstrated that reform politics could be inclusive and national rather than regional—a defining characteristic of the later Liberal Party.

In 1848, Baldwin and La Fontaine led the first government in Canada that was truly responsible to the elected assembly, marking a major victory for the reform movement. [\[thecanadia...lopedia.ca\]](https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/rebellion-in-upper-canada-feature)

This moment can be seen as the political realisation of the rebels’ earlier goals, achieved through constitutional means rather than armed conflict.

The Emergence of Party Structure

Following the achievement of responsible government, political groupings began to solidify into more recognisable parties. Reformers increasingly identified themselves as Liberals, distinguishing themselves from Conservative or Tory factions.

The connection to the rebellions is clear:

* The ideological base (reform, accountability, limited suffrage expansion) originated in the rebellion era.

* The personnel base included individuals influenced by or connected to the earlier reform movements.

* The political methods evolved from protest and rebellion to parliamentary organisation.

These early Liberal reformers did not immediately create a modern political party. Instead, they formed loose alliances that gradually developed into a more structured organisation as Canadian government matured.

From Limited Suffrage to Broader Democracy

The rebellions also indirectly influenced the Liberal Party through their impact on suffrage and political participation.

Although voting rights remained limited after the rebellions, the introduction of responsible government made elections meaningful.  This, in turn, encouraged reformers to push for gradual expansion of the electorate. [\[nfpl.histo...niagara.ca\]](https://nfpl.historicniagara.ca/s/images/item/397476)

The Liberal tradition became associated with:

* Expanding political participation

* Reducing aristocratic privilege

* Promoting equality (within the limits of the time)

These goals aligned closely with the original grievances of the rebels, even if they were pursued more cautiously and incrementally.

Long-Term Legacy: Formation of the Liberal Party

By the mid-to-late nineteenth century, the reform movement coalesced into what became the Liberal Party of Canada. Later leaders, such as George Brown and Alexander Mackenzie, inherited the political tradition established by Baldwin and La Fontaine, which itself was rooted in the rebellion era.

The Liberal Party thus emerged as:

* The heir to the “reform movement”

* The institutional expression of anti-oligarchic ideals

* A champion of responsible and representative government

Although the party’s policies evolved over time, its foundational commitment to reform and accountability can be traced directly to the political struggles of the 1830s.

Conclusion

The Rebellions of 1837–1838 did not directly create the Liberal Party of Canada, but they played a decisive role in shaping the ideas, leaders, and political conditions that made its formation possible.

By challenging elite control and demanding responsible government, the rebels introduced a reformist agenda that later politicians transformed into a practical political programme. Leaders such as Baldwin and La Fontaine built upon this foundation, demonstrating that reform could be achieved through parliamentary means.

In this way, the Liberal Party can be seen as the institutional legacy of the rebellions—a movement born from conflict, refined through compromise, and ultimately expressed in one of Canada’s central political traditions.

Yet today the Liberal Party of Canada has become the very thing that it once despised. It was not liberalism that failed, it was the politicians who have bastardized the very meaning of liberalism!

 

Why the right fails to understand the power of ideological possession

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

He is risen: A comparison of two disparate world views

 

Due to the Postmodern secularising of society, we are being confronted by two fundamentally opposing world views. The old Christian world view where man is understood to be essentially flawed such that laws are required to restrain his darker angels versus the so-called Progressive one which asserts that man is essentially good and therefore any problem which confronts humanity must be external to man. This is why the latter view involves governments today in endless attempts at social engineering to force our institutions to address what must not be externalized. While the former understands the only solution to man's fallen nature is Christ. Progressivism is doomed to failure for this very reason since it insists that mankind is essentially good, causing it to externalize all our moral failures onto social structures. Postmodernism rejects the very concept of original sin, which is also why it embraces perversion by calling evil good and good evil while the former Christian view calls us to conversion to Christ to address man’s fallen nature. It is essential this Easter that we remember this since He came to address sin once and for all. Liberty from our fallen nature can only be found in Christ.

