Category: Uncategorized

Over here,

https://mereorthodoxy.com/freedom-pandemic/?fbclid=IwAR0D_3rz01ovFpjGs1VhTD1WSjyCSGNw8dXLJh7lTP9tTbWV5d8Uq5frEY0

We have one of the really bright young Reformed smart guys who has all kinds of shiny impressive degrees offering advice on how the Church should react to the political climate in which we currently live. I encourage you to read the whole piece because I don’t intend to interact with the whole piece and I want the reader to be sure I haven’t take any of Dr. Littlejohn’s quotes out of context and to make sure I haven’t misrepresented Dr. Littlejohn’s overall thrust.

At the outset let us note that if the American Colonialists in the run up to their hard feelings with the Brits in what became known as the “War for American Independence,” had reasoned the way Dr. Littlejohn reasons in his piece we would still have London has our Capital.

Dr. Littlejohn labors to demonstrate that in our current crisis American freedoms are not really at stake in light of the current actions of the Tyrant State. The State, per Littlejohn, just wants to make sure we are safe and sleeping well at night. The State, per Littlejohn, has no malevolent intent in its current actions and it really is quite wrong for any of us to have our suspicions raised. The State, per Littlejohn, has every right to sequester your Constitutional rights when times are really really pandemic scary. The last thing one wants to deal with is freedom when it is pandemic scary outside.

Littlejohn’s trust in the State is a curio in our time when the State, during the 20th century forward, has given us one long string of proofs that total depravity remains solid ground for Anthropology. Indeed, any familiarity with the role of the American State in the 20th century forward demands that the citizenry be ever suspicious of the State. For anyone, but especially someone nurtured in Reformed thought, to grant the State the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its stated intent is evidence of a willful blindness concerning the continued and routine wickedness of the American State for numerous decades. More on that anon.

Very soon in his piece Littlejohn gets to the hub of the matter,

“We do, to be sure, have a duty to question our governments, though also, as the Scriptures tell us, to cheerfully submit to them—and submission, mind you, happens not when you already agree, but when you’re inclined not to. How to balance the two? That is, of course, the great question of the whole history of Christian political thought, and I will not try to answer it here.“

Just to be clear, Scripture teaches we are to cheerfully submit to our governments when our governments are cheerfully submitting to God’s authority. Christians have no authority to submit (cheerfully or otherwise) to a Government that is rebelling against the authority of God and His Law. I would contend that Littlejohn’s article definitely bends the debate on submission to wicked State authorities definitely in the favor of wicked State authorities. Everything in Littlejohn’s piece is suggestive that the State just wants to do us good and we should just give them every benefit of the doubt and so just submit to their good intentions. So, our disagreements with Dr. Littlejohn are going to be characterized by our assumptions. Littlejohn assumes that the modern state wants to look after us. I assume that the modern state wants to look after itself.

Littlejohn next gives us another of his operating assumptions that many right-minded people will take grave exception,

“But, as someone who has closely tracked the pandemic since it first emerged in Wuhan, it seems clear to me that our leaders are acting on the basis of the best data and research currently available.”

Best data and research currently available? What research and data is that? The research and data as coming from the Chinese Communists? The research and data as coming from the Chinese Communists owned and operated World Health Organization? The research and data coming from other globalist organizations — The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? The politically animated Center for Disease Control? Can Dr. Littlejohn tell me why I should trust any of the best data and research currently available? Keep in mind that this is the best research and data that started this whole hysteria we are currently living in by saying, that 2.2 million Americans would die. Yesterday those people with the best data and research who gave us the original model that predicted 2.2 million deaths readjusted their prognostication to 60K deaths. This represents a 97% reduction from the original prediction. Plus, keep in mind that the original data set used by IHME (our best data and research) for the first two projections included the usage of “social distancing,” and limited public closures. 60,000 deaths also represents that typical annual death total one gets with influenza. So, given this represents our best research and data Dr. Littlejohn won’t mind overmuch if I rudely belly laugh whenever anyone talks about our ‘best research and data.’ By all appearances the statisticians and researchers are making it up as they go and so the tyrant magistrates likewise can only be making it up as they go. Littlejohn is wrong.

We quote Littlejohn again when he argues,

“The first point I want to establish—albeit briefly, since this could easily turn into a political theory lecture—is that the government does indeed have the power to shut businesses and restrict the movements of individuals in time of emergency.“

Littlejohn then goes on to reference Aristotle, Augustine, and Locke as all agreeing on this matter. And that may well be, but Littlejohn needs to move out of theory and show me in the US Constitution or the State Constitutions where that power is granted to restrict the movement of individuals and shut down businesses. Littlejohn talks about enumerated powers but still fails to provide examples of how the States, per their own Constitutions, have the explicitly enumerated power to restrict the movement of its people, to seize up the economy, and to basically seize property without due process. Forget, Aristotle, Augustine and Locke and go to the texts of the Constitutions (Federal and State) and show me where this power is explicitly given to the state in the time of a putative pandemic. Littlejohn can’t do that and so Littlejohn is wrong.

