‘Our country is divided. Many say it is more divided than any time since the Civil War. Most of you readers live here, so this is no surprise to you. Many articles and even whole books have been written in the last decade on the division in the United States, but the present situation provoked some to write in the last month on the subject. The following paragraph represents writing in the last month on severe division in America.
The City Journal published an article by Andrew Klavan, titled, “At the Heart of Our Divisions.” Klavan, part of Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, tries to explain the division as others have. Newsweek reports that a “Majority of Trump Voters Want to Split the Nation Into ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ Halves.” The Las Vegas Sun reported it this way:
A new political poll offers an alarming look at the state of American unity and our population’s respect for some of the nation’s core values.
The poll, conducted by the University of Virginia’s nonprofit Center for Politics, shows that 52% of respondents who voted for former President Donald Trump were in favor of splitting the country into red and blue states, while 41% of voters for President Joe Biden agree with the idea. More than 2,000 voters participated in the poll, nearly equally divided between those supporting Trump and Biden.
Ed Kilgore at The Intelligencer, part of New York Magazine, writes, “No, We Can’t Get a National Divorce There’s growing sentiment for secession, particularly on the right. It should be rejected.” At Substack, Claremont senior fellow David Reaboi writes, “National Divorce Is Expensive, But It’s Worth Every Penny.” Karol Markowicz writes at the New York Post, “Sorry, but a national split up just won’t work.” Steven Malanga at the City Journal writes, “The New Secession Movement.” Conservative commentator Rich Lowry writes at Politico of all places, “A Surprising Share of Americans Wants to Break Up the Country. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.” Dan Rodricks writes at the Baltimore Sun, “Civil war unlikely, but the nation’s present course could still be disastrous.” Most of these were written in the last week, and there are more.
Okay, so there’s division. Everyone can agree with that. Putin of Russia and Xi of China smile. Why though? I’ve read or heard a lot of different reasons: media, tribalism, the education system, the deep state, and more. Klavan lists reasons in the first paragraph of his post. Those are typical, whole books written about them, but I believe these are surface reasons, I would call, non-worldview reasons, that are superficial and don’t dig deep enough.
My take on the acute and bitter division between states, people, and parties in the United States, I want to give credit, corresponds to something Nancy Pearcey writes about in her book, Total Truth. She explains a division portrayed by the lower and upper stories of a building or house with the lower story being “facts” and the upper story being “values.” Today you hear a lot about facts in the media, news, and schools. This is the “science is real” at the top of the leftist value sign. In this upper and lower story bifurcation, values are probably not what you think they are. Let me explain.
God is One. Truth, which proceeds from God, is also one. Pearcey’s proposition is “total truth,” the title of her book. There are not two stories that treat facts different than values, where values are constructed, personal and subjective. You can’t really know these with certainty. No, with God His natural laws, facts or science, are no different than moral laws. If you fall from the edge of a cliff, gravity sends you down to destruction. Breaking moral laws also destroys. Worse even. God is the Author of both.
Premoderns took a transcendent view of the world. Truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, all related to God. God transcending the world is the basis of the transcendentals. He’s not part of the world. He created it and having created it, He is separate from it. As James 1 says, that with God there is no shadow of turning. God is holy. He is Self-existent and immutable. Nothing affects Him. All meaning comes from God, so truth, goodness, and beauty, the transcendentals, are objective.
This world is God’s world. Even if someone doesn’t believe in God, they are living in His world. This is reality. The division breaks down into those who live in reality, recognition that this world functions according to laws according to which everyone must live, even if they reject the God of the Bible, and then those who don’t live in reality.
The ones not living in reality, which are one side of the division in the United States, see the top story, values, how they want to see them. It’s one reason they are called “values,” and not “morals” or “moral laws.” Using “values” is using language with power. Incidentally, part of critical theory is perfecting this language for use in reconstructing reality.
Looking at the world like two sides of the campus, religion, art, etc. on one side and then science, math, and engineering on the other, the blue part of the country thinks they can assign their own meaning on one side of the campus. They ultimately don’t want God in charge. They don’t want objective values that clash with what they want, so they make up their own and dismiss God or make up their own god that approves of their values. This is the basis for the Democrat party booing God when voting on their political platform in 2012. This is also how they justify killing babies.
The truth is that the blue states, people, etc. now assign their own meaning to science as well. They call it science like hanging out a shingle, pulling science out of a Cracker Jack box. Their subjectivity on the upper story, think of it as bad plumbing, has burst through into the lower story like a broken pipe. That side can’t tell you that a girl is a girl. This is one reason why many don’t want to go to college in this country anymore. They know it’s a racket that is not living in reality.
One side of the division in the country wants the nation to be called like it really is. Borders are representative of this. You can’t be a nation when you don’t protect, not just protect — how about acknowledge that you have a border. Whatever one thinks about the virus and masks and the vaccination, it’s understandable why a big chunk of the country doesn’t trust authority on this. I’m not going to even get into what Fauci has said. He doesn’t speak science and this is demonstrative on multiple occasions.