Isaiah 5:20 King James Version: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

In sharing these thoughts, I seek to offer a thoughtful and theologically grounded reflection for you to ponder this Easter. There is a sharp, classic contrast between two anthropologies: one rooted in the Christian doctrine of the Fall with human nature as wounded, inclined toward sin, and in need of redemption, and the other in a post-Enlightenment, secular optimism that treats human beings as basically malleable and good. Problems are attributed primarily to faulty systems, institutions, or "structures of oppression." This observation is not new. Augustine articulated something similar in City of God against the Pelagians of his day, who downplayed original sin and emphasized human capacity for self-perfection. Protestant Reformers such as Luther and Calvin doubled down on the idea of total depravity, not as absolute evil, but as a radical corruption affecting every part of us, so that even our best efforts are tainted.

The Progressive impulse I’ve described echoes Rousseau's idea of the "noble savage" corrupted by society, and Marx's view that changing the material conditions, society’s socioeconomic basis, will eventually transform human nature itself. Yet when that doesn't work, the left’s response is invariably more engineering: re-education, speech codes, equity mandates, deconstruction of "problematic" traditions, etc.

This stands in irreconcilable contrast to the unflinching Biblical diagnosis: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). Jesus didn't come primarily to fix bad policies or unjust systems, though He cared about justice; He came to save sinners (Mark 2:17, 1 Timothy 1:15). The solution isn't better management of externals but regeneration from within—"You must be born again" (John 3:7). Easter is therefore the perfect time to remember this: the cross exposes the depth of our problem since our fallen nature required the death of God’s sinless Son while Christ’s resurrection demonstrates the power and finality of God's solution.

Isaiah 5:20 is a piercing warning against the moral inversion of Postmodernism, and it's striking how frequently it gets quoted in cultural commentary today because the pattern of Postmodern failures is so recognizable. The redefining of marriage, gender, the sanctity of life, or basic virtues as "oppressive," while framing license, envy, or ideological conformity as liberation and compassion.

Christianity has always insisted on calling things by their right names, even when it's unpopular. At the same time, a fair-minded observer might note that many Christians aren't immune to externalizing blame by scapegoating "the world," "the liberals," "the elites," or even other Christians. The doctrine of original sin ought to produce humility, first of all in ourselves, not merely a critique of others. Though some secular progressives do acknowledge human nature’s flaws they relocate the fix onto therapy, education, or policy rather than by seeking for Divine Grace.

Why my core point holds: without a realistic view of sin, efforts at utopia tend to breed dystopia, because fallen people wielding unchecked power to "fix" other fallen people rarely ends well. We can see the track record of 20th-century ideological experiments which resulted in multiple millions of deaths and socioeconomic failure as Socialists attempted to prove the unprovable. As Easter approaches, Christianity offers us radical good news: our fallen nature isn't the final word. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22). Liberty isn't found in mastering social structures or self-actualization, but in being mastered by the One who conquered sin and death. He is risen. May that reality ground us amid the confusions of this age!

 

The Red-Green Axis: Predatory Convergence

 

The Red-Green Axis: How Islam and Marxism Converge

The entire world is being driven into madness by people who believe in insanity as a literal way of viewing the world. Ideological possession poses the greatest threat to humanity that has ever existed. It has created a cadre of kakistrocrats, kleptocrats, ideologues, and theocrats who will commit any murderous horror imaginable that is necessary to promote their sick world view. Simply put, the only world view that has ever worked to promote peace is one based upon individual liberty and free market enterprise based on capitalism. This is why the murderous theocracy of Islam sees Marxism as necessary to create the ideal conditions to further its idolatrous world view. Islam and Marxism of necessity become bed fellows despite the fact they contradict one another.

Ideological possession—where abstract doctrines hijack reason, morality, and basic self-preservation—isn't a new human failing, but the scale and speed of its spread today (amplified by technology, institutions, and elite capture) make it uniquely corrosive. When people internalize a totalizing worldview that redefines "good" as whatever advances “The Cause”, atrocities stop feeling like crimes and become sacred duties. History's body count from this pattern is staggering, whether the banner is class struggle, racial purity, divine mandate, or "equity."

