Saturday, 17 March 2018

Gender "Only the Knower Knows"

Only the knower knows”

This piece of pseudo philosophy is complete rubbish. But it is sneaking into every-day thought and it is being used to underpin the terribly destructive “gender fluidity” propaganda out kids are being relentlessly bombarded with.

One of my daughters is doing a course in librarianship. In a recent essay assignment, the course notes said “In archiving we cannot say we are storing knowledge because only the knower knows ...” So this perverse ideology is really infiltrating education.

Kids – from tender ages like 6 years old are being taught that no one can tell them what gender they are because – you guessed it - “only the knower knows” - so they alone know what gender they are.

Then the door is not just left open but kicked down by “educational” material persuading them that if they like activities normally associated with another gender (not just two genders remember!) then that's what they should “identify” as. So some boys are encouraged to dress as girls at school and use the girls change rooms (backed up by government mandate to the schools), girls who like skateboarding ate persuaded to have their breasts surgically removed and take testosterone and so forth – all behind the parents backs. And in some countries if parents find out and object they can be charged with “child abuse” and have the children removed to state care. Doctors who dare to advise kids against surgical and or drug sex change are ipso facto guilty of professional misconduct.
If you have not come across this hideous program it likely sounds unbelievable. If so watch one or both of these videoettes:

OK so this “gender fluidity” teaching is really bad. It is also built on a web of lies. One of these, as I said is that “only the knower can know” meaning in this case that only the child in question can “know” what their gender is.

So let's talk about what it is to “know” something.

An otherwise obscure professor named Edmund Gettier was told he had better publish something. So he wrote a short paper on knowledge that set philosophers on their ears.
He said – illustrated with an amusing story – that to “know” something required:
a) to believe the proposition was true
b) to have a sound reason to believe it was true
c) for it to be true.

For a huge number of propositions – just for a start: fire burns, ice is cold, eating a lemon makes ones mouth pucker … - things that most of us learn by experiment as children we can say are common knowledge. The child who has just touched a hot stove cannot claim that only they know fire burns – lots of us know that!

I don't think one has to go any farther than that to say “Myth Busted!” … “Only the knower can know” is false

Now to gender. Last post I said gender was about an individual's putative role in reproduction. Reproduction requires a sperm and an egg. If you have the sexual apparatus that normally produces eggs then you are a female. If you have the sexual apparatus that normally provides the sperm to fertilise the egg, then you are a male. Thee are no other options.

So if activists claim that a child “knows” they are a boy in a girls body or a girl in a boys body they are wrong on every level.

a) can the child believe this is true? Well I dare say sufficient brainwashing can make someone believe almost anything! But without brainwashing, can they? We were discussing this over dinner when my younger daughter put this argument: “A girl cannot say she feels she is a boy for the simple reason she cannot know what it feels like to be a boy because she isn't one! As a girl whatever she feels is something a girl can feel!”

For those who remember their maths; attributes (from people's heights to anything else) in populations show a spread around a mean generally like a “bell curve”.

If you take say, “all people age X” the curve is generally bi-modal. That is to say there are actually two means – one for males and one for females.

If you take adult heigh for instance, the mean height of men is taller than that of women, but for each sex there is a spread – some shorter and some taller than the mean. So whilst the mean height of men is greater than that of women, there are some women who are taller than some men. We all know that – we've seen it!

So to with masculine and feminine traits of every sort – men and women are different BUT some women score higher on a masculine trait than some men and some men score higher on a feminine trait that some women. That's just how life (and statistics) is. BUT to say in either case the person is a man in a woman's body or a woman in a man's body is is just plain wrong and also cruel and wicked.

b) Can a child have a sound reason to believe this? Well they are told it by teachers they trust and teaching material provided by the government education department which they might believe is to be trusted, and every attempt is made to stop them discussing it with their parents who would try to tell them the truth – so you might say that in their minds they have reason to believe they are the wrong gender.

