The Symbol of the Reichstag in Germany
A pivotal moment in Hitler’s rise in Germany came from the Nazi burning of the Reichstag. They started the fire, put it out, and then blamed it on the Communists. Democrats in the United States steal this act in a campaign to destroy democracy. The Nazis convinced a large portion of the German population that the Communists burned down their Parliament building. Even their courts wouldn’t disagree.
The Democrats, which have the related word “democracy” imbedded in their name, similarly point the finger at Trump as an authoritarian or totalitarian. His policies looked and still look exponentially more democratic than the finger pointers. He would like the government out of most of the business of Americans. Evidence abounds for this, but let me first take a small step back.
Democracy
The United States isn’t a democracy. James Madison in Numbers 10 and 14 of the Federalist Papers makes this point quite well. But let’s set that aside for now.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that a Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy. A website called “Principles of Democracy” writes:
Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions.
Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions. For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves — openly, publicly, and repeatedly; in speech and in writing.
Freedom of Speech and Democracy
Wikipedia for “Freedom of Speech” reads:
Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy.
Democrats censor their opposition more than anyone and with unending examples. They are similar to the presence of Islam in any country. While Moslems are in a small minority, they cry for human rights, but the moment they take charge with less than a majority, they eliminate unfavorable voices.
Oligarchy followed democracy in Greece. Democrats control a vast majority of the public square in America. I include in that schools, media, and even government. They gladly censor opposing viewpoints. The Democrat controlled institutions don’t allow the truth of the Bible. Unless Christians privately fund their own museum, you won’t see a creation account in public. Democrats label many biblical truths, “hate speech.”
Censorship
Democrats use both hard and soft censorship. By hard censorship, I mean official and legal disallowance of a place and opportunity to speak. It may be the loss of a job, because the Democrats don’t hear a statement of support for same sex activity. That turns the non-speaker, who would like to say something against the activity but doesn’t, into enemy status.
By soft censorship, I mean an avalanche of public repudiation and ridicule until speakers do not receive opportunities to speak. It’s also moderating who speaks. The establishment offers a phony, a fraud, as the representative of the alternative point of view, who goes along with the official or permitted position. Very little to nothing comes in a way of supporting the alternative position.
A historic label for soft censorship is the “kangaroo court.” The J6 Committee is a good example of this, but they abound in every state in either blue states, districts, or regions. They also exist in red areas with blue strongholds. The committee cherry picks their own rubber stamps to represent opposition. Opposition is actually major support with a fake label of opposition. I would hope everyone knows this, but I’m afraid it fools just enough of the disengaged.
Other Examples
The J6 Committee parallels with the internet. You read about the “algorhythms.” The oligarchs of the tech industry force opposition or non-supportive speech into an uninhabited hinterland. They are whole national forests of trees that fall and no one hears, so they don’t make a noise. Only approved speech moves into a hearing zone. Yes, people published something, but no one is reading, because no one is seeing.
The Hunter Biden laptop is a good example too. I say these are just examples of what is now normal. Any supportive tweet or internet entry of the laptop goes unseen, censored as disinformation. The censorship itself is the disinformation, much like the Russian collusion operation. I think this is the least of it though. It’s a censorship industry.
The industry removes the bad news about the favored issue or person. Right now, it has the ability to project a pro-Hamas experience, despite a relatively powerful coalition for Israel. Pro-Palestinian protestors crowd the White House and knock down a protective fence with little coverage from the media. The industry does not parallel or hearken to anything insurrectionist.
Massive Scale Elimination of Democratic Values
As I write on this subject, the most massive scale about which I speak is in education, where for years, the Bible, God, righteousness, and creation and the like are kept out of the massive state school complex even in red states. No one can take a male headship position in anything close to a public square. Can you imagine a professor at a major university who takes open biblical views? It doesn’t happen except in private. You must pay to hear the truth told.
I would agree that the Bill of Rights and especially the first amendment is the essence of democratic values. When do you read anything from the left defending free speech anymore? Democrats don’t write about their love for the first amendment. The closest is a totalitarian support of smut for small children in public schools and genderless bathrooms. These are not about the protection of speech or opportunity to have a voice.
Pent-Up Voices
The J6 crowd came to a rally and then walked to the capital out of a long pent-up frustration of censorship. Yes, better means of expression exist. The high percentage of silencing from the left came to a logger head. That group that day did wrong things. This is not what-aboutism. I see that day as the equivalent of throwing snow balls at the Old State House in Boston in 1770. The censorship industry, I’m afraid, because of its reaction, has not seen the worst.
We could hope that people care enough to do something about the actual attack on democracy from the Democrat Party. So far, I see it as a peaceful embrace of those who would allow free speech. It seems most represented by an ability to oppose masks and vaccinations. Still, do positions exist for scientists with an opposing view? Are there safe places of employment in hospitals and in medical schools with an alternate view? I’m saying this is just representative, because the worst relates to far more important issues of truth.
Democrats have a burning Reichstag type hatred of democracy. The Nazis opposed burning the Reichstag. But they burned it. The Democrats don’t mind burning everything down to get their way. They don’t care if you vote or not. They don’t even want you able to say what they don’t want to hear.
To be fair, I’m not a big fan of democratic forms, either.
Tim,
What form are you a fan of?
Jimmy (if that’s your name) and Everyone Else,
I’m not going to publish snide and ridiculous comments to this post. So, I didn’t publish yours, “Jimmy.”