Here is why my core claim holds water under scrutiny: the only system that has reliably scaled peace, prosperity, and non-coercive cooperation among strangers is one grounded in individual liberty secured by secure property rights, voluntary exchange, rule of law, and market prices.

Empirically: Societies that moved toward economic freedom (think post-war West Germany, South Korea, Singapore, Estonia, Chile under the Chicago Boys, or even China's partial liberalization) saw explosive poverty reduction, rising life expectancy, and declining internal violence.

Liberal market orders channel self-interest into mutual benefit via the price mechanism and competition; they don't require saints or commissars. They also correlate with the "democratic peace" observation: mature market democracies almost never fight each other.

By contrast, every major experiment in central planning (Marxist or otherwise) or theocratic absolutism has produced mass death, economic collapse, and exportable aggression. The 20th century's socialist tally alone runs well over 100 million dead from famine, purge, and gulag. Islamist regimes add their own ledger—executions, honour killings, terror campaigns, and demographic flight—without ever delivering the earthly paradise they promise.

The marriage of convenience between radical Islam and Marxism is the most glaring illustration of ideological possession overriding logic. They are metaphysically irreconcilable: Marxism is atheistic materialism that abolishes private property, the family as a bourgeois relic, and religion as "opium." Salafi-Jihadist or Khomeinist Islam is theocentric totalism that subordinates everything—including the economy—to sharia, apostasy laws, and the ummah's supremacy.

Yet they sync up like gears because both are revolutionary anti-liberalisms. Their common enemy is the Enlightenment settlement: the sovereign individual, limited government, secular law, and the right to exit or criticize. So, we see the pattern repeat:

Tactical alliances against the Shah in 1979 (Marxist Tudeh and Fedayeen groups cheering Khomeini, then slaughtered).

Soviet arms, training, and propaganda to Arab nationalists and early Islamists as anti-Western proxies.

PLO-era Marxist terror groups morphing into or partnering with Hamas/Hezbollah pipelines.

Today's "red-green" axis in the West: campus Marxists marching shoulder-to-shoulder with Islamist activists, both chanting against "Zionism = capitalism = colonialism," while ignoring the gulags and stonings each would impose on the other if victorious.

This isn't ideological coherence; it's predatory convergence. Both see liberal capitalism as the final barrier to their utopia. Both thrive on grievance, envy, and the sacralization of violence. Both produce kakistocracies (rule by the worst) where competence is subordinated to purity tests. And both recruit the same personality type: the intellectually possessed who would rather burn the world than share it.

The theocrats understand something the Marxists often don't: you can't build the caliphate on a prosperous, free, skeptical populace. Hence the need for engineered scarcity, resentment, and imported Marxist "oppressor/oppressed" framing to soften the ground. The Marxists, in turn, get foot soldiers willing to die for transcendent purpose—something dialectical materialism never quite delivered.

So, I am not wrong that this fusion poses an existential risk greater than any single past threat, because it weaponizes modernity's tools (social media, migration, captured institutions) while rejecting modernity's restraints. The antidote isn't another ideology—it's the unglamorous, empirically tested default of classical liberalism: protect negative rights, enforce contracts, let individuals and markets sort the rest, and defend it ruthlessly against those who would replace it with holy or proletarian dictatorship.

The madness ends when enough people remember that reality doesn't grade on intent, and that the only sustainable peace is the one that lets people disagree, trade, and walk away. Everything else is just theology with better branding. Face it, our universities preach ideological nonsense that has historically failed every time it was applied in practice. This is why they sympathise with murderous Islamic tyranny while condemning the only democracy in the Middle East for protecting itself against those who have sworn to wipe it off the face of the earth. And we wonder why anti-Semitism is out of control on our campuses?

Hermetic Gnosticism, Epstein, and Global Financiers

 

The Global power mongers operate using Hermetics and Gnosticism to hide the fact they are moving us toward a one world Satanic religion. This is being accomplished under the guise of a group of global financial influencers and market manipulators who are using witchcraft to darken minds so that we will willingly surrender our God given autonomy to them and ultimately to their father Beelzebub.

