It was recently revealed that several American news organizations like Politico and The NY Times have been receiving considerable funding from the U.S. federal government. Of course, this is nothing new in Canada, where the Trudeau regime openly purchased the loyalty of mass media with tax dollars several years ago, and even boasts about it. The once trusted national news source, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or CBC, is now akin to Pravda: a state propaganda machine also specializing in cancel culture attacks against anyone who dares to criticize the state narrative.
This is scandalous, particularly given that partisan media outlets and the governments which presided over this funding are now unified in a war on truth. What is not scandalous is how journalists are now, and ever have been, partisan; and that such biases determine what journalists consider newsworthy. Despite their repeated protestations, they do not simply report ‘the facts’.
In making this claim, they default to a theory of knowledge—what philosophers call ‘epistemology’—with a long and storied history in the West. This particular epistemology is one known as ‘empiricism’.
Empiricism claims that knowledge is rooted in experience. Such experience includes self-perception, but includes all modes of experience. The father of modern empiricism was the 17th century British philosopher, John Locke. He famously declared that prior to experience, the human mind is a tabula rasa or blank slate. Locke held that our perceptions are like mental photographs of the physical world. It is actually our perceptions that we know directly, but these correspond to things. For example, a chair is not a chair per se, but rather our perception of that object. The chair triggers our perception of it, which accurately reflects the chair; but the object of our immediate knowledge is the perception of the chair, and not the chair itself. Good so far?
In the 18th century, Locke’s empiricism reached its logical climax in the writings of David Hume. He agreed with Locke’s fundamental premises that our knowledge derives from experience, and that what we immediately know are our mental perceptions. Hume argued that given these premises, what must follow is skepticism—the theory that we can know virtually nothing. Especially shared beliefs in the kinds of things that humanity has taken for granted: the existence of a perception driven, independent external world of physical bodies and minds expanding across time; God; cause and effect relationships that are universally necessary—these were for Hume all beyond rational justification. Since knowledge comes from experience, and all that we experience are our own perceptions then, by definition, we can only know the perceptions inside our own minds. Now let us take this one step further.
Even the principle of induction, that nature is self-continuous, that the future will resemble the past—the very principle upon which all science is grounded—is not something discoverable through experience. After all, it is conceivable that the uncertain future could be radically disconnected from the past.
We are habituated by experience to suppose that because certain events have been consistently joined together in the past, they will necessarily be so always. However, constant conjunction is not necessary connection. We perceive two events. We do not perceive this third thing, an alleged necessary connection between them, with which we have equated causation.
Hume thus concluded that if foundations of knowledge are our perceptions—the ‘impressions’ and ‘ideas’ in our minds— then we can genuinely know very little; for most things that we take for granted are ones about which we can have no perceptions or empirical knowledge. Stay with me now; this gets better.
Immanuel Kant was a 19th century German thinker who found Hume’s critique to be devastating. So much so that he was led by it to revolutionize philosophy. He did so by claiming that space, time, causation, the self, substance, physical bodies and minds with steady identities enduring over time, are all mere structures of the human mind itself. In other words, while Hume was correct that there is no justification for belief in things not perceived, Kant responded that we understand the world in terms of these traditional metaphysical ideas, since they are preconditions of all experience. For Kant, nothing could count as an object of experience unless it first satisfies these preconditions.
In order to be an object of experience, an object must exist in time. If it is physical, it must exist in time and space. Understanding and judgement are impossible, unless it is presupposed that nature is uniform. Objects are not collections of discrete sensory impressions, but uniform individuals or “substances” , with identities persisting across time. These objects are situated in relation to one another in an intricate and universal system of laws of cause and effect.
Western philosophy would never be the same after Kant. The mind is not a passive receptacle of information that flows to it through the senses; rather, it is an active contributor to knowledge. Few today endorse Kant’s philosophy in its original form; but it is widely accepted that it is through the prism of some conceptual framework or other, some world view, some paradigm, that we interact with the world. Our experiences and descriptions of them are intelligible since they are shaped by our theoretical lens. Every experience is conceptualized. Facts are not brute, raw features of the world compelling our recognition. Facts are instead theory-laden.
