Anti-Nonsense Alerts

Friday, January 13, 2006

Have to admit I'm getting blogger, a little blogger all the time

Okay, thanks, Joe W.! Now that I've got a second "original"
post, have I used up all my ideas?

Let's see, here's one which I don't think I ever got around to
using in an "Empowered For Freedom" circular. Let's call it:


Back in the '60's, Bob Dylan could do no wrong in the eyes
of the popular culture. He was allegedly a giant of creativity
and the conscience of the Western Hempisphere (that was a
typo, but in view of what many of his fans were smoking I've
decided to keep it).

All this changed the very instant that he claimed to have
become a believer in Jesus Christ. Now, suddenly, the former
Dylanites decided that he was arrogant and self-righteous.
In fact--much the way the Soviet Union used to call dissident
writers not only treasonous but also untalented--they decided
he was not a giant of creativity after all. "Saturday Night
Live" did a supposedly clever sketch which depicted Dylan
as having stolen his major song ideas from Woody Guthrie--
an accusation they would never have aimed at him as long
as he was politically correct.

Like the seed dropped in shallow soil, Dylan could not take
the persecution. So he "repented" of the "offense" of taking
an interest in Jesus. In an interview with SPY Magazine, he
said that it didn't matter if Jesus was the Son of God or not.
Of course, he was smart enough to realize that NO ONE
would EVER say this unless he was convinced that Jesus
was NOT the Son of God; thus, his saying that it didn't
matter was an absolute capitulation--a clear declaration
to the leftwing establishment that he was abandoning all
that Jesus-freak foolishness, so wouldn't they please let
him be a giant of creativity again?

It worked. The leftwing establishment, in its secular-
humanist grace, "forgave" Dylan and gave him permission
to be admired again. If a rooster crowed three times
around then, Dylan wasn't listening--probably too busy
counting his thirty pieces of silver.

That reminds me: someone once wrote a little poem
that warrants reflection--

"Strange to think how man
By man himself is priced;
For thirty silver pieces,
Judas sold himself, not Christ."


At 3:05 PM, Blogger Joseph R. Ravitts said...

I should properly be making this a
separate new post also; but I don't
want my acknowledgement of Joe W's
guidance to go unnoticed. So I'll
make this a "comment." Having seen
that I can save material from the
old "Empowered" website even if it's white letters on a colored
background (I think that's an
improvement contained in Windows
XP), I want to preserve one of my
favorite old pieces of mine: a
copycatting tribute to "The
Screwtape Letters." Note that
the character "Screwitup" is
imagined to be Screwtape's twin
brother; and let me give credit
to my Mary for suggesting the
name Screwitup when I was first
thinking of this friendly parody
of Mr. Lewis.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

^^^ Screwitup's Chatroom ^^^

(written, as I recall, in 1998)

NOTE: This is a FICTITIOUS chatroom, copycatting C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape" concept. Actual devil-worshippers will have to look elsewhere for an outlet!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

DARK-DATE: 13-666-1

SENIOR TEMPTER SCREWITUP: Welcome to the Infernal Disinformation Highway, everyone! Thanks to my ingenuity, we can dispense with the hopelessly old-fashioned method of letter-writing so stubbornly clung to by my twin brother. This broad forum for discussion of diabolical tactics will help avoid the factional rivalries that were always encouraged by those uncontrolled individual communications.

FILTHGOBBLE: Wait a minute, aren't we demons _supposed_ to be encouraging rivalry and conflict?

SCREWITUP: Only among the human vermin, you idiot! We superior beings must remain united in our great cause, marching forward to the day when we can pull the Enemy down from Heaven.

DEATHSTING: Speaking of that, are there any new estimates from Headquarters on just when we will be able to pull Him down?

SCREWITUP: Now, you know that's classified. We don't want to give our plans away to the Enemy, do we?

