Let me begin with the following admonitions which ought to
set up todays vodcast nicely. It will also serve to sort the wheat fro the
chaff as it were since many of you will listen no further!
Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no
God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that
doeth good.”
Deuteronomy 32:18 - “You neglected the Rock who begot
you, And forgot the God who gave you birth.”
Jeremiah 6:10 - “To whom shall I speak and give warning
That they may hear? Behold, their ears are closed And they cannot listen.
Behold, the word of the Lord has become a reproach to them; They have no
delight in it.”
My thoughts on the abattoir in Southport and the radical
Marxist agenda that made it possible:
Regarding the brutal Satanic butchering of three innocent children
by Axel Muganwa Rudakubana where three children were hacked to death, two of
them, aged six and seven years, died on Monday, the third, a girl aged nine
years, died Tuesday morning as a result of injuries sustained during the knife
attack, Merseyside Police said in a statement. Eight other children were
injured, five of them critically. Two adults were also injured while trying to
protect the children and are also in critical condition, according to the
police. This tragic incident in Southport which involved girls who were
attending a Taylor Swift-themed dance class at The Hart Space community centre.
The heinous slaughter of Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe, and Alice Dasilva
Aguiar provides further proof that unchecked immigration from war torn
countries is the actual issue we are facing in the West. And behind these
immigration policies lies a Neo-Marxist agenda known as Critical Race Theory. Any
thinking person is forced to conclude what I have been stating for well over a
decade is factual, that murderous medieval cultures are completely at odds with
Western Christian values.
So obviously the question remains as to what motivated what
became an abattoir in a dance class? My answer is that it matters little, punishment
and law enforcement however do matter. And the outrage of the British people
matters! We are witnessing an opprobrium which is boiling over into the streets
even as Starmer’s Stasi proclaim that the “far right” is the real problem.
Axel Muganwa Rudakubana was named as the murderer on Monday.
He was raised by Rwandans who came to Britain in the nineties. The specific
circumstances of why they came are still unknown to the public, but it is
connected to the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which somewhere between 600,000 and
800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in 100 days of unimaginable savagery, much of
it committed with machetes and other cutting weapons. Many people,
understandably, asked if the killer was a convert to radical Islam; after all,
the nature of the murders had all the hallmarks of an Islamic terror attack.
That seems less likely now, especially as Rwanda is majority Christian, and
Rudakubana is not a Muslim name. But here’s another theory, was he radicalised,
or inspired if you prefer, by stories of what happened in Rwanda?
Now as to Critical Race Theory and its affect on civil
society
Critical Race Theory has led Great Britian and many other
Western countries into a two-tiered system of law enforcement where if you’re
are considered by the authorities as a member of the under-class you will be
given preferential treatment under the law. Cultural Marxist Critical Race
Theory is leading to the death and murder of innocents and the nation raging in
opposition to an ideology which has divided society into an us versus them mentality.
Despite the authorities mischaracterizing the protestors, the majority of folks
at the London protest of July 31st were not in any way violent
rather its leaders’ shouted Christ is King while calling for solidarity and
calm. You should not be feeling unsafe in our motherland was the theme promoted
by the protest’s leaders. I assure you when people declare in unison that
Christ is King in opposition to their corrupt Neo-Marxist leaders who have
perverted Britain into an aberration of its Christian heritage while promoting
CRT then God Himself will move heaven and earth to stop their Cultural Marxist
march through our sacred institutions! Watch for yourselves live footage from
the protest to see the police acting as enforcers of the state’s radical agenda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0X4uPjcEsE
As to the
origin of Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT is an interdisciplinary academic
field that originated in the mid-1970s. It was developed by several American
legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, and Kimberlé Crenshaw,
among others¹². CRT examines the ways in which race and racism intersect with
other forms of social stratification, such as class, gender, and disability¹.
The
theory emerged as a response to what its founders saw as the limitations of the
civil rights movement and traditional legal approaches to addressing racial
inequalities¹². It draws from critical theory and critical legal studies, and
it challenges the idea that the law is neutral and objective¹².
Source:
Conversation with Copilot, 2024-08-03
(1)
Critical race theory - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory.