Revelation 13:17 "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

Let’s delve deeper into these ideas:

I want to connect ancient esoteric traditions, modern global finance, and biblical prophecy into a warning about spiritual deception leading to a loss of personal sovereignty. Revelation 13:17 is indeed one of the most discussed verses in eschatological circles, describing an economic system where participation requires allegiance to “the beast”—whether interpreted literally as a mark, name, or number (often linked to 666 in v. 18).

1.     Quick context on the biblical passage

The chapter depicts two “beasts”: one political/military power from the sea and a false prophet from the earth who enforces worship and economic control. The “mark” prevents buying or selling without it. Historic Christian interpretations vary widely:

- “Futurist/premillennial view” (common in evangelical prophecy teaching): A literal end-times global system under Antichrist, possibly involving technology (digital ID, CBDC, implant) that demands loyalty over God.

- “Historicist view”: The beast as successive empires or the papacy in Reformation-era readings; the mark as symbolic compromise.

- “Preterist/symbolic view”: Fulfilled in 1st-century Rome (emperor worship, trade exclusion for Christians); the number 666 as gematria for Nero Caesar.

- “Idealist view”: Timeless principle of any system demanding total allegiance, replacing God with state/idolatry.

No single interpretation is universally held across denominations. But the text itself emphasizes deception, false miracles, and voluntary worship (v. 15–16).

2.     Hermeticism and Gnosticism: What they actually are

- “Hermeticism” comes from texts attributed to “Hermes Trismegistus” (likely 2nd–3rd century AD Egyptian-Greek synthesis).

Core ideas: “As above, so below,” correspondence between macro/microcosm, alchemy as spiritual transformation. It influenced Renaissance magi (Ficino, Pico della Mirandola), Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, and later Theosophy/New Age. These philosophical/mystical ideas focus on inner divinity and natural laws, while many elites and secret societies have studied it (e.g., certain Enlightenment figures). Hermeticism relies on secret rites and rituals aimed at granting the initiate, “secret esoteric knowledge”.

Gnosticism: Was an early Christian-era movement (1st–4th centuries) teaching that the material world is a flawed prison created by a lesser “demiurge,” and salvation comes through secret “gnosis” or knowledge of the true spiritual God. Texts like those from Nag Hammadi show diverse sects, some dualistic and anti-body. Orthodox Christianity has rejected it as heresy since it downgrades the Creator and physical creation. Modern revivals exist in occult circles, and I am about to reveal to you why.

On an aside it should be noted that renowned mathematician and cultural critic Dr. James Lindsay has called Postmodernism and WOKE Marxism as Gnostic heresies. Therefore, Woke Marxism might more accurately be called Woke Gnosticism, though it is technically redundant. Gnosticism is one of the ancient "Esoteric" religions that has spawned cults, some weird and some dangerous, since Antiquity. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets that I’m sharing here, host James Lindsay gives a brief introduction to the Gnostic mindset and why it is the best characterization for the Woke phenomenon, Marxism, and all the rest. You may subscribe to him to gain unprecedented clarity on these issues while you watch his episode on, Gnosticism, Modern and Postmodern at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-vJ_qPPljc

Though these traditions have been cherry-picked by various occultists (i.e. Crowley, Golden Dawn, some New Age authors). I aim to critique the emphasis on hidden knowledge and hidden human potential which is blurred into self-deification in opposition to a being born of the Spirit in Christ.

3.     The financial-centralization angle

Trends toward digital currencies (CBDCs in China, pilots in EU/US/BRICS nations), programmable money, and digital IDs are real and documented by the IMF, BIS, and national banks. Although they promise efficiency and anti-fraud, I raise legitimate worries about:

- Exclusion of the unbanked or the dissenting due to their social credit scores.

- Transaction surveillance.

- Programmable restrictions (e.g., expiring funds, social-credit-style limits).

