Category Archives: Culture war

Free Speech Issues

1. ‘How Not to Launch a Global Anti-Censorship Movement’, writes CJ Hopkins here.

Quote: “The people that no one has ever heard of are not stupid. They know the difference between a serious anti-censorship campaign and a vanity project. There’s still time for Mike to turn this thing around, let go of the reins, stop sucking up to the mainstream establishment, and reach out to the masses. Honestly, I hope he will. I wish him and the London gang success. There are millions of people out there who would get on board with a grassroots campaign opposing the Censorship Industrial Complex, but, to get them on board, you have to let go of the wheel and let them steer the ship.”

2. ‘UK quietly passes “Online Safety Bill” into law’, writes Kit Knightly here.

Quote: “This is clearly a response to Covid, or rather the failure of Covid. Essentially, the pandemic narrative broke because the current mechanisms of censorship didn’t work well enough. In response, the government has just legalised and out-sourced their silencing of dissent.

Interesting quote from Charles Darwin

In his "Journal of a Voyage Round the World", he praised Christian culture and the work of missionaries.

In his book “The Mission of God” (Wilberforce Publications, London 2016), the author Joseph Boot quotes Darwin. On page 381 of that book, he introduces the quote thus:

On his world voyage on the HMS Beagle, Charles Darwin, despite his growing agnosticism and deistic religious confusion, found himself unable to overlook the profound impact of Christian missionaries in Tahiti and the Pacific Islands. In the first work he ever wrote, before the implications of his theory gripped and ruled him, Darwin’s Christianized background caused him to rain praise on the evangelical missionary.

There follows this quote, which, according to the endnote, is from

Charles Darwin: Journal of a voyage round the world (London: T. Nelson and Sons, Paternoster Row, 1890), 496-947.

This is it:

It appears to me that the morality and religion of the inhabitants are highly creditable. There are many who attack … both the missionaries, their system, and the effects produced by it. Such reasoners never compare the present state with that of the Island only twenty years ago, nor even with that of Europe at this day; but they compare it with the high standard of gospel perfection … [T]hey forget, or will not remember, that human sacrifices, and the power of an idolatrous priesthood – a system of profligacy unparalleled in any other part of the world – infanticide, a consequence of that system – bloody wars, where the conquerors spared neither women nor children – that all these have been abolished, and that dishonesty, intemperance, and licentiousness have been greatly reduced, by the introduction of Christianity. In a voyager to forget these things is base ingratitude; for should he chance to be at the point of shipwreck on some unknown coast, he will most devoutly pray that the lesson of the missionary may have extended thus far … [T]hose who are most severe should consider how much of the morality of the women in Europe is owing to the system early impressed by mothers on their daughters, and how much in each individual case to the precepts of religion. But it is useless to argue against such reasoners; – I believe that, disappointed in not finding the field of licentiousness quite so open as formally, they will not give credit to a morality which they do not wish to practice, or to a religion which they undervalue, if not despise. 

Interview with Rvd. Dr. Joseph Boot

Author or The Mission of God

Boot was recently interviewed by Revelation TV.

Here are my notes:

How do we address the culture we’re living in?

JB: In the Western World, the objections to Christianity have been changing. 27 or so years ago, the focus was still on questions such as “does God exist”, “what about evil and suffering”, “is Jesus the only way to God”. Objections have changed, in university, media etc, people are not literate in theological points to ask these questions any more. The challenges are now civilizational. Christianity is deemed imperialistic, colonial, oppressive, anti-choice, misogynistic, transphobic etc. These are the kind of questions the pagan world asked Christians in Augustine’s time. He in turn wrote as an answer to these questions the tome “The City of God”.

We need a cultural apologetic to the challenges of our time.

The challenge to Christianity now is that Christianity itself is deemed evil.

What we’re facing now is radical de-Christianisation, it’s a revolutionary movement. It began in Europe with the French Revolution, which was the political expression of the philosophy of the enlightenment. Reason leading to the autonomy of man. Existence precedes essence. We’re not image-bearers of God, we are merely a choice, standing on the edge of the abyss. Everything’s about me. Then there was the neo-Marxist movement, the Frankfurt School which gave us Critical Theory, everything is socially constructed. The male Christian is the oppressor. The oppressed must become the oppressor.

The opposite movement to that has been the retreat of the church.

The Ezra Institute is trying to put some backbone back into the church. What does it truly mean to be a Christian? Great Commission. We’ve retreated from externalising the faith. Culture is religion externalised. We’ve left the various institutions of cultural life to the forces of secularism, humanism and paganism. We’ve sent our children to Caesar to be educated and are shocked that they return as Romans.

We’ve reduced Christianity to personal salvation and neglected that we pray “Your Kingdom come, your will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven”. We’ve surrendered Jesus’ Lordship over all life.