DEATHSTING: But we _can't_ hide anything from Him, anyway! You've been in the field; you know that He always knows everything we're---

{ { Deathsting's account has just been flamed out of the chatroom. Deathsting is being removed to the Correctional Department. } }

SCREWITUP: Any more defeatist attitudes out there? If not, we can get down to some useful brainstorming. Let's look further at this matter of rivalry and conflict--among humans, that is. One of the few things my twin brother has ever done right is to promote confusion among mortals over the meanings of words, amplifying emotional impact without allowing clear understanding. Not that he deserves too much credit for that; it was I who really started him thinking along those lines. Anyway, consider the word "politics," which has become a dirty word among humans. I don't know whether we should be congratulating ourselves for the success in societal corrupting to which this bears witness...or whether we should be trying harder to make the mass of mortals so cynical that they can no longer even feel the moral indignation which made them hate that word. But meanwhile, there is a valuable semantic trick to played with the concept. Can anyone anticipate where I'm going?

SMOKEBLIGHT: Yes, sir! If mortals under our influence are doing actions that by any rational definition are political--such as attempting to eliminate all the authority of parents over children in favor of an all-controlling government--we must help them to deceive themselves that these actions are not really politics. But if servants of our Enemy Above undertake any conspicuous public action tending to have an effect on society, even if the strictly political effects are only secondary products of the moral issue, our human slaves must be made to regard _those_ actions as "political" in the most utterly negative, reproachful sense their feeble souls can be induced to feel.

SCREWITUP: Exactly! It's the same double-standard approach which has served us well in such a great variety of tactical situations. Crunchmuck, are you on line? Remember your work in American churches a couple of Earth-decades ago?

CRUNCHMUCK: How could I forget? We helped church people sympathetic to Marxism convince themselves that it was their spiritual duty to raise public protest against any effort by free nations to resist Marxism. Even many genuine Christians, their souls not given to us, were being fooled by our propaganda in this regard...even while Marxists were murdering thousands of their fellow Christians!

FILTHGOBBLE: There's nothing so much fun as disguising our mental suggestions with some of the Enemy's phrases, is there?

CRUNCHMUCK: Absolutely! Especially when you can snare the humans in their own ignorance. Like the way we used "Thou shalt not kill" to impose moral paralysis on good-hearted humans. All they had to do was learn a little Hebrew to know that the verb our Enemy had used in that Commandment was really "murder," _not_ applying equally to all taking of life; but they didn't bother finding that out. And so we had them telling good people never to fight--while evil people were completely free of such restraints! It was delicious; I can still smell the blood of all the Christians terminated in Vietnam and Cambodia.

THROTTLECLASH: It's the next best thing to being able to devour their souls. If you concentrate on the violent deaths we've brought on saints, you can block out the irritating thought of how richly the Enemy is compensating them in Heaven.

SCREWITUP: Indeed. And while our dupes harped on peace, imitating the appeasers of Hitler, we kept flattering them that they were heroes for betraying whole populations to dictatorship. Then--here's that wonderful double standard again--any time conservative Christians dared to speak out openly on the other side, we made our people see those conservatives as unspiritual--again, "political" in the worst possible sense.

CRUDSTAIN: Excuse me, sir--you know I've been out on superstition- preserving duty in Third World countries for awhile, and you're discussing events in America now. Am I missing something? I thought it was the conservatives that were on _our_ side!

SCREWITUP: I understand your confusion. An industrialized civilization does change its fashions rapidly, human life being so short (and the allure of change being powerful in certain circumstances). This being so, the word "conservative" can mean almost anything, depending on what it IS that someone wants to conserve.

FILTHGOBBLE: Hey, how come I got called an idiot for asking a question, and Crudstain gets a polite answer?

SCREWITUP: Quit griping, Filthgobble. Crudstain has earned respect for his anti-missionary work. He single-handedly convinced several million Western imbeciles that Christian missionaries were committing "cultural genocide" when they interfered with such amusing tribal customs as headhunting, cannibalism and widow-burning.

GAGSLUDGE: Can we get back to conservatism and politics?

SCREWITUP: Yes. At one time we had "conservatives" doing our work--- maintaining racial segregation, inequality of opportunity and so on. But the "conservatism" of recent years is not very favorable to us, as what it wants to conserve are things we detest: things like marital fidelity and respect for productive work. So we fight the newer conservatism by tarring it with the brush of the old conservatism. One of the absurd things about humans is that, although they have so little time on Earth before they go to Heaven or Hell (so that you would expect their minds to work as quickly as their aging process), they themselves can't seem to keep up with the facts about their own societies! Thus, at a time when what can be called conservatism is largely serving our Enemy, we still have many humans' minds locked in the past, remembering "conservatives" as racists and sexists--and therefore blaming the current breed of conservatives for the sins of the very different conservatives in an earlier generation!