A cashless society functionally mirrors the “no buying or selling” Biblical scenario. Critics across the political spectrum (libertarians, conservatives, some progressives) warn of eroded autonomy. There is a reason the Globalists all support these things as though they can share the same brain since they partake of the views of their father, who is the fallen god of this age. Although public statements from Davos, IMF, or Fed chairs focus on economics, climate, and inclusion—they obviously ignore the esoteric rituals that the Epstein files have revealed as a hidden agenda consistent with those behind a concerted attack on human sovereignty and Christianity. Occult symbolism in logos or events (e.g., occasional pyramid eyes or “666” coincidences) are often highlighted in prophecy circles. If there was no smoking gun pointing to hidden rituals why do these images consistently appear?

4.     A truth-seeker’s take

- Valid spiritual warning: Scripture repeatedly cautions against idolatry of power, mammon, and systems that demand ultimate loyalty (Daniel 3, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4: Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, ² not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. ³ Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness^[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. ⁴ He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God., Revelation 13). If current trends erode God-given free will and conscience, vigilance is warranted—many faithful Christians see digital control grids as potential infrastructure for the prophesied system.

- Empirical evidence for the grand plot: Coordinated “global power mongers” using Hermetic/Gnostic sorcery for a Satanic one-world religion is seen revealed in Jeffery Epstein’s fascination with Satanic hermetic perversion. Nobody drops cash on books like Modern Sex Magick or Secrets of Western Tantra unless they're fantasizing about doing the rituals. Epstein wasn't some mere armchair mystic. The books teach group sex as power—polarity circles, breath-syncing, energy "transmutation" through multiple bodies. Victims said exactly that: massages turning into forced threesomes, "massage tables" with straps, elites watching or joining. He wasn't reading for fun—he was running rehearsals, then live shows. The "with other people" part? That's where it gets dark. Flight logs, witness accounts, island staff—people like Maxwell, Gates, Prince Andrew, Dershowitz—were there. You wouldn’t be present while this deviance was happening if you were not participating in this behaviour. They all knew the occult angle since Epstein didn't hide his library—he bragged about it. So yes—he practiced occult rituals with victims, and with other financial power brokers. The books weren't used for décor; they were Epstein’s Satanic playbook. Those books weren’t theory, they were manuals. Kraig's Modern Sex Magick spells out how to "charge" a circle with multiple partners, how to bind energy through pain/pleasure, how to invoke "higher forces" via sex. Hyatt's Western Tantra pushes the same: Kundalini, which is the release of dormant, coiled energy at the base of the spine that rises through the “chakras”, causing profound physical, emotional, and spiritual transformation rising through group ritual, while the Tree of Life was used as a map for domination. Epstein had these manuals on his shelf, and the island had rooms set up like altars—mirrors, candles, straps, with no windows. This is Hermetics at its Satanic core. They describe synchronized breathing, forced intimacy, power plays that were staged. The witch Maxwell coached them, then the elites showed up to participate. If it walks like ritual, talks like ritual... the files don't say "Satanic cabal"— but they don't need to. Abusing innocent children in sexual rituals to rob them of their innocence is precisely what was in those books, add this to the behavior this undeniably equals Satanic practice. This is not coincidence, rather we are witnessing a Devilish hermetical cabal of evil designed to pervert and enslave humanity crafted by globalist financiers who without their number stamped on your head you will not be able to buy or sell!

I have drawn from a long tradition of reading current events through a Biblical lens yet just yesterday I was told by an evangelical Christian that my work has nothing to do with preparing the Church to defend the Gospel against these Satanic lies!

Matthew 24:22 King James Bible “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

Pray for the strength to endure the tribulations which are coming upon us. Keep that lamp of Truth burning bright, buy oil from Christ as you keep your wick trimmed to shine in this darkness like a light set on a hill for all to see lest you succumb to the foolishness of the fellow I spoke with yesterday! I know there are many of you who practice a weak and ineffectual faith!

Welcome to lizard mode: living subjectively

 

Today we are witnessing libidinous need to do harm among those who claim to have philanthropic intentions. It is often said that one should follow the money to discover the source of the corruption, but money and power are mere tools being used by those engaged in social engineering to hurt humanity under the guise of being socially responsible. Remember those kids in the playground who got off on pulling the wings off of flies or who hurt little animals because the tiny creatures were incapable of defending themselves against their psychopathic tendencies? Well, the same species of psychopath has grown up and find their ideal social niche in doing harm under the guise of philanthropy and social engineering!

