Politics

God is God—Government is Not

Posted on by kmahlburg

I’ve noticed something, and I’m sure you have too. We’re facing a time of major cultural upheaval across the Western world. Divisions run deep, and the cultural rifts that have long sat silent beneath our feet are emerging in the light of COVID-19 and the U.S. election.

When the world around us starts to shake, we naturally feel around for something to hold on to. And in a secular age, one of the most obvious stabilising forces for us is politics. More than I can ever remember, we seem to be hoping for political solutions to our crises, and are forgetting the healthy limits of government.

With our tax dollars, governments provide important services that the private sector could never manage alone—from healthcare to policing to infrastructure and more. We need government. But we also need to resist the temptation to ask government for everything—and to protect us from everything.

Like the proverbial 40-year-old still living in his parents’ basement, it’s easy to expect our governments to meet every need that charities, businesses or we ourselves might have provided in a past age. We are especially at risk when we ask the government to save us from the consequences of our own unpredictable and unhealthy lifestyles.

We could go on outsourcing our needs to bigger budgets and more powerful bureaucrats, and in doing so, we would find short-term solutions to our problems. But we’d also build for ourselves a suffocating surveillance state and be tempting tyranny. Thomas Jefferson wisely warned that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

Last century, many nations responded to their times of cultural upheaval by turning to politics as an all-encompassing solution. But it ended in terrible bloodshed.

The scourges of fascism and communism seem like a mystery to us until we realise that their infamous leaders won the trust of the masses with grand promises. So great were their promises that the only way to fulfil them was for their nations to become totalitarian—to make every aspect of life the concern of government. As C.S. Lewis sagely warned,

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive … those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It’s not as though tyranny is just around the corner for us (though recent events in Victoria rightly have many Australians concerned). Still, for the health of our democracies and for our own headspace, we need to return to some basic truths.

The human race was made to need God. In the modern era, we have put God at a distance, or we have redefined him as a kind of impersonal force that isn’t too concerned with everyday human affairs.

The disappearance of faith from the West is why we are so tempted by political solutions today. In the absence of God, the State feels like the next best thing; the most powerful alternative to God that can fill the empty void above us.

But political solutions are only temporary—and they can be both divisive and dangerous.

We will always have to deal with politics and government. Even Jesus told us to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s—whether our taxes, or in a democratic age, our votes. But we have a higher hope than politics: the God who is there. Most important of all is that we render to God the things that are God’s.

Even as we live out our days in these unstable and earthly kingdoms, God invites us to find our stability in his unseen, eternal kingdom.

As Psalm 20 reminds us, “In times of trouble, may the Lord answer your cry. May the name of the God of Jacob keep you safe from all harm… Some nations boast of their chariots and horses, but we boast in the name of the Lord our God.” (Psalm 20:1,7).

An eternal perspective has very practical benefits. It reminds us that the utopia we naturally long for is coming and therefore doesn’t need to be attempted down here. (This is a relief, given how many of our past attempts at it have ended in disaster). It is also a warning to would-be tyrants that they won’t escape judgment.

Faith in God also safeguards us from having our opinions assigned to us by “the powers that be”. If we are all made in God’s image, then each person has the freedom to form their own opinions, and the government has an obligation to protect that freedom.

Most important of all, knowing that we are citizens of heaven allows us to lift our eyes above the debates and divisions of the day and find our hope and security in God himself. C.S. Lewis had wisdom on this, too:

“If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.”

Meet the Atheists Who Are Grateful for Christianity

Posted on by kmahlburg

The Australian journalist Greg Sheridan has quipped that these days, “the academic fashion is to attack Western civilisation, not study it.”

With historic statues being trashed and toppled around the western world, and accusations of systemic racism being levelled against the fairest societies that history has produced, Sheridan couldn’t be more right.

Sadly, those trying to erase our history seem unaware that the ideals they claim to stand for—like equality, human dignity, science and human rights—arose uniquely in the West. Not only that—these values owe much of their existence to Christianity.

Over the last decade, there has been a flood of scholarly publications that highlight the Christian roots of Western Civilisation. Christian academics like Vishal Mangalwadi, Rodney Stark, Larry Siedentop and Nick Spencer have written prolifically on this topic.

But there are also many atheists and skeptics who credit the West’s successes to the Christian faith. The author Tom Holland, with his recent book Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (2019), is one of them.

The ancient world is a familiar place to Holland, who has spent the better part of fifteen years studying and writing about it. As an atheist, Holland had assumed that cultures like ancient Rome were the wellspring of his western values. But the more he examined these societies with all their vice and cruelty, the more alien they felt to him.

Take, for example, the emperor Commodus (AD 161-192). For a gladiatorial contest, Commodus once had all those with disabilities rounded up from the streets of Rome and tied together in the shape of a human. Entering the Colosseum, Commodus clubbed them to death before cheering crowds, proudly announcing that he had ‘slain a giant’.

Or consider Rome’s sexual ethics. Men had immense sexual freedom, while a woman who was unfaithful to her husband could be divorced in a heartbeat or killed with impunity. Sexual relationships between adult men and prepubescent boys were acceptable and even idealised. 

According to Holland, “Sex in Rome was above all an exercise of power. As captured cities were to the swords of the legions, so the bodies of those used sexually… were to the Roman man. To be penetrated, male or female, was to be branded as inferior: to be marked as womanish, barbarian, servile.”

Realising that his own values contrasted sharply with those of the classical world, Tom Holland was eager to discover what had shaped him. The result of that fifteen-year search was his aforementioned book, Dominion, which he has summarised like this: 

“I have come to the conclusion that in almost all the essentials, myself, my friends, the society in which I live—the whole of the West—is so saturated in Christian assumptions, it is almost impossible to remove ourselves from them.”

Though he is still an atheist, Holland has written, “In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.”

But Tom Holland is not the only ‘unbeliever’ to make such a claim. In recent years, there has been a growing chorus of non-Christian voices echoing this provocative theme.

British journalist Douglas Murray (1979-) has declared that “you cannot take Christianity out of the West and have anything that’s recognisably the West.” Murray, an atheist—and who happens to be gay—speaks with admiration of Christianity and “the positive role it has played in building Western civilization.” He says that westerners “still dream Christian dreams” and he even goes as far to call himself, rather cheekily, a “Christian atheist.”

Dave Rubin (1976-) is another prominent gay personality who has come to this conclusion. An American talk show host and former comedian, Rubin long considered himself an atheist, but more recently his unbelief has begun to waver.

Of western societies, Rubin has said, “I see no way around it, as much as my enlightenment brain would like to. The eternal truths told for thousands of years through biblical stories are the rudder that keeps us moving forward during the storm.”

Dave Rubin credits his new perspective to Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson (1962-), a highly sought-after speaker who has been labelled ‘the most influential public intellectual in the Western world’. Together, the two recently completed a world tour promoting Peterson’s latest book.

When asked if he believes in God, Peterson said, “I think the proper response to that is no—but I am afraid he might exist.” This uncertainty has not stopped Peterson from giving a series of Bible lectures that has attracted tens of millions of views online. What animates Peterson is his resolute belief that “the Bible is, for better or worse, the foundational document of western civilization.”

Likely you have heard of high-profile celebrities who swim against the tide of Hollywood to maintain their Christian faith. But there are far fewer from the silver screen who dare to defend Christianity from a standpoint of unbelief. The actor John Rhys-Davies (1944-), who starred in the Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings trilogies, is one of this rare breed.