(2)
Critical race theory (CRT) | Definition, Principles, & Facts. https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory.
(3)
Critical race theory: the concept dividing the US - BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57908808.
The entire point of these social engineers is that the Cultural
Marxist social revolution is never ending. Its entire purpose is to be an ongoing
process of self deprecation which actually never intends to achieve its ends since
social revolution is their goal.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) and critical multiculturalism
are often promoted together because they share common goals and principles.
Both frameworks aim to address and dismantle systemic inequities and biases in
society, particularly those related to race, class, and gender.
**Critical Race Theory** focuses on understanding and
challenging the ways in which race and racism intersect with other forms of
social stratification to create and maintain inequality¹. It emphasizes that
racism is not just an individual bias but is embedded in legal systems,
policies, and institutions.
**Critical Multiculturalism**, on the other hand, seeks
to highlight and address structural inequities across various dimensions,
including race, class, and gender, to promote a more equitable distribution of
power and resources³. It goes beyond celebrating cultural diversity to
critically examine and challenge the power dynamics that marginalize certain
groups.
The promotion of both CRT and critical multiculturalism
by the same advocates is often due to their shared commitment to social justice
and equity. By integrating these frameworks, educators, policymakers, and
activists aim to create more inclusive and equitable environments in schools,
workplaces, and communities²³.
Source: Conversation with Copilot, 8/3/2024
(1) The State of Critical Race Theory in Education. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/edcast/22/02/state-critical-race-theory-education.
(2) Critical multiculturalism — Beautiful Trouble. https://beautifultrouble.org/toolbox/tool/critical-multiculturalism.
(3) Critical Multiculturalism | Theory and Praxis |
Stephen May, Christine. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9780203858059/critical-multiculturalism-stephen-may-christine-sleeter.
(4) Reconciling Multiculturalism from a Critical Race
Perspective. https://www.ship.edu/globalassets/proteus/volume24.2-31-hairston.pdf.
(5) Introduction: Critical Race Theory in Education:
Theory, Praxis, and .... https://www.jstor.org/stable/42978078.
(6) undefined. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203858059.
How
Europe lost faith in multiculturalism
A nuanced history of an often simplistic debate argues
against ‘muscular liberalism’
By Malise Ruthven published on August 24 2017
https://www.ft.com/content/dd122a8c-8720-11e7-8bb1-5ba57d47eff7
“In October 2010 Angela Merkel, leader of Europe’s most
powerful country, made a ringing declaration: “The multicultural concept is a
failure, an absolute failure.” Four months later, Britain’s then prime
minister, David Cameron, endorsed her approach, calling for “a lot less of the
passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism”.
Within days France’s then president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had joined the chorus,
suggesting on television that “we’ve been too concerned about the identity of
new arrivals and not enough about the identity of the country receiving them”.
This last intervention, as historian Rita Chin points out in her lucid and
erudite overview of the debate, was somewhat surprising, given that “over many
decades France had explicitly refused to consider multiculturalism as a guiding
principle”.
While referring to Islamist terrorist atrocities in
Paris, Brussels and Berlin, Chin’s The Crisis of Multiculturalism in Europe
went to press too soon to note that during the election campaign that won him
the presidency this year, France’s Emmanuel Macron enraged his rightwing
critics by apologising for the “crime” of colonialism in Algeria, indicating
that his government would seek to “help with Muslim integration”.
“Integration”, of course, may run contrary to the
multicultural idea. The Nationality Commission set up by Jacques Chirac as
French prime minister in 1987 sought the “national integration” of Algerian and
other non-European incomers according to a historical pattern by which regional
minorities such as Bretons, Corsicans or Occitans were transformed into modern
citizens sharing common characteristics — as historian Eugen Weber famously put
it, turning “peasants into Frenchmen”.
Central to this is the idea of laïcité, a word usually
translated as “secularism” but with stronger ideological connotations. As Chin
notes, the French term conveys an ideal of church-state separation designed not
so much to ensure the protection of an individual’s religious beliefs (as in
the US) but to secure their “full allegiance to the state by counter-acting
religious prejudice”. Full allegiance demands a ban on “ostentatious” symbols
of religious affiliation such as large crosses, kippahs and, above all, the
“Muslim” headscarf.