 

The Subjective Lie: How Governments Turn Citizens into Lizards:

 

We’ve all felt it—that low-grade hum of dread that never quite goes away. Not panic, not terror—just a constant, gnawing unease. And it’s not random. It’s engineered.  

 

Modern governments don’t need tanks or gulags anymore. They’ve found something cheaper, cleaner: subjectivity. The idea that truth isn’t fixed. That reality bends to consensus. That what’s “true” today can be “problematic” tomorrow. And every time they sell that lie, they flip a switch in your head—from prefrontal cortex (logic, empathy, planning) to amygdala (fear, rage, survival).  

 

Welcome to lizard mode.  

 

#Step One: Blur the Facts: 

It starts small. A politician says, “This isn’t about facts—it’s about how you “feel”.  A news headline reads, “Experts disagree,” even when evidence which could disprove the sanctioned narrative is deliberately being ignored. Social media algorithms reward outrage over accuracy. Suddenly, the world isn’t made of gravity and math—it’s made of opinions.  

 

And if truth is just opinion? Then nothing’s safe. Your job, your rights, your identity—they’re all up for vote. You start scanning for threats everywhere: the neighbour who supports the wrong candidate, the teacher who refused to use the “correct pronoun”, or the headline that might mean you might be next.  

 

Fear isn’t loud. It’s quiet. It’s the amygdala whispering: “They could rewrite you tomorrow!”  

 

#Step Two: Weaponize Belonging:  

Humans are pack animals. We evolved to conform—because exile meant death. Governments know this. So, they don’t force you. They just make nonconformity hurt.  

 

Call out a lie? You’re “divisive.” Question the narrative? You’re “dangerous.” Refuse to play along? You’re “toxic.” The pack turns. And suddenly, your prefrontal cortex—your reasoning center—feels like a liability. Better to shut it down. Better to rage. Better to scream along.  

 

That’s not weakness. That’s biology. The amygdala doesn’t negotiate. It just wants to survive.  

 

#Step Three: Keep the Fear Simmering:  

They don’t want you terrified—just anxious. Constantly. A little cortisol drip keeps you compliant. So, they feed you contradictions: “We’re safe, but also under siege.” “We’re free but also oppressed.” “The science is settled—until it isn’t.”  

 

Each flip-flop erodes trust. Each erosion pushes you deeper into the lizard brain: fight, flee, or freeze. Never think. Never question. Just react.  

 

And the beauty of it? You do the work. You police yourself. You self-censor. You unfriend the skeptic. You cheer when the “wrong” person gets cancelled. You become the enforcer.  

 

Lizard people don’t need chains. They build their own cages.  

 

#The Endgame:

This isn’t conspiracy—it’s control. A population in amygdala mode doesn’t vote rationally. It votes emotionally. It doesn’t debate—it denounces. It doesn’t solve problems—it punishes them.  

 

And once you’re there, you’re easy. No need for gulags. Just keep the lie alive: “There’s no objective truth.” “Reality is what we say.” “You’re either with us or against us.”  

 

The prefrontal cortex dies quietly. The amygdala takes over. And suddenly, you’re not a citizen anymore. You’re a reflex. A follower. A lizard.  

 

But here’s the glitch: some of us refuse. We hate the blur. We hate the fear. We hate being told “it depends.” Because we know—truth isn’t subjective. It’s either true or it isn’t.  

 

And the second we say that out loud? The spell cracks!  

 

So, keep saying it. Keep standing outside the pack. Keep your lights on.  

 

Because the lizard brain only wins if everyone joins the chorus.  

 

And as for me? I’m not singing. I hope that you will refuse to echo the lies too.

 

#Who invented the endgame?

 

Here are the big names who shaped “Postmodern Cultural Relativism”—folks who argued truth, morality, and meaning aren’t universal but depend on context, power, language, and culture:

 

·       Michel Foucault 

  Power/knowledge combo—everything from prisons to sexuality is shaped by shifting discourses. No "objective" truth, just who controls the story.

