Against Professor Parkinson's "Common Good"

So Eternity News has in typical fashion released another kiss-left-punch-right article, with some of the usual poor reasoning I have come to expect from their opinion section, from Christian statists, and from apologists for the scientific industry (which is not equivalent to science itself). There is also an attempt at gaslighting, which is becoming more common among this group. So that lay believers may be able to see through these errors, I have made this response to the claims of Professor Patrick Parkinson.

The absolute state of New South Wales (and Australia)

Something I posted on my Facebook yesterday, in response to a press conference by the NSW Police Minister (read: Commissar) David Elliot. Full video can be watched here (and an edited version to maximise Elliot's honesty here):

"You'll also be endangering the lives of your loved ones, and of course prolonging this lockdown. You're gonna be doing everything you want to stop.

This is how wicked rulers thrive today; gaslighting. It is YOU, the man merely trying to live his normal life, who is causing death and suffering. It is YOU who are prolonging this lockdown.

Of course, these are lies. David Elliot is a tyrant and a liar. Why did he not mask up and lockdown before COVID-19? Over 1200 people died from influenza in 2017, and between 800 - 900 in 2019 (the sources differ). Statist lapdogs may screech "but covid badder!!", but that is irrelevant, because many people have and do die of influenza every year. To say we should lockdown for COVID but not the flu is totally arbitrary and contradicts the alleged foundations of locking down for COVID; saving lives. So, if their concern is saving lives to the absolute, why did rulers like Elliot, Hazard, etc. not act according to their totalitarian worldview before 2020?

Now, the statement I quoted is a lie and gaslight for two reasons. First, every single action we take in our lives can in theory "endanger" someone. My taking out a knife from the kitchen draw *could* result in my slipping and stabbing my brother in the stomach. My driving to work *could* result in an accident that wipes out a whole family. The same with COVID; I *could* have it, and *might* spread it. But unless you *know* you are mishandling a knife, unless you *know* your car is about to fall apart or you're passing into oncoming traffic, and unless you *know* you have COVID (or know such is likely i.e. via symptoms), it is unreasonable, unjust, and evil to accuse someone of endangering lives and legislating against them accordingly, because *everyone* is endangering someone to some degree *every day*. It is impossible to remove all or even most risks from our lives; we literally could not live, let alone enjoy the life God has given us, if we even tried. And the state's tyranny is proving exactly that; trying to stamp out one disease has resulted in social and spiritual life being annihilated and countless thousands having their livelihoods wiped out, forcing them onto government support (making you dependent on the state).

Second, the rest of the statement is a literal lie. COVID, nor people trying to live their lives and not be crushed financially/socially, are not prolonging the lockdown. Ordinary people are not, and are not capable of issuing edicts shutting down an entire state. John Doe from Surry Hills didn't get up on the podium and declare a lockdown. Tyrants like Berejiklian, Hazard, and Elliot are the ones who make the choice to shut down the state and destroy people's lives. They *choose* to respond to numbers on a chart in the manner that they do. Would these same liars consistently apply this logic and accuse protestors in Afghanistan of causing the Taliban to kill dissidents? Of course, not, because they feign being "liberals" who support "human rights". But they obviously don't, they are either cognitively dissonant or they are liars.

Don't let tyrants enslave you mentally as they already have physically. May they see God's justice one day."

A case study in the fruits of secular "scholarship"

I recently got my first major hater, and you may know this if you saw my recent posts on Facebook and Gab. This wasn't a mere "ur wrong bigot" or some other innocuous trash comment. It was actually two comments at a near essay length on my video response to the TikTok lady theologian, from an alleged religious studies academic in South Africa by the name of Tristan Kapp. I Googled him out of curiosity and he seems to actually have a degree of fame...

... as a "Reverend" in the South African Satanic Church [I], with a Master in Divinity.

...

...

*WHEEZE*

Not kidding, just read the interview in footnote I.

Here is his first comment:

I of course responded with a miniature essay [II].

And this is his second comment:

And likewise my reply [III].

