And speaking of fake ads, we have a few new ones in the next issue of Salvo.
And speaking of fake ads, we have a few new ones in the next issue of Salvo.
The registry, called ASSIMIL8, provides gay couples with a list of business owners whose privately held personal beliefs may reflect traditional Christian views on marriage. The excited fiancés can then pick whose lives they want to totally destroy with a lengthy and frivolous lawsuit, as they anticipate their cheerful nuptials. . . .
From The Babylon Bee—This is an example of a fake news story that really isn’t very far-fetched at all. We do “fake ads” like this in Salvo from time to time. As one of the people behind the creation of these fake ads, I can tell you that the culture is getting harder and harder to parody.
Every year around this time I like to post a section from a Salvo interview with John G. West, author of the book Darwin Day in America. Some highlights from the interview:
So why is your book titled Darwin Day in America?
“Darwin Day” is Charles Darwin’s birthday, February 12. As I explain in my book, there is a growing movement around the world to turn the day into a kind of secular holy day, complete with its own rituals to honor Darwin. These Darwin Day celebrations expose just how much Darwinian evolution is like a secular religion for many of its proponents.
At the same time, Darwin Day provides a metaphor for how our public policy and culture have been influenced over the past century by Darwinian biology and similar kinds of reductionist science. In many respects, Darwin Day is every day in America right now, because Darwinism and scientific materialism have reshaped virtually every area of our culture and politics.
. . .
The subtitle of your book asserts that “our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science.” How so?
At the dawn of the 20th century, leading scientists and politicians giddily predicted that modern science—Darwinian biology in particular—would supply solutions to all the intractable problems of American society, from crime to poverty to sexual maladjustment. A new generation of “scientific” experts began treating human beings as little more than animals or machines.
. . .
How do you respond to those who may claim that your book is anti-science?
Actually, I regard it as pro-science. My critique is directed against ideologues in the scientific community who manipulate science for their own ideological agenda and then demonize those who disagree with them rather than respond to their criticisms. In my view, the real anti-science zealots in our society are the dogmatic materialists who are trying to misuse science as a bludgeon to attack traditional religion and morality.
Your book criticizes the role of scientific experts in politics. But shouldn’t public policy be based on the consensus view of science rather than fringe science?
The consensus view of science is important, and it merits respect. But the consensus view can be wildly wrong. That’s why policymakers need to listen to thoughtful dissenters on major scientific questions—whether the issue is Darwinian evolution, the extent of global warming, or embryonic stem-cell research. As my book recounts, throughout history the “consensus” of the scientific community has often embraced what today would be regarded as junk science—from eugenics to lobotomies to Kinsey’s junk research on sexual behavior. Dissenters in the scientific community have been invaluable in exposing the scientific majority’s blind spots and promoting genuine scientific progress.
Read the entire interview here. For further reading on this subject, see this article by the brilliant Dr. Robert P. George on the famous Scopes Trial.
On Living Well: Five Lessons from Antonin Scalia
by Ryan J. Walsh for National Review
Manipulating science news
Politics is not the only place to look for ‘fake news”
by Heather Zeiger for Mercatornet
I was no Trump fan. But this hysteria is hypocritical.
by Jonathon van Maren for lifesitenews.com
NOTE: To further encourage your reading of the first article (it’s excellent), these are the five lessons:
1. Be honest, even in the small things, and even when it makes life more difficult.
2. Engage with counterarguments.
3. Prepare yourself to make a hard choice, should your conscience ever require it.
4. Prepare yourself to make a hard choice, should your conscience ever require it.
5. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
Twenty-Six Reasons Why Genesis 1:1 Is the Most Offensive Verse in the Bible
By Daniel J. Phillips, PJ Media
VIDEO: New Lies in Planned Parenthood’s Sex Trafficking Cover-Up
Planned Parenthood lied to the media about retraining thousands of staff how to report child sex trafficking
Posted on liveaction.org
4 Recent Examples Show Why No One Trusts Media Coverage Of Trump
The media would like to imagine themselves heroes in their war with Trump. If they don’t improve quickly, they’ll fail in their task.
By Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist
A recent Reddit post has been getting around and I think it worth sharing here as it might resonate with Salvo readers. This anonymous writer points out reasons for the intense negative emotions many celebrities are feeling in this current political landscape.