PITGRUBBER: My work with journalists corroborates that...and gives a fine example of the "Heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" approach we're weaving into mortal society. If one of the secular organizations we control uses forcibly- taken taxpayer dollars to finance projects the taxpayers themselves oppose, the media see that as just fine, as long as the projects are fashionable with our dupes. But if an honest Christian organization uses voluntary donations to carry on its work, I have plenty of reporters and columnists on alert to portray that organization as a gang of greedy, money-grubbing hypocrites (just like the phony ministries we have developed).

SCREWITUP: And the emotions you stir up on this subject then become part of that loathing of "politics" which we foster--selectively.

PITGRUBBER: Selectively is the word! My pet journalists are well trained in selectivity. They play up every act of violence ever done against one of our baby-exterminators, but won't let the public have any idea how many violent acts are done by abortionists against nonviolent pro-life demonstrators.

SCREWITUP: There's no end of uses for double standards. We can even apply them to differing motivations for identical goals. Thus, if Christians oppose pornography because they don't want people rejecting the sexual standards of our Enemy Above, we must characterize their motives as "political" in the worst sense.

THROTTLECLASH: Yes, call the Christians intrusive busybodies, "trying to force their outdated morality on everyone else." As if _our_ immorality weren't always ready to use force. The stupid human worms!

SCREWITUP: Right. And if feminists oppose the exact same pornography in the name of women's dignity, that's not politics, it's empowerment or liberation or whatever sounds good in sound-bites. Then the feminists can go on and claim that a man innocently admiring a woman, with no sinful desire involved, is just as guilty as the pornographer...and the air of nobility we've conferred on the feminists gives them a fake moral authority that makes this false accusation seem believable.

FILTHGOBBLE: This seems like a good place to clear something up. We're not really in favor of dignity for women, are we?

SCREWITUP: In the long run, we naturally wish dignity only for ourselves. The readiness of each of us to humiliate any fellow demon is proof of our strength of spirit. The humans, of course, are beneath our contempt---the more so because the Enemy loves them so much. But we will encourage them to demand more dignity any time that this contributes to their damnation. One of our current policies is to let the feminists keep their complaints (legitimate or not) unstained by the negative connotations of "politics"...yet make them refuse to give any credit to conservative Christians for good motives in their societal actions. In this way we isolate the feminists from the Enemy's influence, so that they will go on being haughty and self-conceited right up to the moment we get them. After that, they can spend eternity undergoing a humiliation far worse than the mere physical rape which we have convinced them all men want to commit. Always remember: it is not societies, but individuals, which can be damned forever. Any social trend which helps lure mortals into our clutches is politically correct for us!

CRUDSTAIN: So among my subjects, conservatism--in their sense--is still to be encouraged?

SCREWITUP: Certainly. Female genital mutilation, caste systems, children sold into slave labor--it would be a poorer world without those time-tested entertainments. But hopefully, we'll be able to devise modern-seeming counterparts of the same things for the more modern civilizations.

GAGSLUDGE:Well, I think we all understand how to subject the Enemy's children to unfair treatment. We've been at it ever since we persuaded Cain to resent Abel. But what about the Christians' own reaction to being treated unfairly? Insofar as we can slip any influence in past their defenses, which way do we try to move them? To plain anger, so they commit the sin of desiring revenge?

SCREWITUP: That's always worth doing if you can. But some believers are so firmly in the Enemy's camp that you can never keep them in a hateful mood for long without them repenting of it and spoiling everything. Accordingly, I prefer a more subtle approach: one that uses their own humility against them. In two words: false guilt. We get them thinking, "Maybe I _am_ being too harsh on adulterers and homosexuals"--when all they've done is affirm the Enemy's Word about those sins. We get them thinking, "Maybe I _am_ shoving my religion down people's throats"--when all they've done is offer the Enemy's grace to our intended victims, and in a manner not half as aggressive as the aggressiveness with which those same unbelievers proclaim _their_ anti-Christian ideas. This tactic often has more chance of succeeding than the resentment method, because it's hard to prevent a genuine Christian from recognizing resentment as sin...whereas the moral cowardice we produce with false guilt can seem to be a virtue. When it works properly, we can see a Christian purposely ignoring clear opportunities to spread the Enemy's gospel, even to people who are interested---and patting himself on the back for "not being pushy!" In matters of society, the same deceived Christian will be paralyzed with dread of being thought to be a witch-hunter or McCarthyite. Any public action--even, say, calling for impeachment of elected officials who brazenly break the law--will become repugnant to him, as "politics."