Can anyone imagine John Knox arguing like this?

Littlejohn next offers up this gem,

“But in the present case, the measures proposed have all, to date at least, been directly related to curtailing the genuine threats posed by the emergency.“

But you see Dr. Brad that there is no way of knowing this is true if we do not know for certain what the genuine threat is that is posed by this current putative emergency. Everywhere Littlejohn assumes what has yet to be proven and that is that this Wuhan virus plannedemic is any graver of a threat to human existence than any previous plannedemic — say of SARS, or H1N1, or AIDS for that matter. For all I know this may be nothing but a pestilence version of H. G. Wells, “War of the Worlds,” where untold numbers of people really were convinced that the Aliens were invading Burr Oak, Michigan and other sundry American villages and Hamlets in order to take over the world and who freaked out over such news. “Well, I heard it on the radio Mildred. It must be true.”

Secondly, how can Littlejohn know that the measures taken to curtail the genuine threat are not a greater threat than the putative “genuine threat?” He can’t know that since he can’t know what the threat really is and as such he is just shilling for the Tyrant State. How can Littlejohn know that effect upon people whose lives are affected now by the virus will be greater than the effect upon people who lives are being and will be destroyed by the effects of a global economic shutdown and impending worldwide depression? Littlejohn can’t know that and so can’t say with any certainty at all that “the measures proposed have all, to date at least, been directly related to curtailing the genuine threats posed by the emergency.” Unless Littlejohn has taken up omniscience as well as his prowess in political theology there is no way he can know this.

Pressing on with Littlejohn,

“Indeed, I think that it should be easy to show by extension that the civil magistrate has the authority to close churches in a situation such as this…. In case of emergency, it should not be difficult to see that the authorities can indeed prevent the church from carrying out its ordinary meetings.”

Well, count me as one who is having difficulty seeing that the authorities can indeed prevent church from carrying out its ordinary meetings during a plannedemic. I am known for someone who hates R2K but who at the same time has conceded that there is room for some 2K thinking in the Church and this is one of those times. The idea that the State has no jurisdiction over the Church in relation to when the Church opens and closes its doors comes under the tent of the idea of jurisdictionalism or sphere sovereignty and there is nothing inherent Roman Catholic about the idea as Littlejohn insists. Sphere sovereignty merely teaches that there exist multiple spheres of jurisdictions the authority of which is delegated to differing Magistrates in those spheres. As such the authorities in one sphere may not seek to exercise their authority from another sphere in a sphere that is not under their charge. So, the Church has one jurisdiction over which the Elders rule as the delegated authorities and the State has a differing jurisdiction over which the state Magistrates have delegated authority. State authorities may not impinge upon the proper authorities of the Elders in the Church. By this doctrine of jurisdictionalism alone, the State, contra Littlejohn, does not have the authority to shut down Churches. The State magistrates may make recommendations but they may not, of their own authority, close Churches for they have no authority to that end. The State may no more shut church doors than the State may tax the Church. In both cases — taxation and Church hours — the State is seeking to legislate authority over a realm over which it has no authority. The State dictating the opening or closing of Church doors is like Canada magistrates trying to make laws for people who live in Texas. Littlejohn is in error.

We move on to one of the best knee-slappers in Littlejohn’s piece.

“No, I think we can safely say that, whatever is motivating our authorities (and those all around the world, for that matter–the consensus around the need for lockdowns has been almost global), it probably isn’t old-fashioned lust for power.”

Well, there goes the Reformed doctrines of original sin and total depravity. That Littlejohn could write that with a straight face is staggering. Has Littlejohn never read Machiavelli or has he just forgotten? Has Littlejohn never read Hobbes or has he just forgotten? Has Littlejohn never read the Bible or has he just forgotten? Littlejohn doesn’t really believe that magistrates desire office because they just want to do good does he? Lust for power is why politicians hold office to begin with and to think that lust for power wouldn’t be an animating factor in their decisions in the context of a plannedemic is a naivete that is epic. From the bite of that fruit in Eden the lust for power is ever in the heart of men – how do we dare deny its constant operation in all men at all times everywhere to some degree? How can someone who insists they believe in total depravity make such an observation as Littlejohn is quoted above making?

Next up Littlejohn insists that we shouldn’t listen to those conspiracy kooks out there who see Tyranny in every event, even going so far as to mock the 9-11 truthers. Littlejohn writes,

First, for every genuine Reichstag fire, there are probably at least a dozen persistent conspiracy theories claiming to have uncovered the next such plot. They should be taken with a very large grain of salt. 9/11 Truthers, anyone?