Journalists are like everyone else in that presentation of events is coloured by their worldview, their theories of choice. The language they employ to characterize “the news” bears the basic prejudices and priorities of that Weltanschauung. Consequently, they never merely report on “the facts”. They are warriors in an eternal assault upon metaphysical, transcendent truth.
Some enemies are so powerful and scary that we cannot bear to think about them. In that case, we might find ourselves denying that they exist at all and put on a show of nonchalance. However, we may also take the self-deceptive absurdity further to assure ourselves that they are in fact our friends. Canadians who persist in supporting the Trudeau Liberals fit squarely within this Stockholm Syndrome.
The ways of the human mind are mysterious. Sometimes, it goes to great lengths to obliterate awareness of the immediate, intolerable threat to its own existence. To the psychologist, this hardly qualifies as a sound “survival strategy”. More importantly, it is morally unworthy of mankind.
Whatever detours we take to escape the truth of our own vulnerability, we are not altogether free to choose our enemies. That is an imagined privilege. Thus, some openly declare themselves our enemies while others oppose us without going to the trouble of citing any specific reasons for their hostility.
In the political elite world of bureaucrats in Brussels, London, Ottawa, and Washington, where self-deception is cultivated, they prefer the designated enemy labelled the “far right”. Conservatives are a bonus target which they can attack for dramatic effect on social media, but absent the risk of personal harm. Largely fictitious as a threat to social order, the “far right” is the safe enemy. Incidentally, it should be borne in mind that both actual Nazis and their historical allies in the Middle East are sworn enemies of Judeo-Christian civilization. By contrast, elites fail to address the two-headed enemy from the left and Islam, although this mighty anti-Western coalition is one that claims lives and threatens to profoundly transform our society.
During the Cold War, there were Westerners who—without acing in collusion with the Bolshevik enemy—jumped to its defense, adopted its rhetoric, and vigorously argued for unilateral disarmament in the West. Terrified at the thought of nuclear apocalypse, they were willing to surrender unconditionally rather than defend themselves. If necessary, they would give up their freedom in order to live on as slaves. To the enemy, they were useful idiots; in the eyes of their countrymen, they were considered at best naive, and at worst—traitors.
Today, the public debate about mass immigration from Third-World countries is swayed by NGOs who perceive national borders as unjust, immigrants as sheer enrichment, and cultural diversity as a self-evident moral good. An implied claim—the multicultural relativist credo—is that all cultures are equally good in moral terms. This is of course patently false and fails to hold up to even the barest scrutiny. The treatment of women under Sharia law or the Caste system is morally detestable in comparison to the equality properly enjoyed by women in Western society.
Accordingly, Western elites fail civilization and forbid citizens to criticize, let alone condemn, other cultures. This applies to one religion in particular. If explicitly horrified by cruel Sharia rulings or the plight of Christian minorities in the Middle East, dissidents risk being accused of “Islamophobia” and convicted of something called “hate speech”. Now infested by Islamist-supremacists spawned in a self-sustained diaspora, the West is renouncing the last vestiges of its Christian identity, recognizing the moral inadequacy of secularism, and facing its destiny as a culturally divided battleground. Sadly, such developments seem virtually past the point of no return. This perspective corrupts the mind and feeds an overwhelming sense of fatalism.
We are bound to acknowledge that violence is an effective tactic. An indispensable tool of political gangsters, it has always worked, and always will. The same is true of intimidation, the mere threat of force. Since the West is losing ground to the rest of the world (the so-called “BRICS” countries), the norms of civilization have come under increasing pressure; its citizens no longer protected from religious intolerance and barbarism in Europe itself.
The prospect of legal repercussions in Western courts is insufficient to deter the barbarians from attacking those who exercise their freedom of expression. That we are dealing with an implacable enemy whose outlook on life is the opposite of our own is evident from the unsettling statement that “Islamists love death as much as we love life.”