SMOKEBLIGHT: You know, I never got the credit I deserve for steps I've taken in the entertainment industry, to paralyze Christians in just that way.

SCREWITUP: I know exactly what you're talking about: that television program for which you had the script-control assignment--the one about a Buddhist monk in the old American West. I stole the credit from you on that; if you weren't clever enough to have lines of communication bypassing me, so as to preserve your own prestige, tough luck for you. But if it'll make you feel better, you can describe to the others now what you did with that episode about the missionary.

SMOKEBLIGHT: It's an honor to work with such an accomplished backstabber as you. The prize episode of that whole series was one in which the Buddhist monk joins forces with a female Christian missionary to save a Chinese boy from slavery. (Note that I was not so blatant as to make the woman a villainous figure herself.) At the end of the story, the Buddhist hero, with thinly veiled distaste, asks the missionary if she intends to "make the boy a Christian." Pay special attention to the answer I made the TV scriptwriter put in her mouth. If we superior beings were so wimpy as to care about fairness or truth, I could have had the missionary character say something like, "I'll certainly teach the boy what I believe. Then it will be his free choice to make, whether he wants to be a Christian." That would have respected the boy's freedom of conscience, and it would not have constituted any affirmation by the program that Christianity was true. It would have been genuinely impartial, as our media pretend to be. But that, of course, was not good enough for me. The realism of Hell demands that our foes be the ones to make all the concessions--even while we're accusing them of being rigid! We never yield anything except in pretense, as an ambush. So I caused the missionary character to be "open-minded" on our terms. She conceded to the Buddhist that a Christian conversion of the boy "might not be God's will for him"---and with that concession, of course, she gave away the store! In that one line of dialogue, she dismissed as lies everything our Enemy Above ever said about sin and salvation; and she sawed off the branch on which she and all missionaries were sitting!

SCREWITUP: You did that masterfully; I never stole the credit for a smarter bit of deception. We want living, breathing Christians to be like that fictitious one on television: ready to deny the most explicit and crucial doctrines of their Lord, our Enemy, rather than be thought narrow-minded, prejudiced...or "political."

/////// SESSION ENDS //////

At 7:30 PM, Blogger Joe B. Whitchurch said...

Greetings Joseph, the blog looks great. Radical pro-life song.

January is almost over and I haven't shared with your blog an 'in your face' pro-life activism song. Trying to correct that above. Admittedly it utilizes the rhetoric of evil to
make the point in contrast with the culture of life. Hope you enjoy the jazz.

Sorry for my 'old voice' as old rock bands, before my conversion had me doing the screaming and growling. Ha!

Here's another far more pleasant and softer jazz, pro-life song I wrote (music not the lyrics) based on Psalm 139, a powerful pre-birth, human life affirming Psalm sung by my daughter. Enjoy this one by clicking here.

At 11:33 PM, Blogger Joseph R. Ravitts said...


Joe Whitchurch is not only my pal,
but a longtime associate in the
area of Christian music. Among
other things, he played the piano
and organ at my wedding to my
first wife Mary who is now in
Heaven. He was also acquainted
with my new wife Janalee long ago.

If any of you ever get to hear a radio program done by a preacher named Bill Rudge (who is a man of honesty and integrity, NOT "just another crooked televangelist"), you may hear a bit of piano music that was played by Joe Whitchurch.
In fact, the piano riff I have in mind was COMPOSED by him, as an intro to a song otherwise written by me back in the late '70's.

At 6:09 AM, Blogger Joe B. Whitchurch said...

Joseph, it is Valentines Day and you need something up on your blog about such. Speaking of liberal and or leftist 'forgiveness' you won't get forgiven much if you share this Valentines Witness song I wrote with people. Hope YOU enjoy it. Click here.


Post a Comment

<< Home