Take a minute to massage your face after it scrunched from all that cringe.

Now, I hope people can see how at least his second comment is utterly stupid (the first requires some specialised knowledge to see how he's wrong), and the sheer scale of his fallacies baffled me. But when I found out his position as a Satanic "Reverend", the pseudo-scholarship of his comments suddenly made sense. When you adopt man-centred ideals (an adjective his religion will happily accept) and want to see them flourish, it's very attractive when you see a section of biblical scholarship argue that such values are promoted (or at least not contradicted) in the scriptures; you could turn the foundations of Christians against them. Or, when they are too clear in their condemnation of modern activities, we just need to ridicule them with infantile assertions like in his second comment, as you will see in the second comment.

Now, notice what he says at the beginning:

"Doing my Ph.D. in Religion Studies..."

And at the very end:

"If you're looking for concrete research, confer Kapp, T. (2020), "Spiritual Sexuality: Towards a holistic and a-ecclesial sexual ethic", MDiv. Thesis..."

The guy has a Master of Divinity, AND is currently on his way to a Ph.D. So what does that tell you about the state of academia when he is publicly refuted by a guy with a mere Bachelor? How much twisting of facts and self-deception must you indulge in that you come to conclusions like these, despite clearly showing that you have at least some degree of access to the ancient sources that show otherwise? How was I able to find the papers and primary source evidence that I did and he could only give cherrypicked, mis-interpreted snippets?

It's quite obvious; the problem is foundations and integrity. You can have all the degrees you want, all the papers, all the academic reputation, and yet that does nothing to fix shoddy, atheistic foundations and rotten academic integrity. Having been drenched in liberal, unbelieving scholarship over the year, I see Mr. Kapp as the archetype of unbelieving scholarship; an activist for unbelief in a scholar's robes.

Does this necessarily means he lied about the evidence? No (but let's be realistic, that isn't an impossibility). I have seen how an off worldview can so thoroughly cloud your mind as to distort your search for and interpretation of your evidence. You can dismiss or ignore evidence without thinking you are actually doing so. It is, at its core, self-deception. These same deficiencies are visible in TikTok lady theologian in the original video Tristan commented on; despite her education, her ideology pushed her to adopt arguments that a first-semester theology student with functional reasoning could see through.

And that is the fruit of secular scholarship: men with funny hats perpetuating self-deception by drawing the coffee stain on their glasses onto the world in front of them. 

This is a lesson for all lay Christians who were or may be intimidated by the claims of secular scholarship; drop the fear and stop mythologising the academy. As clearly seen here, people with degrees can and do make dumb takes even in their areas of expertise. Evidence is evidence and truth is truth, regardless of who says it or denies it.

But there is one final episode to this saga. Tristan soon private messaged me after our comments exchange:

My response in two parts:

1: *WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE*

2: 