Throughout the 20th century, the West hesitated to crack down on various revolutionary movements arising as barbaric countercultures and which grew strong in circles of society where maladaptive, antisocial, and illegal behaviour, occasionally celebrated as ‘political protest’, was normalized.
Is it conceivable that civilization as founded in antiquity, though corrupted by secular relativism and affluence, has produced a pervasive mood of complacency, repressing memories of past survival struggles with tyranny; thereby dulling our moral sense, and robbing us of the courage to actually confront evil?
It is striking that students at leading Western universities profess totalitarian ideologies (Marxism, Islamism) and demand an immediate showdown with the humanist traditions characterizing Western civilization. Previously, Western students and intellectuals colluded with communists in the Soviet Union, China, and Vietnam. Today, falling academic standards characterize an education system in which political activism replaces scholarship. Masked protestors with uncompromising slogans on their banners reveal a factual ignorance; a completely twisted world view harmonizing perfectly with their urge to silence dissidents through violence and intimidation. Spiked products of an affluent society, they are the barbarians in our midst, as thankless as they are wicked. As Dr. Thomas Sowell so aptly puts it:
“Our whole educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities, is increasingly turning out people who have never heard enough conflicting arguments to develop the skills and discipline required to produce a coherent analysis, based on logic and evidence. The implications of having so many people so incapable of confronting opposing arguments with anything beside ad hominem responses reach far.”
Ominously, distinguished scholars of the humanities are singled out for persecution by immature, ignorant, and hateful youths in a manner reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. As for political debates, the tumultuous scenes that unfolded last November in the Oxford Union (declaring Israel an “apartheid state” by a majority vote) are a stain on the courage of academia to defend the worthy causes of freedom, justice, and truth. Before the entire world, the totalitarian alliance of Islamists and Marxists launched a wholesale attack upon the singular Middle Eastern democracy.
In the clash between the West and Islamism, Israel is analogous to an outpost under siege. Fighting an existential war, it bets everything to repel the enemies of civilization. What currency befalls that country will also reach Europe and North America. Time will tell if we shall ever muster the same determination as the Israelis and avert catastrophe. Thus far, we have mostly shown weakness by giving in to manipulative charges of “disproportionality”, “genocide”, and “racism” made in the mass media and by NGOs.
Fear of evil, combined with a conviction that good will ultimately be defeated in the spiritual battle for this world, can turn us into raving fools unable to think clearly or to defend ourselves. Melancholic fantasies may completely undermine our judgement, deprive us of the courage to live, and drive us to suicide. As the early church fathers showed us, even the strongest of faith can be gripped by doubt.
It begins with the bravery to so much as mention our totalitarian enemies by name (fascism, Marxism, Islamism). Only then can we fight them. We owe that to the civilization that gave rise to Socrates, and to Roman orators like Cicero. Not least, however, we owe it to Jesus, Son of God, who died on the Cross for us.
Science is catching up to what Jesus has known all along: that faith has the power to shape reality. In her latest book, Plunged, best-selling author Shilo Creed masterfully blends biblical truths with cutting-edge quantum physics, showing readers how faith and science align in remarkable ways.
Consider these incredible statements from Jesus himself:
“All things are possible to him who believes” (Mark 9:23)
“Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen it will be done for them.” (Mark:11:23)
These verses may seem radical at first, but science is proving just how true His words are. Quantum physics reveal that everything in the universe is vibrating, and each vibration has its own frequency—just like the pressure waves that produce sound. God’s spoken Word is the vibration that binds the universe together.
Even the clothes we wear have frequencies impacting us. While synthetic fabrics like polyester (5 Hz) can lower energy levels, organic cotton (100 Hz) and linen (well over 100 Hz) align with our optimal bodily frequency, mirroring Biblical wisdom about natural living.
Quantum mechanics suggest that particles behave differently when observed, a concept known as the Observer Effect. This accords with Christ’s teaching that faith shapes reality. Scientists confirm that at the smallest levels of reality, nothing is fixed until it is perceived—illustrating the Biblical principle that faith activates change.