Rhys-Davies describes himself as a rationalist and a skeptic, but he has raised eyebrows by saying, “we seem to forget that Christian civilization has made the world a better place… we owe Christianity the greatest debt of thanks.”

In recent years, skeptical academics have also been weighing in on this question. Australian intellectual Chris Berg, another atheist, has said that “virtually all the secular ideas that non-believers value have Christian origins.”

Secular writer John Steinrucken claims that, “the glue that has held Western civilization together over the centuries is the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

French atheist philosopher Luc Ferry is convinced that our western belief in equality came directly from Christian teachings. Equality was “an unprecedented idea at the time,” he says, “and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance.”

Most intriguing, perhaps, are those who grew up in different cultures but who speak with high praise about Christianity and its civilising power. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (1969-) is one such person. Ali was born in Somalia and raised as a Muslim.

She suffered FGM as a child, and in her teen years she was drawn to an increasingly fundamentalist brand of Islam. But Ali was also an avid reader of the Nancy Drew detective series, and she could not shake the independence and courage of the female lead character.

With lingering doubts about Islam and an impending forced marriage, Ali sought asylum in the Netherlands. Soon after, she watched from afar as al-Qaeda terrorists struck a diabolical blow against the civilisation that had offered her freedom.

Ali decided to re-examine Islam, and in 2002 she gave up her faith entirely, turning instead to atheism. She has since served in the Netherlands’ parliament, moved to the United States, and been an outspoken activist for freedom and feminism.

Despite her atheism, Ali regards the Christian church as one of the main institutions that has changed western hearts and minds for the better through the centuries. Controversially, she has even advocated for Christians to proselytise western Muslims in order to safeguard our civilisation from extremist Islam.

When so many people without a vested interest in Christianity speak up in defence of its civilising force on the world, we should pay attention.

Be brave, don’t self-censor and give into the mob. If you think this article will help others, please hit share. Also, scroll down if you’d like to subscribe. Thanks for reading!

You Can’t Learn From Deleted History

Posted on by kmahlburg

The “memory hole” is one of the most haunting images in George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Used by government workers at the Ministry of Truth, this chute in the wall enabled Oceania’s one-party government to edit history at will and incinerate all evidence of their propagandistic deeds:

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

In the weeks following the murder of George Floyd, multiethnic mobs who clearly haven’t read Orwell have been busy trying to memory-hole statues, monuments and street names across the Western world.

The first big story to hit the media was when crowds cheered in Bristol, England, as a statue of 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston was pulled down, stomped on, and tipped into the river.

“Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”—George Orwell

In the United States, jeering throngs managed to decapitate a statue of Christopher Columbus in Boston, and pull another one down outside of the Minnesota State Capitol. In Sydney, Australian police were forced to guard a statue of explorer Captain Cook after it was defaced, and when further plans to topple it were made public.

Originally, this seemed to be a campaign against memorials of slavers and early explorers. But it has since morphed into a protest against almost any historical figure whose crimes involve being white, male, and no longer with us.

In central London, a statue of Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister who led the nation in defeat of the Nazis, has been targeted. First vandals defaced it with the word “racist”—and then it was boarded up by authorities to prevent its complete destruction. The irony here is stark: so-called ‘anti-fascists’ are trying to erase literal anti-fascists from memory.

“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

Abraham Lincoln is one of the most loved presidents in American history. But this didn’t stop one protester from spraying graffiti on the iconic Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, and many others from trashing the Lincoln statue in London.

A statue of Thomas Jefferson was set alight in Birmingham, Alabama. A product of his time, Jefferson owned slaves—but he also authored America’s Declaration of Independence and was arguably the founding father of the nation.

Even a Matthias Baldwin monument in Philadelphia was tagged with the words “murderer” and “colonizer”. Baldwin stood doggedly against slavery in the early 1800s, long before it was fashionable to do so. Never mind, he too must go down the memory hole.

If this crusade couldn’t grow any more bizarre, we have now seen the “don’t mention the war” episode of Fawlty Towers scrubbed from UKTV. Likewise, HBO Max has pulled Gone With the Wind from its streaming service for its depiction of slavery. This blockbuster, by the way, starred Hattie McDaniel, the first black woman to win an Academy Award. Fortunately, it sounds like both of these decisions will now be reversed.

“Our memorials aren’t all there in praise of our forebears.”

I believe a good case can be made for why statues of certain slave owners or Confederate soldiers should be reinterpreted with new signage, or perhaps even moved to a museum. But cancel culture turned cancerous the second we were no longer allowed to remember our civilisation’s own heritage.

Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it, so the maxim goes. We must remember that our memorials aren’t all there in praise of our forebears. Think Auschwitz, the slave-built Pyramids—or the Colosseum, which Michael Cook has satirically suggested must also be razed to the ground.

Some memorials that do celebrate past heroes were erected by contentious people in contentious times. Mount Rushmore’s four presidents were carved on stolen land by a man with ties to the Ku Klux Klan. Should it be demolished? Do we bulldoze the work of every chauvinist architect since the Renaissance? How far must the purification go?

Far more productive than cancellation is education. A bit of education certainly would have helped those who tried to memory-hole Matthias Baldwin and other historical heroes in the recent puritanical purge.

“So-called ‘anti-fascists’ are trying to erase literal anti-fascists from memory.”

Understanding our history, rather than just raging against it, enables us to debate the good, the bad and the ugly of every era and learn from all of it. We have a lot to learn, not just about those who were memorialised, but also about those who did the memorialising. If we are willing to listen to our ancestors, we can benefit from understanding both their masteries and their many mistakes.

We might even grow some humility.

See, the cancel cult reveal at least as much about themselves as the historical figures they seek to erase. They display a deeply judgmental impulse by enforcing on people of centuries past, a new set of moral standards that we hardly agreed on five minutes ago.

They assume that they alone would have acted differently if they had grown up in the same circumstances. They seem to hope that if a line can be drawn under George Floyd’s murder and all before that be forgotten, the world might be a better, purer place.

“Prejudice is a difficult weed to eradicate from the human heart.”

But in trying to delete the past like they might delete their browser history, they miss what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn saw after staring Soviet totalitarianism in the face:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”

We may make all sorts of progress. But prejudice is a difficult weed to eradicate from the human heart—as the cancellers themselves remind us. Because of this, all of us desperately need the past.

We need it, at the very least, to hold ourselves accountable.

Be brave, don’t self-censor and give into the mob. If you think this article will help others, please hit share. Also, scroll down if you’d like to subscribe. Thanks for reading!

A Christian’s Guide to Cultural Marxism

Posted on by kmahlburg

If you Google the term “Cultural Marxism,” you will likely be told that it is a right-wing conspiracy theory. But pick a different search engine, or scroll for long enough, and you will find a more robust definition.

Cultural Marxism—for those new to the concept—is a worldview gaining immense popularity throughout the West. It refers to a collection of ideas rather than a collection of people. Cultural Marxism is a secular philosophy that views all of life as a power struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor.

The oppressor is usually an aspect of traditional western society such as the family, capitalism, democracy, or Christianity. The oppressed is anyone who is or who feels marginalised by these institutions, depending on the cultural and political debates of the moment.

“Cultural Marxism is a secular philosophy that views all of life as a power struggle.”

Several years ago, the oppressed group in focus was the members of the homosexual community who wanted to marry. Last year, it was schoolchildren who felt threatened by climate change, and biological men seeking to identify as women and compete in women’s sport. This year, it is ethnic minorities protesting police treatment.