The temptation for the church has always been to be synthesised with the culture around it. This happened when the pagan elites became Christianised. They wanted to synthesise their culture. Roman Catholicism was a synthesised culture. Then the Reformation came along. And with that the rediscovery that Jesus is the king of kings. Meaning that in economics, law, education, political life, in the arts etc. we must bring to bear the claims of the Lord Jesus.

What we’re saying in the West now is that we like the fruits of Christendom: Freedom, the rule of law, economic prosperity, peace and stability, etc. But we don’t want the root, which is Christ. We thought we could retain those things without the Gospel of Jesus Christ and submission to his word. We’ve been living off the energy of Christendom for a long time. We now find the Christian capital so eroded we’re in a crisis spiritually.

What principle markers should we be looking for in the path to recovery?

We need to recognise that Jesus is not just our saviour, but also our Lord. Christ is not just redeemer, he is also creator. He is Lord over all areas of life, not just in the church and a little bit in the family.

Our situation is like in a double-decker bus. Where in the upper deck we do the spiritual disciplines. In the lower deck we have the “secular area” which can be governed by the neutral forces of reason. Problem: That’s where the driver is. And it’s driving off a cliff. Paul says be transformed by the Holy Spirit and present your bodies as a living sacrifice.

That means take off that upper deck altogether. Just have one deck. It’s called the Kingdom of God. No area of life is outside the Kingdom rule and reign of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We’ve lost the Christian life view. Human existence is in every area a response to the Word of God. You can’t have Christian action if you don’t have Christian thinking. Young, enthusiastic Christians who want to do something end up doing things with are “Karl Marx baptised” or some other world-life view sprinkled with some Christian name. We’ve got to recover a Christian world and life view so we can act and live Christianly.

We’re currently not the salt and light of the culture.

There’s the elements of Prophet, Priest and King. It’s the King element that’s missing. My father was told “we shouldn’t be interested in property”. He said: “Well the devil is.”

Every square inch of the universe is contested between Christ and the Enemy. People want to stay on the mountain, have the sort of monastic life. No, you have to come down from the mountain and deal with the boy possessed by an evil spirit.

“Antiracism” Sounds Benign

Writes Tom Woods:

I’d like to introduce you to somebody you should know.

The name will not be familiar. But it should be.

I’ve had Wanjiru Njoya on the Tom Woods Show, and I’ve been following her ever since. She does not care what people think of her, and speaks blunt truths because somebody has to.

Let’s get her credentials and background out of the way: Njoya is originally from Kenya, where she attended the University of Nairobi. She is currently a senior lecturer at the University of Exeter Law School, UK, and a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

She previously taught law at St. John’s College, Oxford, the London School of Economics, and Queen’s University, Canada. She has published widely in employment law and labor regulation.

She’s been an outspoken opponent of egalitarianism, censorship, “hate speech” nonsense, “antiracism,” and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) in the workplace.

Of course, as an academic, she’s been published plenty in professional journals. But here I’ve stitched together material she’s posted over the past day or so on Twitter:

Did you know there are actual Departments of Hate Studies? Do you think you will win any argument about the meaning of “hate” against people who spent years learning CRT and now have a PhD in Hate Studies? While you were busy living your life, they were busy studying Hate.

They’re known as Hate Experts, and they’re now saying people should be jailed for “hate speech.” You may think you stand a chance debating with them the definition of “hate” because you’ll win them over with reason and logic, but you’d be wrong. Hate Studies isn’t about reason.

The rule of law is failing. Legal concepts are increasingly defined by people with PhDs in Hate Studies. Lawyers argue in court that white people mourning the death of their loved ones is “selective outrage,” as they should be mourning the historical grievances of black people.

Example [from South Africa]: “Kill the Boer is just a song. Why should Boers care about the killing of Boers? That’s selective outrage. What about my historical grievances and my land stolen in 1652? Ban the old flag; it makes me feel very unsafe when I see it displayed anywhere.” That is insane.

Example 2: people saying whiteness is psychosis, and you’re meant to treat that as a perfectly sane argument.

A civil servant sued the government for race discrimination, [on account of] DEI training that included “The Psychosis of Whiteness,” a paper which suggests white people are “psychotic, cannot be reasoned with and must be destroyed.”

The tribunal says: that’s fine, it’s just a paper, it’s not discrimination.

What can you do to help? You can’t go everywhere and fight every battle. But you can stand where you are and say no to antiracism and DEI. If more people said no they wouldn’t be as powerful as they are. Part of their power comes from the fact that most people go along with it.

If you’re still saying “well, antiracism has some good aspects and DEI could work very well if it’s done properly” then you are part of the problem.

Next time you’re sitting in your mandatory DEI training learning all about “white privilege” think about those white families in South Africa mourning the loss of their children, only to be told that’s “selective outrage” and in any case white children are just “future problems.”

Imagine not even being able to mourn the loss of your own children, your own family, because that’s “selective outrage.” Instead of expressing sympathy for your loss they tell you “land or death.” This level of horror is not even “hate speech.” It’s simply unimaginable evil.