The government, the media that supports it, and now even corporations are all in on the lies. They allot whatever meaning they want and they expect you to receive it. If you don’t, now they’ll even prosecute you. They’ll fire you. If you don’t put on their particular pin, which supports whatever lie that they deem correct, you might lose your job.
I believe most churches too have succumbed to the two stories I’ve described. They put beauty, music, dress in the personal, the subjective, the top story. They capitulate on basic doctrine and practice to accommodate for popularity and numbers. Their targets see the world according to the lie of these two stories. They know it and they concede to it. This does not bode well for the country. Even if the nation does split into two parts, what will happen to the red side when the churches have taken the same basic approach to truth? This is the most fundamental aspect of worldliness in churches today.
Another metaphor to demonstrate what the division of truth, the two story view, does to the country is a rudderless ship. The country has no certain belief to hold it together or to give it direction. It moves according to whatever current or wind produced by the world, like a float or a bob on an aimless sea. The force of popularity, what scripture would call lust, the combined desires of the population, decides what is it’s truth, it’s goodness, and it’s beauty, whatever each of these is in their own eyes.
Everything above explains the division in the country. Maybe the next question is, what is the solution to this division? That, my friend, is much more difficult.’https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/10/10/what-is-the-primary-cause-of-division-in-the-united-states/
‘British Airways is dropping ‘ladies and gentlemen’ from its announcements. In the name of diversity and inclusion, the airline has instructed staff to use a more ‘gender neutral’ salutation.
You might think that after 18 months of turbulence, BA has more important things to worry about. In spring and summer last year the company was forced to cut 10,000 jobs, representing a third of its workforce, after Covid grounded most of its aircraft. The airline was the biggest user of the furlough scheme, claiming over £10 million in June this year alone.
Nonetheless, a decision has been made to boldly follow where Air Canada, EasyJet and Lufthansa have already gone, changing its language in an effort to mollify a vanishingly small minority. No longer will children have to feel excluded. No longer will ‘social norms’ be disregarded. In this brave new world, passengers will presumably be called ‘everybody,’ or ‘valued customers’. Certainly not that bastion of everyday sexism: ‘guys’.
A lot can happen in a half decade. In 2016, British Airways still proudly laid claim to being the ‘world’s favourite airline’. The national flag-carrier had pipped John Lewis to the position of UK’s most popular brand for the third year running. But in the intervening years, the wheels started to come off, and bad PR took the wheel. In 2017 an elderly passenger was denied access to the loo. In 2018, thousands of customers were affected by a severe data hack which compromised their personal and financial details. The following year, a senior cabin crew was discovered moonlighting as a porn star.
In the same period, BA was morphing into what the Sun once called ‘British Bareways’. Gone were the complimentary meals. Legroom was reduced, Basic Economy brought in. Essentially, the Michael O’Leary, no-frills approach to aviation was adopted. Customer perception started to drop. So it’s perhaps not hard to see why, as we emerge from the pandemic, the airline is seeking good press. And these days, the allure of ‘diversity’ is irresistible – even to a company whose reputation is steeped in tradition and whose average customer is pushing 50. Many consumers now vocally support social justice causes and progressive values are seen as a powerful marketing tool.
Just look at the stunt Ben & Jerry’s pulled last year. The Vermont-based business – whose parent company Unilever has a questionable record on workers’ rights – issued a bizarre condemnation of Priti Patel over migrant crossings. The move may have irked some customers, but not the kind who would boycott the ice cream brand. There is no right-wing equivalent of cancel culture, perhaps because right-wingers tend to be less inclined to make everything about politics and morality, least of all frozen desserts. In the same vein, the types of passengers who rather liked being called ‘ladies and gentlemen’ are unlikely to let this affect their consumer choices.
But this does raise a wider question: is it socially and economically beneficial that conservatives are too apathetic to change their actions? If only one side cares, that side always gets its way: as we are witnessing with the rise in trans rights and corresponding decline in protections for women. We’re now in a strange situation where Conservatives keep winning elections, but really it feels like we’re governed by the Critical Race Theory department. BA is just the latest company to fall in line.
There’s still little evidence to suggest that companies benefit economically from their performative progressivism. ‘Woke capitalism’ is a paradox, because most woke people want to dismantle the whole system. They are more likely to view corporate publicity stunts, like airlines banning gender-binary terms, as cynical and manipulative. It’s likely that stunts like BA’s current virtue signalling do companies no harm, but neither do they actively benefit from it.
Who knows where this tug of war will end. Perhaps, in detaching themselves morally and ideologically from many of their customers, businesses will thrive. But I doubt it.’https://spectator.com.au/2021/10/why-is-british-airways-banning-ladies-and-gentlemen/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MDS%20%2020211015%20%20GK&utm_content=MDS%20%2020211015%20%20GK+CID_9f03f6920642ef79c4d66103518dc033&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Australia&utm_term=Why%20is%20British%20Airways%20banning%20ladies%20and%20gentlemen
Acts 17:29
“Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.”
Nearly everyone just “knows” that if enough monkeys were allowed to pound away at typewriters for enough time, they would eventually produce all the great works of literature. But there are some fundamental laws of science and some very simple commonsense facts that show this claim to be nonsense.
Perhaps after a day or two some monkey might type the word “to” with spaces before and after it. Eventually another monkey might type the word “be.” Given sufficient time and monkeys, we might end up with “To be or not to be.” By this simple, mindless chance typing of letters we could eventually get all the great works of literature.
The truth is, time works against our fearless troupe of innumerable monkeys. If they are going to get their work done, they have to get their job done in a hurry. Neither monkeys nor typewriters last forever. Then there is the problem of paper. Someone has calculated that even if monkeys and typewriters lasted forever and there was an unlimited supply of paper, the worthless trash our monkeys would produce would fill the entire universe before they could get out one Shakespeare play—not to mention War and Peace!
Neither science nor the laws of probability support this nonsensical theory about monkeys. Common sense shows us that this illustration, often used by evolutionists, reveals the anti-scientific nature of evolution. The Bible isn’t against science. Evolution is antiscientific!’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/monkeying-with-typewriters-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=monkeying-with-typewriters-2&mc_cid=e4f5616845&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
Selling the Farm to “save” the planet.
There is no market for power that cannot be delivered on demand. Which is why, in the absence of subsidies, there wouldn’t be a solar panel or wind turbine in sight. Sure, there are remote locations where a solar panel hooked up to a system of batteries and diesel generators make perfect economic sense.
Here though, we’re talking about the large-scale solar plants which are increasingly carpeting the countryside, from horizon to horizon.
The value of a power generator as a business asset ordinarily depends upon the value of the power it generates. With wind and solar, however, it’s all about the subsidies they generate.
Tom Shepstone takes a look at the sale of a large-scale solar plant in New Jersey, which reveals what an enormous scam the solar power generation business really is.
Solar Farm Sale Reveals Green Energy Sorcery
Natural Gas Now
Tom Shepstone
16 September 2021
A…
View original post 820 more words
A “good” war would get the Chinese people’s minds off domestic problems and Xi knows that.
By Dean Cheng ~
For the last several weeks, tensions have roiled the Taiwan Straits. China has sent ever larger numbers of combat aircraft across the center line of the straits and into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone, compelling their Taiwanese counterparts to respond.
The intricate ballet of dispatching multiple types of aircraft from different airbases, coordinating their flight profiles, fuel states, and altitudes, isn’t some ad hoc activity. These are extensively planned operations.
Chinese President Xi Jinping attends a business forum with Italian and Chinese businessmen at Quirinale Palace on March 22, 2019, in Rome. (Photo: Alessandra Benedetti – Corbis/Getty Images)
One goal of these provocations is to intimidate the people of Taiwan and their government. Like Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe at the United Nations, Chinese PresidentXi Jinping is warning Taiwan, “We can bury you!”
ButXi has another motive. The Chinese Communist Party will…
View original post 627 more words
Australia will sell their coal to “developing” nations such as China but will not use it due to their religion of CLIMATE CHANGE! PM Morrison is a hypocrite as he is going for Net Zero 2050 which means coal out and more renewables in.
ByDuggan Flanakin ~
Remember that historic battle over teaching sex education in the public schools? One side demanded that any teaching on sex other than “Just say No!” was outside the lines, while the other side argued that too many teens were saying “Yes” anyway.
Today’s green police believe they have the moral authority to dictate public policy on human uses of energy – that when “EDF button” speaks, people had better listen.
Just last month Dan Welsby and some fellow graduates of the University College – London declared in a tome in the renowned journal Nature that, “most of the world’s remaining fossil fuels” are “unextractable in a 1.5o C world” and “must remain in the ground if we want even half a chance at meeting our climate goals.”
Politicians and pundits alike praised the report for its bluntness, but does anyone else really care about holding…
View original post 989 more words
‘PFIZER LEAKS: Whistleblower goes on record, and reveals internal emails from Chief Scientific Officer & Senior Director of Worldwide Research Discussing COVID Vaccine. That Pfizer executive wrote:
‘We Want to Avoid Having the Information on the Fetal Cells Floating Out There’’https://biblescienceforum.com/2021/10/14/pfizer-wants-to-avoid-you-knowing-that-they-use-ground-up-baby-parts-in-their-vaccines/
The video may be viewed at: blob:https://www.projectveritas.com/4392e882-fc3d-4a37-b5e2-a5728eea31ff
 | crisscross767 on Merck’s Covid Pill and L… |
| crisscross767 on Twitter Censors Obituary of Yo… |
| crisscross767 on Hey Australia; Are we living i… |
 | JJ on Doc Exposes COVID Shots &… |
| crisscross767 on The Silencing of Christia… |