What needs to be acknowledged up front is that this power dynamic in our culture is real, since even the most well-intentioned societies produce inequality that must be addressed.

And as followers of Jesus, we are called to care for all people, and to be particularly sensitive to those who are sidelined by society. Love for ‘the least of these’ is, after all, the example Jesus set for us.

“Even the most well-intentioned societies produce inequality.”

But if we are not discerning, our impulse for compassion will be recruited and used for harm. Jesus stood for the downtrodden—but he also stood for marriage, gender norms, private property, a God-given moral code, good pay for hard work, a faith lived out in public, and civil law and order.

Cultural Marxism, on the other hand, sees all of these divine norms as the problem. And Christians who uncritically accept the oppressed-oppressor narrative end up fighting against the very institutions that God has ordained for human safety and flourishing.

To better understand Cultural Marxism, we do well to trace its origins. To read about it in depth, see the Gospel Coalition’s brilliant exposé on the subject. For a potted version, read on.

Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German political theorist who believed that workers were oppressed by capitalism and should rise up to overthrow it. He dreamed of a socialist or communist utopia—a classless society where all resources were shared.

“Cultural Marxism sees divine norms as the problem.”

Marx’s philosophy was trialled in Russia, China, and many other nations in the 20th century. Tragically, 100 million people lost their lives in the communist bloodbath that followed. What became clear through this experiment is that when a stable government is overthrown, bad actors will always rush in to take power—because power corrupts, and the human heart is evil.

In other words, Marxism is good in theory but terrible in practice because it fails to account for the moral complexity of humans. We are at times victims of the sin and oppression of others, as Marx saw. But we are also guilty of sin ourselves and prone to abuse power when given the opportunity.

Despite Marxism’s obvious failings, many of Marx’s followers continued to subscribe to his ideals. One of these was Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937). He believed that Marxism failed because capitalist values were still too deeply embedded in every aspect of Western society.

A culture-wide revolution was needed, Gramsci argued, if Marxism were to succeed. This would involve a reshaping of sexual ethics, organised religion, mass media, academia, the legal system, and more.

“Marxism fails to account for the moral complexity of humans.”

According to Gramsci, “In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” This dream came to be known as the “long march through the institutions.”

The doctrines of Cultural Marxism were further developed by a group of intellectuals in Germany known as The Frankfurt School—most prominent among them, Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979). Fleeing the Nazis in the 1930s, this group ended up scattered in universities across the Western world, most notably in New York and California.

Many of the seismic cultural shifts we have been experiencing over the last decade were being promoted by Frankfurt School academics as early as the 1960s. The sexual revolution, the redefinition of tolerance, radical sex education in schools, belief in gender as a social construct, the virtue of censorship, and Critical Theory can all be traced back to this group.

And as many have observed, however deliberate the campaign has been, this “long march through the institutions” is near complete.

“Cultural Marxism is a mood that defines our generation.”

Cultural Marxism today is not an organised group or a hidden society. It has its zealous prophets, to be sure. And ironically, they tend to be white, middle class, well educated, and able to cushion themselves from any chaos they might inspire—just like the Frankfurt School and Marx before them.

But more commonly, Cultural Marxism is a zeitgeist; a mood that defines our generation. Political correctness and our tendency to self-censor are some of the more obvious signs that Cultural Marxism has now gone thoroughly mainstream.

These new values are being enforced in more active ways, too. If your opinion fails to align with a narrow set of new ‘orthodox’ ideas, you will pay the price in some way or another—whether that’s your reputation, your relationships, or increasingly even your livelihood.

It is necessary to point out that people don’t need to understand the history of Cultural Marxism or own the label to openly promote its doctrines. But nor is it a conspiracy theory to describe these ideas as Cultural Marxism, since the label is proudly owned by many of its proponents, and its teachings have been in the public domain since their inception.

“If your opinion fails to align with a narrow set of new ‘orthodox’ ideas, you will pay the price.”

Today, the unmistakable cry of Cultural Marxism is that of victimhood. Put simply, the more oppressed groups you can claim membership to, the more your opinion counts and the more your demands must be met.

While seeming to promote equality, what Cultural Marxism actually inspires is a never-ending grievance between sexes, races, and other fixed descriptors that divide us. And this is a necessary component of the Cultural Marxist philosophy, since the West’s institutions will only be supplanted if enough anger can be rallied to the cause.

To this end, minority groups often find themselves being used for political advantage by those who claim to care about them the most. Radical groups hijacking the George Floyd protests is only the latest, ugly example of this.

“The unmistakable cry of Cultural Marxism is that of victimhood.”

Always, Cultural Marxist solutions are political ones. And it can only be this way, since Marxism is an atheistic worldview that only deals with a materialistic universe. To Marxists, the state is God.

This is why Christians must tread with caution. Jesus has sent us as salt and light into our culture. Most of the culture-shaping actions he calls us to actually don’t involve government at all—like intercession, care, financial generosity, friendship, community service, and civil debate, to name just a few.

Yes, Christians are called to be politically engaged as well. But according to Jeremiah 29:7, we are to “work for the peace and prosperity of the city where I sent you into exile, praying to the Lord for it, for its welfare will determine your welfare.” Our voice should be for reform and renewal, not merely joining the chorus for radical overthrow.

“To Marxists, the state is God.”

But the greatest tool we have been given is the gospel. The truth is that intolerance and oppression and bigotry aren’t some great evil ‘out there’—rather, they are sins found in each of us. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn noted, “the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”

God’s ultimate and eternal solution to these evils is for every individual to be set free from their sin and reconciled to the One in whose image we have all been made. Only on this foundation can we build a truly just society where competing tribes no longer struggle for power—but instead, where each person puts the needs of others before their own.

This side of eternity we won’t achieve utopia. But the closer our culture aligns to the ways of God, the more we will see the vision of Amos 5:24 fulfilled: “Let justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”

Be brave, don’t self-censor and give into the mob. If you think this article will help others, please hit share. Also, scroll down if you’d like to subscribe. Thanks for reading!

The Race Rhetoric That Causes More Harm Than Harmony

Posted on by kmahlburg

George Floyd’s cruel murder is sparking much-needed conversations about justice and racial harmony in America and beyond. The ripple effect has already reached us Down Under, with protests taking place in Australian capital cities this past weekend.

Last week I spoke with a friend who has ministered among Indigenous Australians for decades. He told me that in some regional jails he has visited, Aboriginal men made up over 70% of the prison population. Whatever landed them there, this is a deeply troubling picture.

In a recent survey, 10% of Australians said they would tell jokes about Indigenous Aussies. 10% said they wouldn’t employ an Aboriginal person. 20% said they would move away if a First Nations person sat next to them.

“Racism does still exist here in Australia.”

Pre-judging someone—making negative judgments about them based on the shade of their skin—is textbook racism. Racism does still exist here in Australia, and it is a problem we need to address.

But there is an emerging rhetoric around racism that is causing more harm than harmony. It is most easily identified by its blanket claims about white people and Western nations. Countless American celebrities have brandished this rhetoric in recent weeks.

In an expletive-laden Instagram post, pop singer Billie Eilish let loose at white Americans, declaring, “You are not in need. You are not in danger… Society gives you privilege just for being white… We have to address hundreds of years of oppression of black people.”