 

·       Jacques Derrida 

  Deconstruction king. Words never pin down meaning; everything’s slippery, full of contradictions. Relativism baked into language itself.

 

·       Jean-François Lyotard

  Coined "postmodern condition"—said grand narratives (Marxism, science, progress) are dead. Knowledge is local, fragmented, legit only in its own game.

 

·       Richard Rorty

  American pragmatist twist: truth is what works in a community, not what matches reality. Irony and solidarity over absolute foundations.

 

·       Jean Baudrillard

  Hyperreality guy—reality’s been replaced by signs and simulations. Culture’s a hall of mirrors; nothing’s "real" anymore.

 

·       Fredric Jameson 

  Marxist lens on postmodernism: late capitalism turns everything into pastiche, depthless images. Relativism as symptom, not solution.

 

·       Judith Butler 

  Gender as performance—identity is not fixed, it’s scripted by culture. Pushes relativism into bodies and norms.

 

If you want the "purest" relativists, Foucault and Derrida are the spine—everyone else riffed off them? We must ask why would anyone wish to pull the carpet out from underneath the feet of our understanding of reality itself?

 

A Scriptural Perspective:

 

From a Christian perspective, the idea that “truth is relative” is consistently rejected as a Satanic lie. The Bible presents truth as “objective, grounded in God’s character”, and knowable rather than something that shifts with personal preference or cultural mood. Here are the main ways Scripture addresses this idea.

 

#1. Truth is objective and rooted in God

 

The Bible does not treat truth as something humans invent. It presents truth as something that “exists independently of us”, because it comes from God.

 

·       John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”  Jesus does not say he teaches truth or offers one version of it; he identifies himself “as” truth.

 

·       Numbers 23:19: God is not described as flexible or contradictory; His word is dependable.

 

·       In Biblical thought, truth is not relative because God is not relative.

 

 

#2. Relativism is portrayed as moral confusion

 

Scripture often describes societies that reject objective truth as drifting into disorder and injustice.

 

·       Judges 21:25: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”   This verse is not praise; it summarizes a period of moral collapse in Israel.

 

·       Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”  This directly addresses the reversal of moral standards—one of the outcomes of relativism.

 

The Bible links “everyone defining truth for themselves” with social and spiritual breakdown.

 

#3. The Bible anticipates resistance to absolute truth

 

Scripture explicitly warns that people will prefer subjective or comforting beliefs over truth.

 

·       2 Timothy 4:3–4: People will gather teachers who tell them what they want to hear and will *“turn away from the truth.”*

 

·       John 18:38:  Pilate’s question, “What is truth?”, is often read as cynical or dismissive, reflecting skepticism rather than sincere inquiry.

 

Relativism, in this view, is not presented as intellectual progress but as “avoidance of uncomfortable truth”.

 

# 4. Relativism is linked to rejecting God, not ignorance

 

The Bible does not frame relativism primarily as a lack of information, but as a “choice”.

 

·       Romans 1:18–25: describes people who “suppress the truth” and exchange it for substitutes that suit them better.

 

This passage suggests that denying objective truth is tied to rejecting God’s authority, not merely philosophical disagreement.

 

# In summary:

 

According to the Bible:

 

·       Truth is “real, objective, and grounded in God”

·       Relativism is portrayed as “confusion”, not freedom

·       Denying truth is linked to “moral and spiritual consequences”

·       The proper response is “faithfulness to truth paired with humility and love”

 

So here are some memes that I have created that pinpoint the nauseating contradictions of Postmodern Cultural Relativism:

 

~ I exist to distill truth to cure the WOKE mind virus. Money & power are mere tools to fulfill psychopaths' libidinous need to do harm!

 

~ Limited responsible government becomes functionally impossible when subjective feelings trump objective reality!

 

~ No one with good intentions appeals to emotion as a substitute for using reason based on ethics, epistemology, & ontology.

 

~ A psyop attacking the reason & empathy of the prefrontal cortex is allowing the fear & rage of the amygdala to assume control.