P.S. I couldn't find Tristan's comments a few days after they were posted. Perhaps he deleted them; take that as you will.

~~~

I - Tristan Kapp interview: https://pdby.co.za/sasc-rev-kapp-interview/

II - Response to first comment:

III - Response to second comment:

I won't apologise for my heritage

Just a quick post, not too flashy:

Happy Australia Day, no qualifications. No "this is a time to mourn", no "we weren't a perfect nation". Happy Australia Day. 

Australian Christian figures and media organisations will nowadays often qualify Australia Day with some reminder to lament the suffering of the indigenous. Motivated by a defeatist, self-hating version of Christianity, they suck any joy and pride out of the day, as if our nation isn't worthy of any celebration. Eternity news here is a good example. Granted, this is reporting on a Church's action, not giving an opinion piece. However, you quickly learn with media orgs like Eternity that what they do and do not report on is a good test of their demeanour. Notice how this is virtually the only article on their site pertaining to Australia Day, and it shows a Church trying to play the middle ground, neither condemning or 'whitewashing' Australia's history. They - Eternity - can't bring themselves to promote joyous celebration on this day; we can't enthusiastically celebrate our nation's founding. This is why Christian centrists and pacifists rile me up.

There are also the usual hordes gathering around for their "Invasion Day" protests, with Australia's media oligarchs fuelling their garbage [I]. These people don't care about debate, they don't care about sober historical research. They hear "white man bad" and bang the war drums.

First we need to see the ideological assumptions of this pack. Assuming the black armband view of history [II] is true, British colonies have historically and brutally mistreated indigenous Australians, and only in recent decades has this begun to be rectified. Therefore, we should not celebrate Australia as some great achievement of civilization, but a nation built on the blood of murdered natives and their destroyed societies. Instead we should mourn this destruction, apologise to the natives, and do everything in our power to raise them up in well-being 

That's the gist of their view, and I aimed to be charitable in presenting it. But however well I word it, I can't escape how rubbish the logic is.

If a bloody history disqualifies a nation from retaining any pride, then no people on earth can have pride in their nation. But the activists may be more than happy for this to be the case, at least for white Europeans; rootless urban parasites have no interest in the pride or even the survival of their heritage. Yet they're all for minorities having pride in their heritage, no matter how barbaric that heritage is, such as traditional indigenous culture [III]. And I mean that without qualification and without malice; the 'noble savage' is a myth, and indigenous Australian culture was the dictionary definition of barbaric. See the article in footnote three. But also take time to read arguably the most in depth account of pre-colonial indigenous culture, The Life and Adventures of William Buckley [IV], in which a former convict recounts his experience of living with the Wathaurong people for 32 years, including the bloody warfare and barbaric treatment of their own kin (especially women). Don't take these sources as the be-all-end-all, but as a good start on this inconvenient topic. 

So, are activists prepared to start condemning indigenous Australians for their racial pride? When will they start demanding that National Sorry Day become National Say-Sorry-to-Your-Women Day?

But this is even assuming that the black armband view is true, even partially so. One of a handful of historians to dare to combat this orthodoxy is Keith Windschuttle in his multi-volume "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History", in which he thoroughly critiques many claims of deliberate killings and genocide of indigenous Australians. Often, he is very successful, but other times not, as countless online critiques of his work emphasise (although they too sometimes misrepresent Windschuttle). When half the academic establishment rushes to attack your work, it's inevitable that genuine errors will be found. And all this to say, read Windschuttle, read the primary sources he cites, read his opponents, and read Windschuttle again to see if they accurately represent him. Don't rely on organisations like the ABC and activist NGOs who have a vested interest in lying about history. You will see that the black armband view is at best simplistic or at worst a lie.

In the end, whatever history says, the result of colonisation is clear; a great and prosperous civilization which even many indigenous persons have come to benefit from, most of all from being exposed to the Gospel, and having access to countless opportunities for personal fulfilment and material comfort (especially compared to their former way of living). For this I won't apologise.

We can debate the mistakes the British made every day of the year in the blogosphere and the halls of academia. But this one day especially deserves to be one of unqualified celebration. A civilization was born, and the greatest cultural achievements this continent has ever seen were achieved in the last 200 years. But the most importantly, a new front for the Gospel was opened.

No, you rootless urban parasite. I won't shun my heritage; I won't be guilted into shaming my ancestors; I won't kiss the feet of an aboriginal as if I did something wrong; I won't be lamenting today, but joyous. If indigenous people want to lament any sufferings they incurred, they can go ahead, but neither they nor any white saviour activists will stop me from thanking the Lord for forming this great nation.

I will praise the rise of civilization and laugh at the cry of activists.

Happy Australia Day.

~~~

I - For example, The Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/national/on-invasion-day-our-calls-for-justice-will-not-be-silenced-20210124-p56wf0.html

II - An activist-led school of historical thought whereby post-colonial Australia was overall disgraceful in its treatment of indigenous Australians. An overview of the debate can be read here: 
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9798/98RP05#CON

III - Part II of a series of articles, all of which should be read (though the links in this article are broken, so you will need to manually search for them):
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/

IV - Full PDF here:
https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/115045/2/b12742697.pdf