“Liberal” “Liberal Hoax.” The conservative buzzword to denounce the left. We don’t mind, we reply with liberal quotes such as JFK. However, why is it a ridiculous thing for conservatives to say? Particularly conservative Christians??? Because the word is Biblical.

When Nazis Took Manhattan : Code Switch : NPR

Riots erupted between anti-Fascists and Blackshirts (British

The spread of fascism in the 1920s was significantly aided by the fact that liberals and mainstream conservatives failed to take it seriously. Instead, they accommodated and normalised it.

Why we have to cut off the head of fascism again and again.

Seriously. Look at the image.

American Nazis in the 1930s—The German American

On April 12, 1922, Hitler gave a speech to a crowd in Munich proclaiming he was a Christian, “My Christian feeling directs me to my Lord and saviour as a fighter. As a Christian I have the duty for the truth and what is right.” His supporters believed him

They stated, “Hitler said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Joseph Goebbels knew Hitler to be anti-Christian, in his diary entries, Hitler in reality wanted to destroy the churches. He saw Christianity as a symptom of decay, a strata deposited by the Jewish race.

Hitler was a deceptive politician who knew how to woo voters. He pandered to religious sensibilities. It is known that Hitler would lie if it would benefit him. In the mid 1930’s he assured people he had no aggressive intentions. Even when he annexed Austria, he assured the world

that he had no other designs whilst encouraging Germans leaders in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland region to foment unrest in the country as a country of unrest will accept anything.

My thread yesterday about Hitler, his knowing that he would have to be a Christian hypocrite for political advantage, would also need influential Christian leaders to succeed. For Hitler, this was Gerhard Kittel, the German theologian. He proposed extermination of the Jews.

I briefly mentioned Jerry Falwell. Far right conservative activists Ed McAteer and Paul Weyrich we’re regarded as radicals. There group was to change the existing power structure, but they wanted to change what conservative meant. Weyrich was the man with the vision. He was

known as the “evil genius” of the 1980 manifesto “The New Right: We’re Ready to Lead.” They would establish themselves first as the opposition, then the alternative, finally the government. They would weaken existing institutions and eventually destroy them. First they would

maintain a constant barrage of the left, a constant attack on the legitimacy of the left, “we will not give them a moments rest, we will use guerrilla tactics to undermine all legitimacy of the left. Weyrich stated that he wanted a country and voting changed “I don’t want

everybody to vote.” Continuing “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” The core of the concerns was the perception that American capitalism was under threat from internal and external enemies. The civil rights

This is a thread I have been wanting to write, but it needed to come from a place of logic and truth and not just words. It is yet another one of my Christianity threads. However, this one will really focus on politicians that use Christianity to attain power.

We have politicians who in one tweet say very divisive words like “radical left” and their next tweet is a Bible quote, think Rubio. I have explained in the past that many Americans call themselves Christians based upon the fact that that they are white and American only. “I am

an American and a proud Christian.” This is Christian nationalism. They don’t actually follow Jesus or what he represents. It’s the same as someone who is born in Iraq, they are Muslim based upon it being the predominant religion of the country. There are those that practice

their religion and others that do not.
But what I want to highlight is the evil that comes from those who only use a religion for power. And it really highlights two things.
1. Evil using religion
2. The literal meaning of the Bible.
Now theologians and Biblical scholars

state that the Bible isn’t literal. It’s what they study. But we have evangelicals who say that it is a literal word of God. But there are issues here. They don’t take the whole Bible literal, they choose parts to take literally. But here’s the issue. If these people say we must

When you are struggling, whether it’s problems at work, low self-esteem, conflicts in your relationships, etc, it feels much better to funnel your negative energy into blaming someone else than to confront your own role in your problems. A lot of people join hate groups because

it allows them to funnel the blame for all of their problems into another group of people while being supported by a group of people who share their beliefs and make them feel like they belong.

Many other people join hate groups because it fills their need for friendship and belonging. You don’t need to do or be anything special, all you have to do is be negative towards other people. It feels easy. Likewise, some people find it easier to make connections by putting

others down and seeing who agrees than to prove to people that they are interesting and valuable companions.

When someone new enters a group, particularly if they are in a position of influence, many people immediately begin gossiping negative things about the person because they fear how that individual will change their group dynamics. Sharing hatred toward the new person is a way

🧵 @DianeLangberg wrote about NDAs in Christian environments, noting “An NDA is an agreement to hide something. In the cases I have encountered it has always been an agreement to exercise power over and hide sin.... [it is] unlike our Lord.”
1/

NDAs are traditionally “non-disclosure” - don’t talk about specific X. Often in church/ministry cases - they’re overly broad - don’t talk abt *anything* re: your employment

but also may include

“non-disparagement” - don’t say anything negative about us EVEN IF IT IS TRUE
2/

Numerous articles have described the use of NDAs in Christian environments and the conflict with principles described in the very faith supposedly being promoted. I’m linking them here then I’ll offer my 20-year lawyer and victim of silencing (gag order) take on the practice.
3/

“Silence of the sheep” (2018) from @emlybelz described how the conference of catholic bishops has now banned NDAs in abuse cases but how some churches and Christian orgs still use them without

Later in 2018, @scotmcknight discussed NDAs after the Bill Hybels sex abuse scandal, noting that often the stronger party is implicated in sin because the whole reason for the NDA is bc they know that something is wrong and they don’t want it

X : Do you think cloud will decentralise?
Me : Already has - started with regions and AZs and is now rapidly expanding into outpost, greengrass, EKS anwhere.
X : No, I mean many providers.
Me : There are two forms of decentralisation - provision and control (i.e. authorities) ...

... what is happening is decentralisation of provision (i.e. cloud everywhere, at the edge) but under centralised authorities (Amazon, Alibaba, MSFT, Google etc).
X : What about decentralisation of control?
Me : Many companies working to a common standard ...

... that was the dream of OpenStack but they blew that on day one creating a collective prisoner dilemma. They are trying to recorrect this with K8s but the cloud has moved on, higher up the stack ...

... so, the idea of a marketplace of many different companies each having authority is ... wishful thinking by past vendors and clients they've hoodwinked. Maybe in 15-20 years we will get another go ... open source is a long game ...

... more likely is many points of provision i.e. companies offering EKS anywhere on a utility basis but under centralised authority e.g. AWS.

So, yes, the cloud is going to edge, has been for sometime but it'll be AWS / Alibaba / MSFT cloud that is everywhere.

the strange reality of strict calvinism is that it makes a mockery of God's claims to hate, abhort, or even be theoretically opposed to evil

the calvinist solution to the problem of evil, which I have *literally heard from the lips of a faithful well-catechized Presbyterian* is, "well, all that happens is God's will, and to do His will is to manifest goodness, and goodness gives God joy, so God must rejoice in evil"

The hypothetical I gave was, "Suppose that there was a city of Christians, and a bomber flew over the city, and the guy at the controls tripped and accidentally armed and dropped a bomb, and wiped out the city: is that God's will? What does God think of that?"

His answer in addition to the above cited the Flood, Soddom, and Nineveh.

Because we all know that God's response to the Flood was, "I REALLY liked that, it was AWESOME, it satisfied my will and purposes to obliterate my creation!"

Once you have drunk the "but muh sovrintee" Kool-Aid you cannot escape the argument that literally everything that happens is not just God's will in some philosophical sense, but His will in the sense of "things that bring him pleasure."