Kylie Jenner told her followers, “We’re currently dealing with two horrific pandemics in our country, and we can’t sit back and ignore the fact that racism is one of them.”

“Countless celebrities have brandished this rhetoric in recent weeks.”

On Instagram, Mandy Moore wrote, “White friends… we have the burden of dismantling white supremacy.”

Viola Davis also posted, explaining, “This is what it means to be Black in America. Tried. Convicted. Killed for being Black. We are dictated by hundreds of years of policies that have restricted our very existence and still have to continue to face modern day lynchings.”

All of us should yearn for justice, for George Floyd and for anyone wrongly treated—especially at the hands of those paid to protect us. Voices are always needed to ‘speak truth to power,’ since even the best societies produce inequality.

But so much of what we are seeing from our culture creators, the news media, and on social channels is actually stoking racial grievances rather than healing them.

“Even the best societies produce inequality.”

This rhetoric claims that countries like America and Australia are racist from root to branch. It demands that we hate our own nations as a kind of ideological purity test.

It implicates all white people — even the most open-hearted and caring — as the problem. It convinces people of colour that the white majority should be assumed racist and a threat before the facts are in. It is a brand-new worldview that actually mirrors the prejudices it seeks to replace.

By claiming that minorities today are still affected by centuries-old oppressive policies is to overlook great nation-shaping events of which we should all be proud. Slavery and Jim Crow are no more in the U.S. because of civil war and the civil rights movement a century later. Indigenous Australians are equal citizens because of reforms in 1948 and 1967, and let’s not forget the apology of 2008.

“There are many statistics that challenge claims of systemic racism.”

Our nations still have problems to address. But resurrecting pain from centuries past does dishonour to the progress we have all made, and it reopens wounds that had already begun to heal.

There are many statistics that challenge claims of systemic racism. In America, for example, only 4% of all black homicide victims are killed by police officers—93% actually die at the hands of fellow African-Americans. Adjusting for crime rates, white people are at least 1.3 times more likely black people to be killed by police.

And while police treatment of black people is a serious problem in the US, the national news there mostly draws attention to murders when they are white-on-black. Regardless of intent, the media’s unwarranted slant on this issue only stokes racial grievances.

Here in Australia, Aboriginal deaths in custody are a terrible reality, and First Nations people are tragically over-represented in our justice system.

“The media’s unwarranted slant on this issue stokes racial grievances.”

But we are not allowed to point out that Indigenous Aussies are actually less likely to die in custody than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Or that the majority of such deaths are due to health issues and self-harm — not police brutality.

Honest conversations must be had, but they won’t be honest if we close one eye to the facts, or fail to acknowledge how far we’ve already come towards justice.

Racism still exists in the West. And some of our saddest injustices are complex and difficult to resolve. But what’s remarkable about nations like America and Australia isn’t that we’re racist. Racism is still found in every country. Rather, we are remarkable because we have relented from—and survived—former cruelties like massacre, segregation, and slavery.

As a result, we now live together in stable multi-ethnic societies that provide hope, opportunity, and even a leg up for those who seek it. Our laws protect human rights and dignity for all people—even compensating for disadvantage—unlike so many places still today, and from time immemorial.

“Racism is still found in every country.”

Let’s be straight: if the West really is so evil, why would we advocate for asylum seekers to find refuge and a better life here? And if America is so racist, how did a country with a 13% black population elect a black president—twice?

You used to be called a racist if you treated people from another race unfairly. Now, it seems, you’re a racist if you don’t see white supremacy and systemic racism everywhere, and think the West can only be redeemed by violent revolution.

So if I am labelled a racist, let it be because I want the best for people of every colour, and for the nations that have walked the longest road towards equality.

Let it be because I believe the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., who with faith declared to all Americans, “We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Be brave, don’t self-censor and give into the mob. If you think this article will help others, please hit share. Also, scroll down if you’d like to subscribe. Thanks for reading!

Are America’s Riots Still About George Floyd?

Posted on by kmahlburg

In case you didn’t think 2020 could get any more perplexing, there are now uncontrolled riots taking place in dozens of American cities. From coast to coast, cars and businesses have been set alight, numberless shops have been looted, vehicles have been driven into crowds, and mob violence has broken out on city streets.

In the week since the rioting began, numerous people have lost their lives and thousands have been arrested. Many cities have imposed curfews and the National Guard has been deployed in over 20 states.

The unrest started last week in Minneapolis after a video went viral showing the death of George Floyd, a black man, at the hands of a white police officer.

“George Floyd’s death was an incident that shocked America.”

The officer knelt on Floyd’s neck for over eight minutes as Floyd struggled for breath, and cried, “Please, I can’t breathe. Don’t kill me.” After becoming unresponsive, Floyd was rushed to hospital and was later pronounced dead.

All four police officers attending Floyd’s arrest were fired, and the one responsible for his death has since been charged with third degree murder and manslaughter. The other officers may also be charged.

George Floyd’s death was an incident that shocked America and has justifiably led to grief and outrage, especially among African-American communities. Racial injustice and tension are issues that have plagued the US since the days of slavery.

America has come a long way towards justice, through a Civil War in the 1860s, and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. But over the last decade, racial injustice has returned as a major national conversation, and police brutality has been a focal point of this.

“Radical groups are exploiting the George Floyd protests.”

Peaceful protest is a vital part of democracy. Those protesting nonviolently over the death of George Floyd deserve to have their concerns for justice heard and acted on, all the way to the highest reaches of government.

But the violence and mayhem being unleashed on America’s streets is not the solution. In fact, even as peaceful protests continue, it is clear that radical groups with more sweeping agendas are exploiting the George Floyd protests. And in doing so, they are causing contempt for those protesting lawfully.

US Attorney General William Barr said on the weekend that “voices of peaceful and legitimate protests have been hijacked by violent radical elements” that are seeking to “pursue their own separate, violent, and extremist agenda.”

And President Trump announced that Antifa—one extremist group believed to be exploiting the protests to cause anarchy—will be designated as a terrorist organisation. He has also threatened to deploy the military if mayors don’t get their cities under control.

George Floyd’s brother has condemned the chaos and thuggery, but his pleas seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Though it isn’t widely reported, there have been scenes of African-American citizens gathering to protect stores from looters and armed black business owners guarding their properties. And for good reason, after a low-income housing estate and black-owned stores were burnt to the ground in Minneapolis.

“We do the black community a disservice to assume that all we are seeing is because of them.”

Consider more evidence that the protests are being exploited. A black protester caught two white women vandalising a shopfront and called them out on it, furious that the black community will be wrongly blamed for their crime.

A lone white rioter had to be restrained by peaceful protesters before he smashed up pavement to create projectiles. Piles of bricks have mysteriously appeared at many rioting hotspots, though no construction work has been taking place nearby.

White vandals have been rebuked by black Americans for defacing monuments, smashing windows and vandalising police cars. Likewise, the Louis Vuitton store in Portland appears to have been looted by as many white offenders as people of any other ethnicity.

Video footage of a Nike store break-in, a bottle shop heist, and an interview with a young man under arrest also suggests that at least some of the looting has been about cheap opportunism, not justice.

“Behind the carnage are other factors that transcend ethnicity.”

Without doubt, some are using criminal activity as a form of protest intended to highlight or ‘equalise’ injustices against African-Americans. But given the evidence, we do the black community a disservice to assume that all we are seeing is by, for, or because of them.

Behind the carnage, there are other factors that transcend ethnicity, which mainstream reporting won’t touch.

One is the epidemic of fatherlessness gripping the USA. Another is a growing entitlement complex among many youth. The mainstreaming of drug use and video game violence in recent decades are other social ills that must be acknowledged as at least part of the problem.

And don’t forget that for many of the young people breaking the law, this is the first fun they have had since their city locked down months ago for COVID-19.

“George Floyd’s brother has condemned the chaos and thuggery.”

What is most concerning, however, is the class of rioters who are expressing an open contemptfor their own nation. A love of violent revolution and anarchy, and a hatred of all that America represents can only take root when people believe that America is racist from top to bottom.

And that is exactly the message being broadcast by cultural leaders, even as the fires burn.

In an expletive-laden Instagram post, pop sensation Billie Eilish let loose at white Americans, declaring, “You are not in need. You are not in danger… Society gives you privilege just for being white… We have to address hundreds of years of oppression of black people.”

Shawn Mendes likewise tweeted, “As a white person, I not only recognise that this is a problem but that I am a part of the problem.”

“Hatred for America can only take root when people believe that America is racist from top to bottom.”

Kylie Jenner told her followers, “We’re currently dealing with two horrific pandemics in our country, and we can’t sit back and ignore the fact that racism is one of them.”

Viola Davis also posted, explaining, “This is what it means to be Black in America. Tried. Convicted. Killed for being Black. We are dictated by hundreds of years of policies that have restricted our very existence and still have to continue to face modern day lynchings.”

This impulse towards justice is good, since justice reflects the heart and character of God. There must be justice for George Floyd and for all black people who have suffered brutality at the hands of police. But has anyone stopped to ask if declarations like these might be causing more harm than harmony?

These sentiments actually mirror the prejudices they seek to replace. They implicate all white people—even the most open-hearted and caring—as part of America’s problem. They convince people of colour that white Americans should be assumed racist and a threat before the facts are in, and unless they virtual-signal otherwise.

They make an unbreakable link between the 1600s and the present day, disregarding the many events of American history that have righted so many wrongs of the past—even if the nation still has injustices to address now. And they resurrect old angers to enrage current ones.

“These sentiments actually mirror the prejudices they seek to replace.”

They also ignore some uncomfortable statistics. Only 4% of all black homicide victims are killed by police officers—93% actually die at the hands of fellow African-Americans. And white people are at least 1.3 times more likely black people to be killed by police.

While police treatment of black people is a serious problem, the national news media mostly draws attention to murders when they are white-on-black. This is an unwarranted slant, and it only serves to stoke racial grievances.

Honest conversations must be had, but they won’t be honest if newsmakers focus on certain tragedies while ignoring others. And they can’t be honest if all of the good in American society is ignored, and generations of progress overlooked.

Even in the midst of the riots, there have been police showing solidarity with the African-American community, like the sheriff in Michigan who laid down his helmet and marched with George Floyd protesters. Or the black protesters who protected a stranded white cop.

“The truth is that most Americans—of every colour—love their country.”

Protesters and police were seen praying together in Kentucky. Black and white believers were also filmed praying for reconciliation over the weekend. A black man was embraced by a police officer in Miami. Another police officer offered a young black man his shoulder to cry on.

As you read news about these riots, beware of false narratives.

Much of the anarchy and destruction isn’t about justice for George Floyd. It is people of any ethnicity exploiting the black community for their own selfish agendas. Ironically, that is exactly what the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement sought to correct.

The truth is that most Americans—of every colour—love their country and believe it is worth preserving and redeeming, not destroying. And most Americans agree with Martin Luther King Jr, who said it best: “I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”

Be brave, don’t give into the mob by self-censoring. If you think this article will help others, please hit share. Also, scroll down if you’d like to subscribe. Thanks for reading!

Ten Things You May Not Know About COVID-19

Posted on by kmahlburg

An unmistakable optimism has returned to countries like Australia as lockdown restrictions begin to ease. Even the news cycle has begun to focus on issues other than the coronavirus, to our collective relief.

For several months there was blanket news coverage of the pandemic. Media outlets kept feeding our insatiable appetite to know more about a crisis that so directly impacts our health, our livelihoods, and our loved ones.

“Optimism has returned to countries like Australia.”

I remember seeing early reports suggesting that the death toll could approach 68 million. It is a relief, then, that as infection rates flatten in most countries, the death toll has been only a tiny fraction of what we were warned. My own country of Australia has been especially spared, in what almost seems like a miracle.

It is heartening to see that people the world over have been responsive to warnings about personal hygiene and social distancing—strategies that have clearly helped slow the spread of the virus.

But there’s also the possibility that fear turned out to be a far more contagious virus, and that—as some warned—the cure we’ve applied may ultimately prove worse than the disease.

“Early reports suggested that the death toll could approach 68 million.”

Many have made the mistake of stating their case about COVID-19 with too much certainty, and this has been true of scientific modellers and conspiracy theorists alike. So everything I’ve written below comes with a caveat: check my sources, and do your own research and thinking, too.

But also be encouraged that we can reopen with confidence, so long as we stay vigilant. If you still need convincing—or if you’ve been suspicious of a mass overreaction these last few months—consider these ten things you might not have heard about COVID-19.

1. The virus poses a very small risk to young people

I shouldn’t have to state this, but I know the accusations will fly, so here it is: all people are equally valuable. The elderly deserve our care and concern as much as the young.

But the data is clear that COVID-19 is far more deadly for the elderly and the already-ill than for the general population. For those who are generally healthy and below the age of 65, death is remarkably uncommon, even in pandemic epicentres. The data suggests that for those below 20, the flu is actually more deadly than the novel coronavirus.

“The elderly deserve our care and concern as much as the young.”

For this reason, governments are now turning to strategies that focus on protecting the elderly rather than treating all people as equally at risk. Over a dozen U.S. states have learned this the hard way, after half of their fatalities took place in nursing homes.

2. The virus is far less deadly than first predicted

Antibody tests have been conducted in various places to detect how many people have previously had the virus. In parts of New York, 15% of those tested had coronavirus antibodies. Studies have yielded similar results in California and Germany.

Given that the actual caseload in these places was far lower than 15%, there are apparently many who are contracting the virus but showing very mild symptoms, or none at all.

“The cure we’ve applied may ultimately prove worse than the disease.”

If these antibody tests are accurate—which is still in question—it would mean that the case fatality rate would be more like 0.5%. Indeed, the CDC’s current “best estimate” of the virus death rate is 0.4%, or even 0.3% if asymptomatic cases are included.

This is far less than the 3.4% global death rate originally reported by the World Heath Organisation. (For comparison, the fatality rate of the flu is around 0.1%).

3. Virus antibodies may provide immunity

Scientists have been warning that having antibodies from the virus doesn’t necessarily guarantee immunity. So even if the antibody tests are accurate, they say, we shouldn’t be too quick to celebrate.

But also this week, two studies were released strongly suggesting that COVID-19 antibodies may indeed provide immunity to the virus. This is an area of research worth watching closely.

4. The virus doesn’t easily spread from surfaces

Early research found that the virus could remain detectable on various surfaces for many hours and even days at a time. This was an important justification for “safer at home” messaging and the shuttering of public facilities and businesses worldwide.

The CDC originally issued guidelines in line with this research, but just over a week ago the institute changed its tone. Based on newer epidemiological data, their website now explains that the the virus spreads mainly through person-to-person contact and that it doesn’t easily spread from surfaces.