But in fact this fails Gettier's test of being a good reason: They have a false belief that the government and their teachers will tell them the truth in this area.

c) Is it true? We are back to an absolute standard of truth. As I write this a foot-bridge collapse in Florida is in the news. The engineers doubtless believed it was strong enough to support itself, but in reality just five days after being put up it collapsed onto a busy highway crushing a number of cars and their occupants. There are absolute standards of truth: it was not true that the bridge was strong enough! (Gettier would say the engineers had a sincere false belief that it was)

As I have outlined above: Gender fluidity is not true: the boys are real boys and the girls are real girls

Yes there are genetic and birth defects which in olden days were surgically corrected if possible – now activists have banned this and convinced these unfortunates to live out their lives with deformed genitalia as “intersex” - another terribly cruel trick. There is also a real psychiatric condition “gender dysphoria”. Kids suffering from it have about four times the suicide rate of other kids – which is terrible. However U.S. statistics show that this sad suicide rate actually goes up for kids with it who are given chemical and/or surgical “sex change” therapy!

To conclude: No, it is definitely not true that “only the child can know their gender” anyone – by looking at their genitalia, or if doubtful checking their DNA can know definitely and definitively what gender a child is, and he or she should be brought up as that gender and to be confidant they are that gender even if say a girl is what used to be called a “Tomboy” - like Calamity Jane!

Saturday, 10 March 2018

Gender: It Only Takes Two

Gender: Its About Reproduction, not Feelings

First. Why bother to argue?

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15)

We are entering a new era of persecution of Christians in the West. All the more dangerous because it is subtle and insidious. We all think we could emulate the courage of our Christian brothers and sisters in Muslim countries confronted with severe persecution, But can we resist the barely noticeable forms? One Mediaeval bishop fumed over the actions of most of the Christians in the lands that had just been invaded by Muslims: instead of paying the “tax” of half their possessions to remain Christian, they converted to Islam. Our trial is of this sort.

Of course we are free to remain “Christian” if we keep it secret – or at least private. Of course one can be a Christian politician - as long as one leaves Christian belief outside parliament hall! One can, for now, go to church – as long as the new “civic religion” is espoused alongside Christ. But from John the Baptist down through the ages the martyrs and “confessors” (those who would not renounce Christ even under torture) have all rejected this enticing option.

No! If we love God we must proclaim Christ as Lord of all. If we love our neighbour we must not only live out the commandments of God, we must proclaim them as the way to live to please God.

This brings us into conflict with the devil. This makes us Christ's “soldiers and servants” to thwart the devil's plans to bring our once more-or-less God-fearing societies to ruin and to usher in a life of misery to humans whom God loves. As Jesus said “the thief comes to kill and destroy: I have come so that they may have life – life in all its fullness.” So if we are active on Christ's side, we are in the devil's way – he will attack us, he will stir up human dupes to persecute us – he will stir up all the social pressures of a society drifting under his thrall to silence us.

So whilst I hesitated to use the verse from Peter's first letter because it specified “the hope (of heaven) that you have” His first recipients were being ostracised because they no longer indulged in the decadent lifestyle of the time and the reason was their new allegiance to Christ and their obedience to God's laws prompted by the sure and certain hope of a resurrection from the dead to unimaginable glory with Christ in heaven.

So yes. I think the verse does apply to us today standing firm and speaking out against the forces pushing our societies away from God to their ruin. The message to us is:
a) Be prepared to give an answer.
b) do it with gentleness and respect.

This will be hard when abuse is heaped on us – as it will be, when we are falsely accused of being “...phobic”, when we are accused of being “haters” when it is we who are the object of the “hate speech”, when even school children are being taught that all who disagree with the devil's project are “religious nutters” who are to be denigrated and resisted. And when schoolchildren are in fact (as they are right now) being trained in resisting all who question the “new morality”.

Today's answer to a mantra….

Mantra “gender is not binary

This whole nonsense of “gender fluidity” that is being shamelessly promoted to our children is built on a cobweb of lies and pseudo-philosophy. This is one of its strands.