This insanity runs very deep, and there’s nothing anybody can do to uproot it. Anybody who sees white children as “future problems” really can’t be won over with fine arguments. The best thing to do is to stop encouraging them. Yet DEI ideology does the opposite. It fuels them.

[TW note: The “future problems” remark is a reference to comments from members of the Black First Land First (BLF) party, one of whom reacted to the news of at least three white children having died after a bridge collapsed at their school by saying, “Don’t have heart to feel pain for white kids. Minus three future problems.” Another said, “I celebrate the death of our enemies, their children, their cats and dogs. That is our position.”]

Not only are they killing white farmers, but they get offended when their families express grief and sorrow. They say that’s “selective outrage.” “Why are you sad your parents were killed? That’s selective outrage because you don’t seem sad about all the black victims of crime.”

South African courts are not sure whether there’s any link between chanting “Kill the Boer” and the killing of Boers, as they say it’s just a song. But the same courts are very sure that if any black person sees the old South African flag they’ll melt, so they banned the flag.

That’s a sampling.

Jordan Peterson on Canada and the West in general

In this 25 minute video interview with a journalist from the Telegraph, he says, among other things, that the predictors of “left-wing authoritarianism” are: 1. low verbal intelligence, 2. being a woman, 3. having feminine traits, 4. having taken part in a “political correctness” course.

The traits of such people are the “dark tetrad”: 1. narcissism, 2. Machiavellianism, 3. psychopathy and 4. sadism,

There is always a small number of psychopaths, about 3 percent, in every society. If they rise to 5 percent, people realise there is a problem (“we have to beat back the snakes”) and they beat them back. If they fall to 1 percent, people lose their guard and become “too nice”, which the psychopaths exploit, so they grow back again to 3 or more percent.

We’re in a post-Christian era. He also talks about Covid, climate change and “group rights” (which are an oxymoron because there is no such thing as group responsibilities).

The new Stasi is the old Stasi, refined

A past warning from GDR civil rights campaigner

In 1991[!], shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, a former GDR leading civil rights campaigner named Bärbel Bohley uttered this warning:

“All these investigations, the thorough research into the Stasi structures, the methods with which they worked and still work, all this will fall into the wrong hands. One will examine these structures in detail – in order to then take them over. They will be adapted a little to suit a free Western society.

They won’t necessarily arrest the troublemakers either. There are more subtle ways to disarm someone. But the secret bans, the watching, the suspicion, the fear, the isolation and exclusion, the branding and muzzling of those who don’t conform – that will come back, believe me. Institutions will be created that will work much more effectively, much more finely than the Stasi. The constant lying will also come back, the disinformation, the fog in which everything loses its contour.”

Quote (in German) found here.

A Draconian New Law Went Into Effect on August 25th That Institutes Extreme Censorship of the Internet on a Global Basis

Article by Michael Snyder.


The Internet just changed forever, but most people living in the United States don’t even realize what just happened.  A draconian new law known as the “Digital Services Act” went into effect in the European Union on Friday, and it establishes an extremely strict regime of Internet censorship that is far more authoritarian than anything we have ever seen before.  From this point forward, hordes of European bureaucrats will be the arbiters of what is acceptable to say on the Internet.  If they discover something that you have said on a large online platform that they do not like, they can force that platform to take it down, because someone in Europe might see it.  So even though this is a European law, the truth is that it is going to have a tremendous impact on all of us.

Initially, there will be 19 giant online platforms that will be forced to comply with this new law…

But starting on February 24th, 2024, the Digital Services Act will start applying to a much broader spectrum of online platforms that have fewer than 45 million monthly users.

You might be tempted to think that you will be able to avoid all of this censorship because you do not live in Europe. Unfortunately, that is simply not true. If you post something that someone in Europe might see, your content comes under the jurisdiction of this horrifying new law. So you need to brace yourself for a level of Internet censorship that none of us have ever seen before.

From this point forward, it is going to become much more difficult to share alternative views on the Internet.

For a long time, the Internet allowed ordinary people like you and ordinary people like me to share truth with a world that was desperate for it.

But now the gatekeepers are exerting a draconian level of control, and the Internet will never, ever be the same again.

Something is happening in Argentina

They may be about to elect the world's first AnCap president

Says Doug Casey in this interview.


Milei is totally sound from an economic, political, and a philosophical point of view. But—and this is critically important—he’s sound from a moral point of view.

He deals in basic concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. That’s something that no politician anywhere discusses, certainly not in South America. It’s the equivalent of hitting a donkey between the eyes with a two-by-four to get his attention. Everyone intuitively understands that the political class is essentially criminal—but only Milei is brave enough to say it. The average guy wants to do the right thing, the moral thing. That’s what Milei is pointing out to people and why they like him. He doesn’t use doubletalk, brook compromise, or support half measures.