Quantum entanglement, showing that two linked particles remain connected regardless of distance, also reflects the deep spiritual truths found in Christ’s words: our thoughts, actions, and faith influence everything around us. This powerful fusion of faith and science serves as a roadmap for navigating faith in a complex, evolving world.
Contrary to Christ’s teachings about truth and reality, the post-modern spirit of relativism ruling our society today insists that any choice we make, as long as it feels good, is the right one. Scripture clearly tells us that this is not so. We have two choices: God or no God. Truth or lies. This is the question Joshua asked the Israelites just before his death, after recounting the journey to the Promised Land, which he led (Joshua 24:15). This can pose great difficulty in our daily lives as so many things boil down to a simple black and white decision.
So how do we best approach life?
Rather than just barreling through and ‘winging it’, we need to build a firm foundation for our lives so that when a situation presents itself, we instinctively know what to do. This is called forming our consciences and conforming them to God. This is how we choose truth over lies.
Practice and continued preparation is the way of spiritual warfare. When we sit back and become complacent or convince ourselves that we are “good” and do only the bare minimum and are even selective about adhering to our faith—the enemy gains the upper hand. We surrender to the father of lies. We are therefore called upon to choose: the way of God or the way of the Enemy. As Joshua told the Israelites upon entering the Promised Land:
“Choose whom you will serve…[secular gods], the gods in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)
The secular call to ‘tolerance’ rather than admonishing the sinner, puts us on the wide, easy path, which many follow. As Christians, we are called to pursue the truth:
“Enter by the narrow gate; front the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Matthew 7:13-14)
Our secular society and even religious leaders are swept up in the intolerance of tolerance; calling good things evil and, rather than calling out sinners, actually preaching to accept sin as the ‘new normal’. Take the leftist Episcopalian Bishop of Washington D.C., Mariann Budde, for example. At Donald Trump’s recent inauguration prayer service, Budde called for acceptance of
“the people in our country who are scared now…The gay, lesbian, and transgender children…”
In keeping with the trend set by too many religious leaders today, the Biblical message of sin and repentance is ignored—even though this was the primary message of Jesus Christ. At the very beginning of his public ministry, Jesus said:
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17)
They call for mercy, but the lesson of salvation history is that mercy follows repentance. Catholic Vote describes Bishop Budde and the congregation she represents as follows:
“The Episcopal Church to which the prelate belongs is a liberal mainline Protestant denomination that supports abortion, same-sex marriage, the subjection of children to experimental sexual surgeries, and ordination of women.”
All of these positions are highly political and contrary to both Catholic teaching and Holy Scripture. Repentance comes after acknowledging our sin, which too many of us are reluctant to do, and religious leaders seem to avoid teaching on it. In this way, they mislead and fail the flock as Jesus describes of the scribes and Pharisees in John’s gospel:
“Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind’. Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and they said to him, ‘Are we also blind?’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say ‘we see’, your guilt remains.” John 9:39-41
In the book of Isaiah, it states:
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5-20-21).
Paying lip service to the teachings of Christ while acting contrary to His teaching, especially where sin is concerned, is not loving our neighbour. If we love someone, we look out for what is good for them; the common good. Leading them into or even being blasé about them heading toward the cliff of iniquity is not love. The only way we can ever prove love is by making an act of choice; mere words are not enough. Compassion for sinners does not mean that we condone sin itself. As C.S. Lewis put it:
“There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him”. (From Mere Christianity)
God has to keep reminding us of the two most obvious truths in the world: that we are not him, and that he is not us. Straddling the fence is not an option. Cafeteria, liberal, and progressive Christians must form our consciences in accordance with Scripture and walk out our faith.
Being a witness to the truth is more effective than preaching; our actions speak much louder than our words ever could, and this is precisely how the War on Truth must be defended—everywhere, and at any cost. That is only way that Truth can prevail.