Children are being taught, both in school and by television that gender is “non-binary”. In England the BBC has put our video clips enticing children to believe that gender is just something “society assigns to them at birth” and has nothing to do with the genitalia they possess. In Australia our publicly funded ABC television is coaxing young children to believe they may be trans-gender or homosexual etc.

The driving point of all these indoctrinations is that gender is about feelings, not biological facts. I hope to say more in another blog, but for brevity today I suggest that is the point to hit back with the truth: sex or gender is about biology not feelings – or society. It is about one's putative role in reproduction. Of course you don't actually have to reproduce to be male or female – but your gender determines and is determined by the role you could, would or do play in the reproductive process.

Earthworms aside, just about every insect and animal (and ever most plants) have two sexes: the female provides the egg and the male provides the sperm which fertilises it.

So too in humans: female provides the “egg” cell which when fertilised will develop into a baby, male provides the sperm which fertilises it. There is no room for any third – let alone twenty or thirty or fifty other genders! Yes there are some individuals with chromosomal and birth defects – but just as with other birth defects that does not affect what is “normal” any more than babies born with six fingers negates the fact that like most vertebrates, humans are pentadactyl.

So my short answer to the mantra is:

No, that is not correct. Gender is the biological role in reproduction. Reproduction needs an egg and a sperm: female and male: there can only be two genders. Female and Male,

Saturday, 3 March 2018

New Series: Answers to Marxist Mantras

Hello. I have not been blogging for a while – just thinking and reading!.
Now I'm starting a new series. I hope you like it

Weapons of Truth

The Bible talks in 2 Corinthians 6:7 about fighting wrong ideas “In truthful speech and in the power of God with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left” Our essential defence and attack against the scourge of Marxist propaganda sweeping our countries is Truth.

Marxists and the “New Left” in our midst lie. From teaching “gender fluidity” to our kids through glorifying adultery and fornication and killing unborn children to igniting gender and race wars the whole Marxist/secularist project is based on lies.

We must learn to counter lies – wherever they arise - with the truth. One of the reasons the Cold War ended (among others) was President Reagan continually hammering the Soviets with the truth about their regime being evil.

But how can you and I do this?

Have you noticed on TV that most people when interviewed “beat around the bush” as we say in Australia, and do not put their ideas concisely or systematically – but a small number can shoot back a neat well worded answer? Do you find this happens to you when you are talking to someone spouting “Progressive” ideas and you know they are wrong but you can't find the right words?

I think many of the people who do answer well can because it is not the first time they have been asked that question. As well as good background knowledge they have been able to refine their answers by repetition and others critiquing their answers. Well we can't all be like that, but I do think that knowing concise answers to many of the common mantras of leftist dogma will help us be a lot more effective in private conversations.

So …. here goes with the first one.

Mantra: Why should your right to free speech trump X's (currently they usually say “a trans person's) right not to be offended?”

I had the pleasure to hear Ben Shapiro asked this on You-tube. Without missing a beat he replied: “Because there really is a right to free speech, but the so called “right to freedom from being offended” is predicated on a “right” for life to be free from hurt – and that “right” doesn't exist – life just isn't like that. And besides if no one could say anything that anyone else felt offended by, the result would be that no one could say anything – which would be bad for society.”
But I want to go into this a bit more so that you can formulate the answer you prefer as a first strike and have some backup arguments if needed.

Here goes:

Freedom of speech.
Definition: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship or sanction. (Wikipedia)
For a start it is a Universal Human Right. Sure it is universally trampled out of existence by dictators! But that does not stop it being a human right, and it tells you something about the people who want to stamp I out!
It is essential to the survival of a functioning democracy: In the US it went in as the First Amendment. In Australia it has been upheld by the High Court that “freedom of communication” is an inferred right under the constitution because elections are called for – and they necessitate freedom to communicate one's ideas.
Now one common come-back is: “Ah but one isn't free to shout 'FIRE' I a crowded cinema – so freedom of speech can be curtailed” This has nothing to do with “freedom to articulate opinions” it cites an act calculated to cause panic and a stampede in which people may die. So a spurious argument.
A more real comeback is:”But you don't want people able to urge violence – like Nazis did against Jews or the radio campaign that stirred up Hutu's to kill half a million Tutsi's in Rwanda” And of course this is quite true! But here the difference it the object of the demagoguery. On one hand, for democracy to function one must be able to urge people. “The government is corrupt, vote for our party” - even if the government has passed a law forbidding criticising it! But to urge people to commit what are universally regarded as crimes against humanity …. well that is as good as committing the crime oneself (much worse, morally) so of course that should be punished.

Feeling Offended
No one has a “right” to stop me articulating my opinions because they don't agree with them and so say they “feel” offended! As Shapiro said in that case no one could say anything anyone else disagreed with – which would mean no one could say anything – which would be ridiculous.

He is also right that it is predicated on the fatuous notion of the “snowflake” that there is some “right” for life to be without pain. Real life just demolishes that idea!. In fact the pain of discipline is essential to children to grow up into adults who can enjoy life. The pain of discipline is essential to the athlete, the scholar, the musician to be successful. Being “offended” by being told you are not performing well enough, and heeding rather than complaining about the warning, is an essential part of successful education – and of keeping you job in later life.

Feeling “offended” by the challenging opinions of another person is essential in the search for truth and in improving one's own opinions.

So next time someone says to me: “Why should your “right to free speech trump X's right not to be offended?” I'm going to say:

Because the right to free speech is a real right – its a universal human right - but no one has a “right” not to be offended – that's life!

But I'll have the other arguments ready as backup!

Saturday, 3 February 2018

Does Religion Cause Most Wars

What causes most wars

We have been bombarded with propaganda by progressives, but both the strength and Achilles heel of progressives is that they are not truth tellers! Their attractive untruths have won people to their cause, and even people who believe progressives are wrong are often bamboozled into accepting as true, lies that are just repeated over and over again.

Take this lie for instance: “Most wars are caused by religion”. I've heard that one sprouted as an argument against Christianity over and over again. But is it true? I've heard it said so many times that I've come to accept it without question! While I was away on holiday I had some time to reflect and thought to myself “Is that really the case? I should do some simple research and check!”

With the internet, a discerning user (there is some really wacky stuff up there!) can quickly check up on facts. Unfortunately we generally can't check in the middle of a discussion with a passionate and well indoctrinated progressive! So I did some checking. It didn't take long. I found near the top of Google's list a global war museum in Sweden that had put up a list of wars in the twentieth century, with numbers of people killed (I think they may have erred on the side of underestimating – in the terrible fire-bombing of residential areas like Dresden and Tokyo [I not saying it was unjustified, just a terrible thing] there was little record of who had been alive there, and nothing remaining to count afterwards! – and the civilian deaths in Russia in WWI and WWII were also probably incalculable.) But the museum did have figures, and also one could click on a war in the list and get a brief description of what it was about – so see if it was caused by “religion” or something else. Here's what I found.
PS if you want to check my sums, the museum page is:

In the twentieth Century there were a total 265 wars around the globe. Some of these were very small, so to avoid having lots of minor wars skewing the evidence I also refined my search by number of deaths, first to wars killing over 100,000 people, then to wars killing over or about 1 million people, (I included the Korean War although it was 5,000 short of the I million.)

So, of the 265 wars of all sizes: only 24 had religion as a cause. Of those 24 wars, 21 involved Muslims
When one eliminated all the smaller wars (and I chose 100,000 deaths before I counted what was in that category – so it was not selected to give some desired result)
there were 32 wars.

Of these 32 wars, only two, yes, just two were cause by religion. Both of these involved Muslims – one with Hindu's in India, and the other with Marionite Christians in Lebanon.

My last filter was wars causing near or over a million deaths. There were seven such wars, which I will list below:
World War I
3rd Sino-Japanese War
World War II
Chinese Civil War
Korean War
Chinese Cultural Revolution

As you can see, none of these wars involved religion! (Communism, yes, but theistic religion, no)

So, now you know the truth! Next time you hear someone claim “most wars are started by religion” you can say; “No! That is just not true! In the Twentieth century not one of the seven wars that killed near or over a million people had anything to do with religion!” Of course if you can remember the rest of this article you can quote more: probably one fact easy to remember is “Only one in ten of all conflicts in C20 were religious, and nearly all those involved Muslims!