In her survey of the complex and sometimes bizarre
arguments surrounding the question of the foulard, as banned for girls in state
schools, Chin shows how French commentators on both right and left tend to view
the headscarf as a symbol of patriarchal oppression, while ignoring the
possibility that for some wearers, at least, it may be a demonstration of
self-empowerment.
In contrast to France, both Britain and Germany adopted
positive approaches to multiculturalism — a trend that now appears to be in
retreat. Given their legal status as Commonwealth subjects, most of the
ex-colonials who arrived in the UK after the second world war were formally
entitled to the same rights as others, a factor that Chin suggests made
“immigrants in Britain somewhat bolder in their critiques and more efficacious
in their demands” than their French and German counterparts, enabling them to
take a more “active role in shaping the way diversity was managed”.
A turning point came with the Rushdie affair in the
1990s. The protests against The Satanic Verses — the novel in which Salman
Rushdie was accused of lampooning the Prophet Mohammed — “dramatically
transformed” immigration politics in Britain, shifting the focus of calls for
greater integration from Afro-Caribbeans to Asian Muslims, who were “suspected
of introducing religious fundamentalism and violence into a tolerant liberal
polity”. Chin suggests that by re-casting the debate on immigration in terms of
“liberal values”, British commentators subtly placed Rushdie’s immigrant
critics outside the bounds of the British cultural consensus.
Initially West Germany’s approach was different, with the
guest-worker programme regarded as a win-win means of building the postwar
economy while shedding the Nazi legacy. However, the new conception of
“culture” by which ministers could laud “the rapprochement between persons of
highly diverse backgrounds and cultures” betrayed “an underlying sense of
essential, unchanging difference”. Viewed in this light, the multicultural
mantra was a clever way of hiding the ethnically determined basis of German identity.
But is multiculturalism really dead, or are rumours of
its demise premature? Chin’s account of non-occidental immigration to leading
western European countries since the second world war (focusing primarily on
Britain, France and Germany, with sideways glances at Switzerland and the
Netherlands) does a good job by setting out the terms in which the debate has
been conducted. Her conclusion is sensible, if nuanced: “What a historical
perspective makes clear is that we need to uphold both liberal conceptions of
individual freedom and pluralistic communitarianism”, with each acting as a
check on the other.”
Here we can clearly see that the authorities understood CRT
and its Multiculturalist agenda were not working yet since these policies weren’t
working and conflicted with their Cultural Marxist agenda the going cultural Marxist
Revolution had to trump the obvious and blatant failures of CRT and Multiculturalism.
Keir Starmer has simply further radicalized this process in Britain. He is
committed to pursuing a murderous Neo-Marxist agenda which can only result in
further violence from immigrant communities which has created a potential powder
keg of explosive counter-revolution from the British people whom he labels as “far-right”
for wanting to live under a Rule of Law which applies equally to all.
So, what does Keir Starmer actually want? The UK’s new
Labour prime minister is usually described as moderate, pragmatic and
non-ideological. Here, historian and broadcaster David Starkey argues that this
is an illusion. Starmer, Starkey explains, is a fierce anti-democrat. He wants
to transfer power from the UK’s elected parliament to unelected bodies, from
the courts to the civil service to the quangos. His party will establish the
supremacy of the ‘Blob’, all while cracking down hard on free speech. Our democracy
and liberty are in peril. Watch, share and be sure to subscribe to our YouTube
channel. Listen to Dr. Starkey’s assessment at this link: https://youtu.be/srz2JRNxVg0?si=irfuvegIPpViv5Xb
My final thoughts:
Secularism cannot replace Christianity. Every single
principle of individual dignity and liberty flows from our faith in Christ. We
will witness the fulfillment of Jeremiah 8:9 where wise men will be put to
shame, dismayed and caught, since they have rejected the word of the Lord! For what
kind of wisdom do they have when their wisdom has resulted in the slaughter of
innocents? Christ is indeed King. Let us loudly declare it for then and only
then will we see limited constitutional government under the Rule of Law restored.
No comments:
Post a Comment