5. Sunlight and fresh air can protect against the virus

In recent weeks, a UK chief scientific advisor told MPs that sunlight and good ventilation are both “highly protective against transmission of the virus.” Since then, restrictions have been relaxed to allow Brits to exercise outdoors as much as they like.

This aligns with what we already knew about influenza and similar infections. And it suggests that closing beaches and national parks and restricting people’s movement outdoors may not have been wise policy in the first place.

6. Lockdowns may actually be ineffective

The debate over extended lockdowns versus reopening the economy has become highly politicised in the United States especially. Many have been at pains to warn states eager to reopen that if they do so too quickly, an appalling surge of deaths may follow.

But a fascinating study comparing various US states showed that, in fact, there is no relationship between COVID-19 deaths and lockdown policies.

“The debate over lockdowns has become highly politicised.”

Adjusting for variables, the study found that states with strict lockdown policies actually had almost twice as many infections per capita than those without them, and also more deaths per million—the exact opposite of what might be expected. Similar results were seen by comparing European countries with one another.

7. Lockdowns may lead to global famine

It’s widely acknowledged that the lockdowns will have a devastating impact on the world economy. Some have trivialised the desire to reopen as a lust for stock market gains at the cost of lives. But it’s no secret that many who promote the ongoing closures have the luxury of working from home, while countless small businesses permanently close and families go hungry.

“More people could potentially die from the economic impact than from the virus itself.”

What the debate in western countries has largely missed, however, is how lockdowns here will affect food supply chains elsewhere. Many families in developing nations rely heavily on international tourism for survival. Others depend on family members in the West—who are now out of work—sending regular financial support.

All of this has led David Beasley, director of the United Nations World Food Program, to warn that the world could face “multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months.” In his assessment, there is “a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself.”

8. Lockdowns are causing a spike in suicides

Another story only now beginning to make the news is the adverse affects of lockdowns on mental health and suicide. Following Boris Johnson’s announcement of a lockdown, numbers of people in the UK reporting significant depression and anxiety more than doubled. 

“Doctors report seeing more deaths from suicide than coronavirus since the lockdowns began.”

Studies in the US reveal similar trends there, even suggesting that more lives will ultimately be lost than were saved through lockdowns. Here in Australia, modelling conducted at Sydney University warns that an additional 1,500 suicides may result from the impact of the coronavirus restrictions.

Doctors in California report seeing more deaths from suicide than coronavirus since the lockdowns began. Similar stories are emerging from countries as diverse as India, the UK and Thailand.

9. Reactions to the virus have triggered a health crisis

There is also a broader health crisis developing. 600 American physicians recently sent a letter to the White House warning of patients avoiding routine medical tests and emergency care due to excessive fear of the virus. The cancelling of elective and routine procedures has likewise contributed to the crisis.

“These include 150,000 Americans per month who would have had a new cancer detected through a routine screening that hasn’t happened, millions who have missed routine dental care to fix problems strongly linked to heart disease/death, and preventable cases of stroke, heart attack, and child abuse,” the letter says.

10. People are praying like never before

There is no doubt that we are still facing a global health emergency. Almost 400,000 people have lost their lives to the virus. And while many western nations are experiencing a reprieve, our attention must shift to countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico whose death rates continue to rise. These aren’t mere numbers—they are people with families now grieving.

Without the intervention of governments, this pandemic could have been much more dire. And we must be careful not to expect perfect foresight from our leaders, or judge them using data that is only now emerging.

“We are still facing a global health emergency.”

But we can continue to make our voices heard if we believe they are making misjudgments. As the US Declaration of Independence so simply states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Our political leaders govern us, but they do so as our representatives, not our masters.

Most importantly, we can continue making our voices heard to God. There has been a global movement of prayer these last few months that has no comparison in recent memory. Considering even the tamest predictions made back in February, it’s clear to me that God is hearing these prayers and has so far spared us from a much greater catastrophe.

In a time when we too often look to the State for help or for someone to blame, God has shown himself strong and mighty. People may make all sorts of mistakes, but as Psalm 46 declares: “God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble… Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”

Be brave, don’t self-censor and give into the mob. If you think this article will help others, please hit share. Also, scroll down if you’d like to subscribe. Thanks for reading!

Three Secrets to the Culture Wars

Posted on by kmahlburg

It’s been many decades since the term culture wars was dubbed, and the label is now more relevant than ever. What began as a reasoned debate on issues like abortion, multiculturalism and homosexuality has turned into a hearts-and-minds battle for the soul of our civilization.

The rapid growth of the culture wars vocab is evidence enough of this.

We’re all familiar with terms like ‘identity politics,’ ‘white privilege’ and ‘virtue signalling.’ But have you heard of deplatforming, cancel culture, red-pilled, safe spaces, cisnormativity, or Trump derangement syndrome? Most importantly, do you know what it means to be woke?

It’s not easy keeping up with the jargon. Actually, it would be far safer to let others fight the culture wars. This is especially true now that people make a sport of branding others with so many exotic new phobias.

“There is a much deeper war of ideas taking place.”

But to disengage from the culture wars is to surrender entirely. As George Orwell was apt to point out, if you control the language, you win the debate. Words and ideas matter, because they are precisely where the battle rages.

It has become ever clearer to me that underneath most verbal brawls there is a much deeper war of ideas taking place. When we learn to recognise the hidden debates, it becomes much easier to engage and stay on the front foot.

So what are these unspoken battles? I am convinced that if we understand the secrets to the culture wars, the questions behind the questions, we can avoid unneeded hostility—and instead seek out some common ground and some common sense.

Secret 1: Is the Endgame Equality or Power?

‘Equality’ has been the motto for causes of every kind in recent decades. So much so that it’s hard to find anyone today who rejects the idea of equality. Most westerners agree that all people should be raised to a place of equal worth regardless of gender, race or creed.

But in recent years, the notion of equality has been quietly transformed along with the definition of words like racism and sexism. Ironically, these -isms no longer apply equally. Among the woke, they are only allowed to be used in reference to oppressed groups—those who have faced historical injustice.

For example, if I, a ‘white male,’ complain that I have been the victim of racism or sexism, my complaint will be shrugged off—even scoffed at. I will be told to suck it up, since all Caucasians and all males have been living the good life for eons, apparently. According to this logic, it is now my turn to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.

“In recent years, the notion of equality has been quietly transformed.”

Those who hold this line genuinely believe in the virtue of defending only those groups who have a history of ill-treatment. But at this point, they no longer believe in equality. What they are fighting for is unequal power. They want one form of privilege to give way to another.

I’ll admit that being both male and of European descent may have brought brought with it certain privileges not enjoyed by other people in the West. But for as long as I can remember, I have sought to regard all people as my equals and not expect better treatment for myself. Most people I interact with seem to live out the same convictions.

“When you see people trying to wield raw power, call them out on it.”

So while Western societies today may not be perfect, they are the most equal and just that history has ever seen: simply ask your grandparents. To whatever degree we are still overcoming the inequalities of the past, we will never be helped by replacing old injustices with new ones.

Ironically, brazen power grabs are exactly what we were supposed to be avoiding. So when you see people trying to wield raw power like this, call them out on it—and bring the conversation back to genuine equality.

And if you’re a Christian, explain the absolute that grounds this value: we have all been made in the image of God, and that is why are compelled to treat people as equally valuable and precious.

Secret 2: Are People Defending a Race or an Idea?