Sunday, 14 January 2018

Two PLus Two Equals Five

2+2 = 5 If The Party Says So

So said a character in Orwell's “Nineteen Eighty Four”.

Not so silly now as it sounded 70 years ago. OK we really do have the “impossible” futuristic technology he put in his novel, but that's not the important part – tyrannies have never lacked for spies and informers! What is important is the government messing with our minds until we will say anything we're told to believe, even when we know its not true. Like agreeing 2+2 = 5.

Once a regime has that sort of control over us we are really loosing our humanity and becoming their robots.

This is happening to us in the “free West” right now!

OK looking back I guess it has been worming its way in for at least 50 years. But at first it was so gradual that we didn't notice at all. Think about it. Our society accepted that “free love” which is to say gratuitous sex, was risk free; that abortion was nothing; that adultery didn't matter; and so forth. Well, I didn't believe that, and likely yo didn’t either, but that makes us the odd ones out! Then came AIDS. What a flurry of propaganda to make us believe it was not a consequence of gay sex! This is likely where the propaganda first pushed us over the line into saying something we knew was not true.

And churches were part of the propaganda machine! I once put in my parish newsletter a precis of an article in a Medical Journal that just gave the scientific findings. The epidemiology was clearly that anal sex was the basic transmission route for AIDS in the First World. The heterosexual infection rate in Africa which was so often used in propaganda was in fact due to factors peculiar to Africa (high promiscuity and poor health care combining to give genital sores which provided a direct blood-to-blood transmission route in vaginal sex) Did I ever cop it from the bishop! They hadn't invented the word “homophobic” then but that was what he accused me of, and told me to stop saying bigoted things like that. Science had to be silenced.

As it happens I wasn't and still am not homophobic. We are all sinners and we all have idiosyncratic weaknesses that we struggle against. The weight society or church puts one one sin against another is often counter-intuitive. There's an old joke: “If a man comes to you church drunk on alcohol, you throw him out, but if he's drunk on money you make him an elder.”

Back to the story: As you know Christians were told they had to say homosexual acts were not a sin. Many complied. Well that was saying 2+2 = 5. Sure, if I had to list sins by their harmfulness, homosexual acts would be way down the list. Sure, being same-sex attracted is not a sin. Just as being attracted to a person of the opposite sex outside of marriage is not itself a sin. It is the specific act (like adultery) that is the sin.

Then came same sex marriage: “Marriage Equality”. Now for those “without Christ and without hope in the world” who am I to judge them if they manage to find happiness in a same sex relationship? Good luck to them. But when the government demands that I say that same sex marriage is equal to marriage between a man and a woman we are in “2+2 = 5 if the Party says so” territory.

Well in Australia just before Christmas that happened (by a 60% popular vote), and in some 20 other countries it had already been legislated.

Did it stop there? Not likely! The process has just speeded up. As I said last post “gender fluidity” is being taught in schools, parents are prohibited from protecting their children from this this terribly harmful outright lie. Today I read in the newspaper that one state wants to legislate to make it a crime not to (for example) call a man who “self identifies” as female “he” instead of his preferred “she”.

Here it is now coming right out in the open! We are being told to speak the lie. We are being told to say “2+2 = 5” or be treated as criminals!

Now this has nothing to do with LBGTI “rights”. Don't be fooled into following that red herring! This is about radicals messing with our minds. Quite likely once they have established their new upotia-on-earth, LGBT's will be ruthlessly eliminated. But first Christianity has to be eliminated, and they are prepared to take their time laying the groundwork. Jesus said “I am the Truth ...” The Bible makes its claims on human hearts because it is true.

Once people say “there is no truth except what the government tell us” Christianity, Liberty, and Science are all swept away.

This brave new “utopia” will just be another North Korea look-alike

Saturday, 30 December 2017

Retaking the High Moral Ground

Retaking the High Moral Ground

What are the Critical Requirements for progressives (or if you prefer “collectivists” or “statists”) to hold the high moral ground? The answer is surprisingly simple.

Their real agenda is evil. So they must hide this behind a false facade or turn morals upside down. Either way the powers behind the scenes need to convince the bulk of their followers who are likely to be people who are basically good at heart and either convince or compel the rest of society.

The second trick has been tried from time immemorial. Isaiah 5.20 says “Woe to those who call good evil and evil good” so nothing new there – or once again people have found that “old tricks are the best tricks”

The first – putting a mask of “good” over a reality of evil is the basis of all traps and the game of all would-be dictators. Don't let the quarry see what is really coming – they would run away! Rather make it look attractive. So the cheese in the mousetrap is ever so inviting to that quivering little nose – but the hidden reality is sudden death. The dictator always promises liberty, prosperity and anything else that will entice the people to acclaim him leader. What they receive is so very different! I hope to look at this next time

So two critical requirements of claiming the high moral ground for progressives are turning morals upside down, and deception of their real agenda. Of course the “foot soldiers” of the progressive cause will have been taken in by the first, and totally ignorant of the second!

How have they managed to turn morals upside done in out time?

By replacing absolute moral standards with arbitrary ones.

We have had the enormous blessing of “Judeo-Christian” morality. This is based on the moral character of God – which is absolute and unchanging.

Limited human understanding of His nature, the powerful corrupting tendency of our fallen human nature, and ever changing human circumstances have led to popular morals being sometimes better, sometimes worse. But through all this, the revelation of God's nature supremely in Christ Jesus but also all Scripture; The reasoning of people whose consciences had been touched by God (yes, some of these were pre-Christian Greeks and Romans); And hard won experience over the span of history, have triumphed.

In the late 1960's all this began to change. We rebelled against the wisdom of our parents, we threw off – first in sexual morals – the existing rules. We started to tear down all the societal “fences” which had been laboriously placed to protect us from the forces of temptation, and the wholesale corruption of our system of morals.

Over the past 50 years this awful project has proceeded ever gathering speed.

God has now been pushed out as the rightful basis and standard of morals.

By breaking down all the old taboos, destroying the old rules, destroying even customs of manners and courtesy the hard Left have created an existential angst – no one knows what the rules are any-more – every situation has to be thought out from scratch – every situation is fraught with danger: creating a psychological void. Suddenly we feel we need rules!

But without God, what standard is there for rules: None! “We” have to make arbitrary ones!

Collectivism to the “rescue”! They not only provide the new rules but also the comfort: we are right because we all say we are right. Dissenters and rule breakers must be – and are - mercilessly dealt with. So the new human centered morality is built up, Like all human things its best endeavors will go astray and end up bad. Worse it originates in the hard Left who want to turn our freedom into slavery and our democracy into tyranny. So enough of these new morals will be upside-down in that they are deliberately dysfunctional and destructive. Think “gender fluidity” for a start!

How does one pull the rug from under this false moral high ground?
Keep stressing absolute morals!

Yup, we have been successfully psyched out of doing this, that's one reason they could win. We have to start and keep saying “there is God, so moral rules just are absolute”,

Applied to this crazy “gender fluidity” (it is based on a philosophy – that only the individual concerned can “know” a thing – (eg their gender) - that can only be described as complete lunacy)! We would say No! “God made us male and female” there are only two genders (genetic defects are just that: defects) If you have the correct number of sex chromosomes then you have either XX and you are female or XY and you are male. Your gender was not assigned at birth, it was built in to every cell in your body from conception! You are what you are and by genetic testing not just you, but everyone can “know” what gender you are!

Saturday, 16 December 2017

Strategy to Beat Progressives

A Lesson on Strategy

There are some valuable lessons we can learn from secular, indeed military research into strategy. Philosophers (including those speculative philosophers who style themselves “theologians”) can and often do put forth complete rubbish, yet it is difficult to refute them or prove them wrong. However those, like engineers and military leaders who get it wrong are rapidly and often terminally corrected by reality! So their researches tend to be of more practical value for dealing with real world problems.

The first concept is called Centre of Gravity. That is a little confusing nowadays to those of us used to the same term being used in physics, but it originated with a brilliant military writer of the 19th century called Clausewitz. He was thinking of physics as the analogy for armies of his day, but in modern affairs that analogy breaks down.

The definition of strategic Center of Gravity is: "the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act." Thus, the center of gravity is usually seen as the "source of strength".

In any conflict situation it is important to discover the adversary's CofG. Generally one takes care not to attack it directly because as the source of their strength it is close to impregnable! For instance in olden days a Cof G might be a fortified castle. Even Robin Hood knew that to attack Sherwood castle directly would be suicidal and used subterfuge to get inside it and rescue Maid Marion.

So consider the Progressive activists. What is their CofG? I think there are two.
1. They hold the moral high ground. (Yes I know, they are not actually more moral, quite the reverse! But by re-defining morals they have convinced themselves and enough others that they are for this to work.)
2. They have been working since the late 1960's to infiltrate key institutions which they now hold as fortified citadels. They control most of the media and Hollywood. They control education from kindergarten to college and university. They have infiltrated and in some cases control churches.

If military wisdom is correct, then a direct attack on any of these will fail. So what can we do?

For a start learn two other military terms: Critical Capability and Critical Requirement.

Critical Capability is something that their CofG empowers them to do. For example in olden days a fortified castle (the CofG) empowered the defenders to repel armed attack. So what do the Progressives CofG's empower them to do?

Holding the high moral ground empowers a self-righteous anger directed at anyone who disagrees with them. Have you noticed how angry progressive activists are, and how they don't debate, they shut down (and shout down) debate and dissent, with violence if necessary.

Holding the media has the Critical Capability that they get to control the narrative. The news people hear, see on TV or read is mostly biased, and pro “conservative” news items are censored.

Holding Hollywood has the Critical Capability that films and TV shows have a consistent political or social engineering bias, and have been used to make the population accept say lesbian sex acts (as seen in just about every 'M' rated show) as normal. Yes, we of the “Free World” who were aghast at the old Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean propaganda machines are now ourselves being gently and enjoyably brainwashed!

Holding education from beginning to end has been a devastating Critical Capability. In my generation, we came out of university varying shades of pink, but once in the real world reality eventually made us see sense

But now we are seeing a generation emerging from university who have been immersed in progressive propaganda throughout their education. They know nothing else. They are uninformed but hardened socialist/statist/collectivists. One sees the effect of this in this year's elections in Britain, where an unashamedly Communist-by-any-other-name leader promised more “bread and circuses” and won such support from young voters that although he had been written off as unelectably crazy, he nearly won!

We are now seeing institutionalized and government mandated sexual child abuse. The logically nonsensical “gender fluidity”, the sexualising of young children, the active promotion of homosexual lifestyle and the purely evil pushing of children into sex change operations is child sexual abuse of a scale and heinousness possibly never before seen. This is ruining lives for the sake of promoting a statist political agenda. (If you are not aware of this teaching in schools right around the Western world I strongly recommend this talk on Youtube:

The other therm to learn is Critical Requirement, this consists of the thing or things necessary to support the CofG. In olden days a fortified city was a CofG for the population. An invading army if they were not in a hurry did not attack this Cof G, they just surrounded the city and starved them out. So “food and water” were critical requirements of that Cof G.

In the largest US land battle of all time – the “Battle of the Bulge” in Dec 1944 to Jan 1945, at least in the film version (and maybe in reality!) this was used to effect. Hitler was making one last desperate attack. One of his CofG's was his Panza divisions. I gather the German tanks were better armored and had heavier guns that the light but maneuverable American ones. To take them head on would be suicidal. But what is a critical requirement of a tank? Fuel. The American tanks played cat and mouse with the Panza's until the German fuel supplies were exhausted!

In general the best solution is to find the Critical Requirements of the Cof G and attack or remove those.

So …. what are the critical requirements for holding the high moral ground, holding much of the media and Hollywood, holding many churches, and holding education?