By the way everyone, a couple of things though,
1) This is in my lane. I did teach history and government for 30 years. I have read widely. And I do apply scripture. 1 Cor 6, maybe you know, says that the church should judge things more than sending them to the outside world, outside of the church, because the church (the true church) will judge in the kingdom, so it may as well get accustomed now. Some regular generally snide commenters think, leave commenting on these issues to people with PhDs from Babylon. They play right into their hands with this. It’s interesting that people have no problem getting, for instance, a Jordan Peterson take on almost everything and he’s a psychologist. They listen to hours of biblical presentation from him, not his lane, and that’s fine, when he is way, way off on what he says.
2) My subheading for the entire history of my blog has said, Opinion Based on the Bible. I tell you, it’s my opinion, but based on the Bible. I say up front that I’m going to write things like this, which I believe represent subdue and have dominion, a Christian worldview, that God never rescinded for people like me.
I would prefer legitimate monarchy (though I know that’s not going to happen in the USA).
There is a lot that I like about a Constitutional Republic. What do you do with 1 Samuel 8 and God’s criticism of monarchy? I’m assuming you see His criticism of illegitimate monarchy.
“There is a lot that I like about a Constitutional Republic”.
There is no better form of government that “sinners” can be under, but it takes principled men to keep it. Christians have failed miserably in standing up against the perverted freedoms parlayed by secular humanists who see “religion” as a weakness rather than a strength.
They are correct because true biblical Christianity has lost its power to overcome this through the strength of godly men who live blameless and holy lives, proving it by preaching against the sins of the people in an open manner as did Jesus Christ, Paul and all the great preachers of historic times.
Tom
Brother Brandenburg,
I’m teaching in the book of Daniel and in Daniel 2 it speaks of iron mixing with clay. Some commentators take this to mean monarchies mixing with “people’s rule.” The “clay” is considered weak and feeble and easily broken and it says that the “iron” mingle themselves with the “seed of men” but they shall not cleave one to another because iron does not mix with clay.
Do you agree that this is speaking of monarchy vs. “the people’s rule”? If so, is there a reasonable case to say that God, through this dream, was showing this form of government as weak. I don’t actually have an opinion, just wondering about this since the Bible speaks much about kings and princes and how they are supposed to rule, while not necessarily giving instruction for a democratic republic.
If you don’t agree with that interpretation, I would be interested in what you think it does mean, as some think the “iron” are angels who cannot mingle seed with “men” in like manner as the interpretation of Genesis 6 the “sons of God” were angels intermingling with the “daughters of men.”
Hello Bro David,
I don’t think the iron and clay toes could be any of the things you’ve said. Each of those sections of the statue are different empires that come along from that period of Daniel: Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman. The only monarchy of these four is the Babylonian. The ten toes are a division of the Roman empire, one could call the rise of the nation states, but each proceeding piece from top down is a weaker form. Anyway, the mixture of the iron and clay is easy for destruction. I don’t see it as any commentary on democracy, except if it were a kind very ambiguous one to the diversity, which produces weakness, a lack of oneness in identity, as seen in the iron of the Roman Empire.
One more thing. I do recognize that Biblical principles of governance apply to a democratic republic, so I’m not saying that there is no possibility of such a government using the Bible as its basis of operation. Just that what we see in the Bible is kings and princes, rather than democratic voting and representation. Just kings and princes still listen to their people, but have ultimate power and truly make or break a nation.
No one commented on my 1 Samuel 8 reference where God puts down these merely human monarchies. I don’t know if that’s what Tim meant by legitimate or illegitimate. I can get why someone would prefer a monarchy. Jesus will be King. An executive could enforce God’s law, God’s will for Israel.
Thank you for the response. I still don’t know what the emphasis on mingling with the “seed of men” has to do with the inability of iron mixing with clay, but I will do some more study of that.
As to the 1 Samuel 8 passage. A simple reading seems to be very specific about that one situation, not necessarily a putting down of human monarchies entirely. I’m not arguing for a monarchy as the best form of government, but I don’t think 1 Samuel 8 is an argument against any monarchy as human government. Not every king did the things that God said that particular king would do, nor does every nation reject God’s reign by appointing a king, as was the case there. In fact, it seems that there is merit to a king that would rule well and not do those things in the very expression of “Shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” As if a king that ruled well would be acceptable and good.
Thomas Ross wrote something very good on this here: https://faithsaves.net/god-government/
On the Daniel 2, mingling with the seed of men, the best answer, I think is the loss of oneness, which is particular prey in forms of democracy. Too much pluribus. Not enough unum. You can see this the downfall, a lack of coherence, which can only occur through God. The Roman Empire as sheer iron lasted very long. The present form of a mult-nation confederacy, like the United Nations or a League of Nations, brings a weakening diversity. The mixture weakens.
The founding fathers were on to something with a strong executive branch and the separation of powers. We can see the problem that they did not address sufficiently. I’m saying this with fondness, but every time I try to address this here, Brother Ross goes after me with great fervor, makes it almost impossible to publish because of the style of argumentation that comes as a consequence. (I’m sure you’re reading this Thomas, so take it into consideration.) It’s impossible to keep the principles of Americanism held by the founders without establishing something in the way of religion. I would say impossible. You can’t say, “These truths are self-evident,” and then not include them in anything else in your founding documents.
Thank you for sharing the post from brother Ross. I read it and enjoyed it thoroughly. I would even say that it changed my perspective on what I said about 1 Samuel 8. It appears that their rejection of God included rejecting the form of government that He set up, which did not include a monarchy. Thanks again for giving me something to think about.
Kent wrote:
“We can see the problem that they did not address sufficiently.”
And what was that problem?
No comment.