In some quarters, racism and xenophobia are labels thrown about far too casually. Only recently it dawned on me that, more often than not, these accusations have little to do with race or nationality. Many who brandish these terms are actually seeking to protect an idea.

The light came on for me in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. Remember when President Trump—and many others—were accused of racism for calling it the ‘Wuhan coronavirus’?

You may not know this, but in the early stages of the outbreak, the same media who later painted Trump as a xenophobe had previously called it the Wuhan coronavirus themselves—dozens and dozens of times.

And why not? As comedian Bill Maher points out, we’ve always named diseases after their place of origin, from the West Nile Virus to Ebola, Guinea Worms, MERS and the Spanish Flu.

“Many who brandish terms like ‘racist’ are actually seeking to protect an idea.”

The renaming of COVID-19 isn’t a hill I wish to die on. But it was a convenient shift for the Chinese Communist Party who covered up the early spread of the virus and (it seems likely) pressured the World Health Organisation to delay warning the world of a pandemic.

All of this to say, naming the virus after its origin in Wuhan has little to do with Chinese people, and much to do with the villainy of an authoritarian government. This remains true even if Trump did it to take the focus off his own early failures. What Trump and others took issue with, in other words, was the communism—not the Chinese-ness—of the CCP.

Sticking to the theme American politics, this year I have followed the ‘Blexit’ movement with great interest. Founded by African-American commentator Candace Owens, Blexit is shorthand for a black exit from the Democratic party.

“Race isn’t the point—ideas are.”

The idea that black Americans might find refuge with Republicans is a shock to many. What has shocked me, however, is how many ‘Blexiteers’ report racist treatment from liberals for their decision to walk away from the Democrats—or “leave the plantation” as some even call it. Frequently they are accused of being ‘race traitors’ and Uncle Toms.

Ironically, the idea that black Americans should only vote Democrat is itself a racist assumption since it lumps all people of one ethnic group into a single category.

Put simply, race isn’t the point—ideas are. This has to be true if people of any ethnicity are able to think for themselves and vote for any political party or cause they are most drawn to.

Next time someone alleges racism or xenophobia, ask yourself this simple question: are they trying to protect a race or an idea? No one should be discriminated against for his or her ethnicity. But all bad ideas can and should be challenged.

Secret 3: Is Western Civilization Good or Evil?

This might just be the question behind the question behind the question. I have seen this and now I can’t unsee it: where the culture wars rage the fiercest, the debate is always about Western Civilization itself.

Simply put, is Western Civilization basically good and worth defending—or is it fundamentally evil and in need of overhauling entirely?

For many today, the West is an oppressive patriarchy that perpetuates, from one generation to the next, the values, beliefs and institutions that oppress minorities and divide society.

In this telling of the story, Western Civilization is one long project of colonisation—the rape-and-pillage of indigenous communities and the environment that continues unabated to this day.

“Is Western Civilization good and worth defending?”

While only the ignorant could deny the West’s many mistakes, such a simplistic version of events has too many glaring omissions. Western Civilization was also the wellspring of countless blessings that have transformed the world—science, liberal democracy, medicine, universal education, and the idea of equality itself, to name just a few.

Violence, slavery, and colonisation are not unique to the West—they have characterised almost every civilization through time. What makes the West unique and truly good is its leading role in subduing these evils, and exporting prosperity and freedom beyond our shores so that others might benefit too.

Even those who say they disagree with me on this point seem confused at best.

“We instinctively know that the West is a blessing.”

The same people who decry nations like Australia, the UK and America as evil, also insist that we open our borders so that people from other nations can flood in at will. If the West is so despicable, why would we want to torture others by welcoming them here? No seriously—why?

In truth, we all want the West to be a blessing to others because we instinctively know that the West is a blessing. We can see that our civilization is not ours to hoard, but ours to share.

And that’s why I’m willing to fight a culture war to defend it.

Big tech is now suppressing conservative content. If you want to make sure you continue seeing my posts, be sure to scroll to the bottom of this blog and subscribe.

How Media Bias Wrecked the #MeToo Movement

Posted on by kmahlburg

Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden—Donald Trump’s last remaining rival—has been accused of sexual assault by a former staffer named Tara Reade.

Such a serious allegation against a presidential candidate would normally be a loud, leading, global story. Instead, America’s biggest mainstream news outlets such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN have remained eerily quiet about the Tara Reade accusations.

So deafening is this ‘conspiracy of silence’ that the legacy media’s bias has itself become the story; more newsworthy, perhaps, than the allegations against the former Vice President.

“It is a damning and possibly campaign-ending revelation.”

In a March 25th interview, Tara Reade, a staffer for then-Senator Joe Biden described the incident that she says occurred in 1993. Pinning her to a wall in the Senate building, Biden allegedly reached under her clothes and forced himself on her.

If true, it is a damning and possibly campaign-ending revelation for the man who hopes to replace Trump in the White House this November.

Decades-old allegations can be difficult to prove. An accuser should always be heard and respected. And the accused should always be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This belief in due process, it could be argued, is why America’s media has been reluctant to publish. But there is one glaring problem with this explanation—and his name is Brett Kavanaugh.

“Decades-old allegations can be difficult to prove.”

In 2018, Kavanaugh was nominated as a Supreme Court justice by the Republican party. It would be a lifetime appointment in the nation’s highest court.

On the eve of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Christine Blasey Ford stepped forward accusing him of sexual assault. At a high school party, she alleged, Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed, tried to remove her clothing, and covered her mouth so she couldn’t scream.

Biden and Kavanaugh create for us a perfect litmus test in media objectivity: both men aspiring to a preeminent national office; both facing allegations of sexual assault from long in the past; both categorically denying the claim.

So how did the media respond in each case?

The New York Times immediately published the Kavanaugh story, dedicating a team of reporters, multiple front-page stories, and weeks of coverage to the affair.

“Biden and Kavanaugh create for us a perfect litmus test in media objectivity.”

By contrast, it was 19 days before the same paper touched the Joe Biden allegation. Instead of publishing a report, the Times offered a ‘meta-story’ with the headline, Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden.

Later, the NYT stealth-edited their own article. After receiving a complaint from Joe Biden’s campaign, the paper removed a reference to Biden’s “hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable”.

To their credit, the Times published a follow-up piece in which its Executive Editor responded to charges of bias. His answers, however, were slippery as soap.

He claimed that the deleted sentence was due to ‘awkward phrasing’ in the original. He also hosed down their 19-day delay, explaining that the paper needed more time to investigate before letting readers ‘make their own judgment’—a grace, by the way, never extended to Kavanaugh.

“The New York Times stealth-edited their own article.”

The Washington Post was just as duplicitous, waiting the same 19 days to report on the accusations against Biden. Tara Reade’s story was corroborated by her brother and mother—but rather than quoting her family members at length, the WaPo gave a far louder voice to Democrat staffers at the time who denied Reade made a complaint.

The article frequently veered off-topic—most notably, raising allegations against Donald Trump though they were unrelated to the story. After reporting that Tara Reade had recently made an official police complaint, the author of the Post article insinuated that Reade was at fault, declaring, “Filing a false report is a crime punishable by up to 30 days in jail.”

By contrast, it was the Washington Post that was first to publish Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh, setting off the media feeding frenzy that followed. The WaPo framed Blasey Ford sympathetically and took her claims at face value.

“The author of the Washington Post article insinuated that Reade was at fault.”

CNN has been the most dishonest player in the whole sordid affair. The media behemoth waited a full 24 days to first mention Tara Reade’s accusations against the Democrat frontrunner. Meanwhile, in 2018, CNN published a jaw-dropping 700 articles about the Kavanaugh allegations.

The news network used a similar ‘meta-story’ framing technique to the New York Times. CNN called their belated article Democrats grapple with questions about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, instead of letting the allegations themselves be the news story.

Since Joe Biden has been accused, he has had more than ten TV interviews—including one with Brooke Baldwin and two with Anderson Cooper, both CNN hosts. Neither of them asked Biden about the Tara Reade accusations.

“CNN has been the most dishonest player in the whole sordid affair.”

In fact, not a single interviewer from the legacy media has questioned Joe Biden since the allegations came to light. Most of these same anchors—not just from CNN but also representing MSNBC, ABC and NBC—were adamant in 2018 that Kavanaugh was guilty.

It seems that #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen were little more than hashtags. The rules of the game have suddenly changed now that a Democrat is in the crosshairs.

Even Alyssa Milano—the actress who sparked the #MeToo movement—has taken a sudden and unexpected stand for impartial treatment.

Answering an interview question about Joe Biden, Milano explained that believing all women “does not mean at the expense of giving men their due process and investigating situations… it’s got to be fair in both directions.” This, of course, didn’t stop her from attending anti-Kavanaugh rallies two years ago.

“Increasingly, the legacy media is itself the news.”

The legacy media holds a mammoth sway over the mindset of our culture. When major news outlets report, they are always responsible for their framing; always making ethical judgments; always deciding what is news and what isn’t.

They know this. That’s why CNN sells itself as, “The most trusted name in news.” That’s why the Washington Post courageously declares that “Democracy dies in darkness.” That’s why the masthead of the New York Times still reads, “All the news that’s fit to print.”

But increasingly, the legacy media is itself the news. Activists dressed as journalists running cover for a political party during an election year?

At the risk of sounding like Donald Trump, it’s fake news. And there’s nothing like fake news to fire up Trump’s base and get him re-elected.

Lockdown and Liberty: Is Australia Still a Free Country?

Posted on by kmahlburg

This is a free country.

It’s a phrase we’ve all used, even from schoolyard days—often to stand up to a bully trying to exert their control over us. “This is a free country” are words I repeated countless times as a child, long before I understood the concept of liberty.

I guessed it had something to do with the opening line of our national anthem, which I knew by heart: Australians all let us rejoice, for we are young and free.

Whatever we know about liberty, the idea of freedom and a free country has certainly been brought into sharp relief over the last month. Because of the covid19 pandemic, previously unheard-of rules now limit our interactions, trade, worship, travel, and much more besides.

“Australians all let us rejoice, for we are young and free.”

We know that these are temporary measures aimed at addressing a public health emergency—and our government has provided a cohesive rationale as to why they are needed.

You might agree wholeheartedly with the restrictions we currently live under; you might be an outspoken critic, like the recent protesters in many American cities. Either way, there is something we can all surely agree on: freedom is precious.

At least I hope we can all agree on this.

If I’m honest, I have been surprised at how quickly Australians have adapted to these stringent new rules with almost unquestioning obedience. In my heart of hearts, I hope this is because of widespread goodwill—the desire to protect the vulnerable among us from the spread of disease.

“Freedom is precious.”

I can’t help but wonder, though, if we might have grown apathetic about our freedoms. Do we actually know which liberties are protected in Australia? And if so, do we value them?

The most fundamental truth for us to grasp is that freedom is not something provided to us by the government. Liberty-loving nations have always understood that individual freedom is part of the very fabric of the universe. In other words, humans are born free, regardless of what any person or parliament decides.

In the words of the American sage Benjamin Franklin, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”

“Humans are born free.”

The idea of individual liberty has a long and rich history in the West. Major movements such as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment made important contributions to this. But Christianity—with its insistence that each person has been made in God’s image—has played a leading role in the West’s emphasis on freedom.

The role of our governments, then, is simply to protect the freedoms that are already ours.

The United States has famously enshrined many freedoms in their Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments to its Constitution include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and many others.

In Australia, we have no Bill of Rights. Our Constitution protects a limited number of liberties such as freedom of religion, trial by jury, and the right to vote. As Aussies, many of our freedoms are actually safeguarded by common law—decisions that have been made by the courts in the years since Federation.

“Christianity has played a leading role in the West’s emphasis on freedom.”

Some of our rights are also protected in legal documents, old and new, to which Australia is an heir or signee. The Magna Carta and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are two examples.

So what are the freedoms that have currently been restricted in Australia due to the pandemic?

Freedom of assembly: With ‘non-essential’ gatherings now limited to two people, the freedom for us to meet together in person to share, discuss and debate our common interests has been severely restrained.

Freedom of movement: The right to freely travel from place to place within Australia and to leave our nation has been temporarily revoked. While returning Aussies are welcomed home, most Australians are not allowed to leave the country or even cross state borders.

“The role of our government is to protect the freedoms that are already ours.”

Freedom of religion: There are aspects to this liberty that have not been affected by current rules, such as the right to freely change our beliefs. But our freedom to gather for communal worship, either publicly or privately, does not exist for the time being.

Freedom to peacefully protest: Under normal circumstances, Australians are free to meet for peaceful, public protest. This freedom has also been suspended for now. To peacefully protest would, in many parts of the country, result in severe fines as the law currently stands.

Freedom from arbitrary detention: This liberty, sometimes referred to as security of the person, normally relates to arrest and punishment. It is presently the case, however, that Australians have been told only to leave their homes under very limited circumstances, regardless of whether they are sick or healthy. This, it could well be argued, is a form of arbitrary detention.

There are many other freedoms that could be listed that are impacted by current restrictions, such as the right to trade freely, the right to work, and the right to self-determination.

“We live in an incredible country, even in the midst of a partial lockdown.”

If you have read through this list of liberties, fearing that I am about to call for a riot in the streets, you can breath a sigh of relief. I am not suggesting that.

But if you have read through this list of freedoms and not once thought, “I am grateful to live in a free nation like Australia,” then you may need to check if your heart is still beating.

We live in an incredible country, even in the midst of a partial lockdown. This can be said by the citizens of most Western nations. What so many of us have forgotten is that freedom, as we understand it, is historically peculiar.

“Will the restrictions we now face will reawaken in us a deep gratitude for liberty?”

Step back and survey the great sweep of history, and you will see that the period of time in which our liberties have been so strongly guarded is little more than a blip. We could measure it in just decades and centuries—though empires have been rising and falling for millennia.

Still today, many of the world’s inhabitants don’t know their rights, and don’t enjoy their freedoms.

Most of the world’s nations pay lip service to liberty, on documents both domestic and global. But “the free world” is a concept as relevant as ever, still limited mostly to the nations that make up North America, Western Europe, and East Asia.

“This is a free country.”

Many forces have caused us to grow apathetic about liberty. Surely a recent one is our culture’s increasing obsession with ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ that are unworthy of the name. Biological men competing in women’s sports, and people compelling their peers to address them with new and strange pronouns are several examples that come to mind.

Taking our freedoms for granted, we have become bored with what we had, and enticed by passing fads. The risk is that now, emerging generations can hardly see freedom’s forest for the trees.

The question for all of us then, is this: will the restrictions we now face will reawaken in us a deep gratitude for liberty? Will it wake us up to defend and protect our precious freedoms for future generations?