. . . The left is used to losing political battles. They scream and cry over these but they don’t truly panic, because they know that as long as they maintain their hammerlock on the culture, Republicans can’t really change anything.
Blue Team Progressivism is a church, offering you moral superiority and a path to spiritual enlightenment. As a church it’s got a lot going for it. It runs religious programming on television, all day every day. Every modern primetime program is like a left-wing Andy Griffith show, reinforcing lessons of inclusion, tolerance, feminism, and anti-racism.
Watching a 90-pound Sci-Fi heroine beat up a room full of giant evil men is as satisfying to the left as John Wayne westerns were for the right.
The Blue Church controls the HR department, so even if you don’t go to church, you have to act like a loyal churchgoer in every way that matters while you’re on the clock. And off the clock, on any kind of public social media platform.
Jon Stewart and John Oliver are basically TV preachers. Watching them gives the same sense of quiet superiority your grandma gets from watching The 700 Club. The messages are constantly reinforced, providing that lovely dopamine hit, like an angel’s voice whispering, “You’re right, you’re better, you’re winning.” . . .
For the first time in decades, voters explicitly rejected the Blue Church, defying hours of daily cultural programming, years of indoctrination from the schools, and dozens of explicit warnings from HR.
We’ve been trained since childhood to obey the pretty people on TV, but for the first time in decades, that didn’t work. . . .
Well put. This notion of leftism as religion is an apt one. I would like to point you to a great Touchstone article that details how this is so. The author starts out explaining how Marxism could be viewed as a religion, and goes from there.
Liberalism as Religion
The Culture War Is Between Religious Believers on Both Sides
by Howard P. Kainz
. . .
Until recently, the most notable example of a secular movement that was, for all practical purposes, a religion, was Marxism. During the global expansion of Marxism in the twentieth century, many critics noted its religious and quasi-religious characteristics (see, for instance, chapter XVI, “The Emergence of the Secular Kingdom of God,” in my Democracy and the “Kingdom of God”).
For example, Marxism had dogmas, core teachings that all Marxists embraced. Among these were “economic determinism,” the doctrine that politics, culture, and ethics were necessary extensions of economic relations; and the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a necessary historical stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into socialism. Such dogmas were laid out in Marxism’s canonical scriptures, which included Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, The Little Red Book of Mao Tse Tung, and other official Marxist-Leninist works of the mid-twentieth century.
Marxist orthodoxy was safeguarded by its priests and theologians, who taught the requisite dogmas and presided over the ritualistic observances, principally workers’ strikes, especially general strikes . Throughout Marxist regimes, ideological police and government censors saw that the dogmas found their way into factories and neighborhood organizations and newspapers. Local communes functioned like parochial congregations, and vied with one another for fidelity to socialism, while the ideal of the Third International replaced the Christian image of the Church Militant. In academe, philosophy professors studiously promoted adherence to dialectical materialism (“Diamat”) as the common creed.
Deviations from dogma, i.e., heresies, needed to be suppressed. Things associated with the two great heresies, traditional religion and capitalism, were banned and demonized. Traditional religion, the “opiate of the masses” in Karl Marx’s famous phrase, had to be religiously abolished for the success of scientific socialism. Capitalism, particularly as expressed through private ownership of the means of production, had to be abandoned in favor of the foresight and “five-year plans” of state-controlled hierarchies. Orthodox Marxists had meticulously to avoid such sins as expropriating “surplus value” from an army of oppressed workers, preaching rewards in an afterlife to the proletariat, or settling into the life of a pure consumer removed from the struggles of workers. The wayward were corrected in mandated “reeducation” camps; those found intractable to correction were frequently subjected to excommunication from the party, exile, and even execution.
There was even an eschatology: After the earlier evolutionary stages of capitalism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the “end times” would come, characterized by a new state of consciousness in “communist man,” who would live in a cooperative, crime-less, international community, without any vestiges of dehumanizing labor; and a hagiography, which included generally accepted revolutionary saints, such as Marx, Engels, and Lenin, as well as some venerated by select or local groups, such as Bakunin and Trotsky.
. . .
Further reading from Salvo: