Just invert the compass, Part I

By Donald Hank

Imagine a world in which schools, universities, the media, government, rich bankers and corporations everywhere taught that there is no such thing as the sun, and that all light and heat was generated by man-made sources. Anyone who asserted otherwise, in defiance of the major ongoing legal and propaganda efforts of these groups, would be scorned and marginalized socially so as to be practically unemployable thanks to the consensus that, as employees, such people would hold back progress with their backward views and, if working in a science-related field, would corrupt scientific thought, interfering with research. Meanwhile, ordinary people would be taxed to pay for the generation of light and heat that actually came from the sun and most would accept this taxation without complaint. Sun shields, thoughtfully dubbed "radiation blocks," would be installed everywhere in high-concentration population centers, and there would be a ban against looking upward when spending time outdoors, based on the generally accepted notion that looking upward would harm people mentally. Indeed, the fact that such violators of this international law sometimes irrationally insisted "there really is a sun," was incontrovertible proof that sky gazing is harmful to the mental faculties.

Anti-sun literature and political speeches written at the top universities by the best scientific minds powerfully countered claims, based on alleged sightings, that the sun existed. The most widely accepted scientific argument was that the white orb some claimed to have seen was in fact the heavenly reflection of the man-made government heat source, whose location was not disclosed due to unspecified terror threats that seemed to be cropping up everywhere.

However, in a world like that, the brightest minds, even if they had not seen the sun (in violation of the strict law forbidding sky gazing), might still suspect there was one, simply based on the principle expressed in Shakespeare's words: methinks he doth protest too much.

Thus, the powerful, all-pervasive arguments against the existence of the sun and the cruel treatment of dissenters who theorized the sun's existence would in themselves furnish a valuable clue as to the existence of the sun, militating against the official view.

Anyone sincerely wishing to know the truth could then eventually cut through the propaganda and free himself from the official lie.

Of course, in our world, no one could deny the existence of something so obvious as the sun.

Or could they?

Throughout the West, we are taught from little on up that our world is changing its viewpoint naturally as people gain enlightenment, which is defined as socialist progressivism and a liberalization, or even rejection, of biblical Christianity, which is seen as simply too narrow to fit modern scientific thought. Certainly, slavery and the Jim Crow laws were abolished partly due to enlightenment, and much of the progress we saw in the elimination of racism was on the grassroots level, though catalyzed somewhat by elitist voices. Lazy thinking often makes us believe that, despite the elimination of anti-black hate, much remains to be done in the area of human rights and that means acceptance of the Left's entire platform — even virulent antifamily, anti-tradition, anti-freedom ideas promoted by radicals who hate Christianity. In other words, we must accept Marxist "progressivism" because it is a natural product of grassroots activism. Anything opposing it is "Astroturf," or false grassroots activism paid for by rich corporations, which are, however, never named.

As a corollary to this theory, we are told that Christianity, at least in its primitive biblical form, i.e., a series of beliefs, is just melting away naturally as ordinary people see the truth.

In other words, Christianity is a series of myths, but Marxist "progressivism" is the real thing and based on science.

Yet a recently rediscovered article by Richard Wurmbrand casts a long dark shadow over this contention, showing that Marx himself was a Satanist and Lenin was also "dominated by Satanist ideology," as were, to some extent, other major communist leaders like Stalin and Mao.

If Marx really did worship Satan, as his own earlier writings clearly suggest, then he necessarily did not ever deny the existence of God or Satan, and hence the authority of the Holy Scriptures. He simply inverted Christ's value system, taking Satan as his god and God as his adversary.

Could it be then that Marxism, what today's Left now calls progressivism, is not the expression of a natural decline in belief through enlightenment at all, but rather a diabolical expression of hatred toward God and His creation?

One thing is certain: For centuries, the world has been at war with Christ. Islam declared war on Christians (as well as Jews) in the 7th century, reducing Arab Christians to a state of near slavery under the tribute system of dhimmitude, where non-Muslims had to literally pay for their lives and freedom. The situation remains essentially unchanged today, and has been in fact exacerbated thanks to the Iraq War, resulting in the nearly total exodus or annihilation of Assyrian Christians in the region.

The persecution of Christians and others by false Christians plagued the Middle Ages. The Huguenots were slaughtered by the thousands. The Spanish Inquisition ruthlessly punished dissenters.

Later, Luther's followers tortured, jailed, slaughtered and banished the Anabaptists, my ancestors, throughout most of Europe — which is why I was born in the New World.

But weren't the participants in these pogroms against dissenters Christians?

That is a pivotal question on which everything hinges. For it they were, then Christianity, supposedly a religion marked by love and humility, is marred indelibly and has no claim to future or present legitimacy.

Yet, Jesus at no time preached hate or punishment of the unfaithful. In fact, He preached love not only for one's neighbors but also for one's enemies. And He gave his life to free sinners.

Nonetheless, humanist historians and academicians are almost unanimous in their condemnation of this obviously good and kind man who went to bat for sinners and never once sought to enrich himself through his teachings, which, theoretically, could have made him as wealthy as the Maharishi.

In fact, after He performed the miracle of the fishes and loaves, He immediately retreated from the crowd of 5,000 who sought to make him King, first to a mountain top and later across the Sea of Galilee. He knew these materialists were not sincere followers and told them they had come only because they had "filled their bellies." And He warned his disciples of false teachers coming in His name. He couldn't have been plainer.

Yet, despite these warnings by the Master himself, those who do not know Him say it is His followers who are destroying our world with fanaticism and ignorance.

But the alleged "followers" clearly fall into the category of the false teachers He warned about, deflating the Left's claim.

For instance, one of the main arguments against Christ is the teaching that Hitler was a Christian. As shown in the recently published book "Hitler, the Holocaust and the Bible," by Joe Keysor, this contention, while almost unanimous among historians, is erroneous and owes to the general ignorance of biblical teachings in academe. While Hitler did indeed have a working relationship with Christian leaders, both Catholic and Protestant, official Christendom had been so weakened by German theologians over more than a century before Hitler's time that their teachings no longer embodied those of Jesus Christ. In fact, by the 1930s, "Christian" theology was so corrupt that many German clergy subscribed to the thinking of nazi theologian Walter Grundmann, who thought Christ was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier.

But biblically oriented pastors (a small minority) boldly condemned Hitler's treatment of the Jews and other underdog groups. Some were jailed, others paid with their lives. Thus it is grossly unfair to say that true Christianity supported Hitler.

Now, lacking a Hitler to use as a red herring, academe has found a new point of attack: They have cunningly succeeded in convincing a dumbed down world that Christianity is a persecutor of homosexuals.

This attack is based on the absurd view that a homosexual relationship, through which no children can come into the world — a relationship based on adult hedonism and sexual gratification that is directly or indirectly linked to numerous diseases — is the moral equivalent of marriage between the sexes and is equally wholesome for rearing children. This view would be readily dispelled if there could be free discussion on the subject. But in today's world, where freedom of religious speech is being outlawed and pastors are muzzled, there can be no meaningful open debate. Almost all such debate is in fact confined to internet sites like Laigle's Forum.

(to be continued)

© Donald Hank