What should be taken with an even larger grain of salt are those who believe in the coincidence theory of history. Does Littlejohn realize that it was a conspiracy theory that said that Jesus rose again from the dead? Truther indeed. Does Littlejohn realize that for decades it was thought that it was a conspiracy theory that the Lusitania was carrying military ordinance? Now we know that it indeed was. Truther indeed. Does Littlejohn realize that for decades it was a conspiracy theory that said that Pearl Harbor was not a surprise attack? Now we know it was not a surprise to FDR. Truther indeed. Does Littlejohn know that for decades it was conspiracy theory that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened? Now we know indeed that it did not happen. Truther indeed. Does Littlejohn really believe that building #7 on 9-11 fell by magic? Methinks Littlejohn needs to read some history not written by court historians.

Given that Governments “reason for being” is to lie and given that the well known maxim teaches us “never let a crisis go to waste,” it boggles the mind that any educated person would knee jerk in the direction of automatically believing Government explanations or who would think it unnatural to think that governments consistently act out of lust for power or who thinks that conspiracy theorists should go consume some salt.

Littlejohn needs to revisit the idea that Governments are just kindly helpful servants of the people. It is not for no reason that Jefferson said that we needed to tie down our government with the chains of the Constitution. Littlejohn needs to remember that “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force,” and as Government is force it is not to be trusted, not to be given the benefit of the doubt, and not to be left unchallenged in the way it analyzes and governs any given situation.

Littlejohn is wrong. 

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief:

Isaiah 53:10a

The Hebrew word (Qal) “pleased” here means, “To incline to, to bend, to be pleased with, desire.” The word clearly communicates the idea of willful intent driven by a happy desire. There is no sense of regret or recrimination. The Father was pleased to bruise the Son.

Now understand this pleasure of the Father in bruising the Son is a pleasure as seen in the context of what could be argued as the greatest cosmic injustice ever to be seen in the chronicles of the history of man. Here, we find the innocent and morally perfect God-Man being offered up as a sacrifice and in all that the Father is pleased with this bruising that is assigned to His agency. The Father is pleased with His bruising of the Son.

Now, in retrospect, we understand that the Father was pleased with that bruising because in that bruising of the Son the Father’s character as Holy and Just are sustained and His character as merciful and loving are demonstrated. Further, the Father is pleased because in His bruising of the Son, His name is glorified inasmuch as His character is seen as perfect as it never ceased nor ceases to be, sin is seen as consequential as it always was promised, and His people are atoned for.

Now, if the Sovereign Father was pleased with His bruising of the Son, can there be any other action of our sovereign God with which He is not pleased?

I bring this up in the face of those who want to suggest that God is sad about the Wuhan pestilence that we are currently experiencing, as if God is a spectator of an event He is helpless to alter. Indeed, if the Father was pleased to bruise the Son how much more must the Father be to have bruised with the Wuhan virus? If somehow you have missed it this is a greater to lesser argument.

Yes, God is pleased with what is happening now with the Wuhan virus, just as He was pleased with smiting Sodom and Gomorrah, just as He was pleased with the fall in the Garden, just as He was pleased with smiting Egypt during the Exodus, just as He was pleased with Rome’s descent on Jerusalem in AD 70, just as he was pleased with bruising the Son. There is nothing that God does that He is not pleased with.

That God has done the Wuhan virus is indisputable given the teaching of the Scripture,

Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (Amos 3:6b)

I form light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create calamity. I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

But he (Job) said unto her (his wife), Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? (Job 2:10)

So, what we have established so far is that,

a.) If God was pleased to bruise the Son then He is pleased in everything else He does.

b.) Everything that happens is what God does.

Let us consider next if it is possible for God to both be pleased in doing what he does while lamenting over what happens? I bring this up because Christianity was represented in TIME magazine by Dr. N. T. Wright who emphasized God’s lamenting over the Wuhan virus at the price of giving up God’s sovereignty and God being pleased to bruise us with Wuhan. Dr. Wright’s God brings us back to the Open Theist God who is good for sitting down next to the suffering and crying with them about their hardships but who, excelling at lamenting, sucks at being able to do anything about your problems. Dr. Wright’s motto might be something like,

Times may be tough
Times may be gritty
But God has limits
Though He sure takes pity

This is not to say that God doesn’t lament. It is to say that if God laments His lament is not inconsistent with His pleasure in bruising us with Wuhan. There are times when God bruises and laments simultaneously.

When I was a child I had a bad go with impetago. At that time the recommendation for the disease was to scrub the wounds till they bled and then apply a medicine on the wounds after the scrubbing. My recollection is my father would hold me down so that my mother could scrub my wounds. My recollection is also that my Mother was weeping — weeping because she could observe how much pain her child was in from this scrubbing routine — while she was scrubbing my wounds. She was lamenting though it pleased her to bruise me. Lamenting and being pleased to wound me were not inconsistent.

In the same way God can be both pleased to ordain both the disease and the cure while lamenting with His people of the necessity of the wounding.

Also, we have to consider that

But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you. (Proverbs 1:24-26)

The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses. He struck down the firstborn of Egypt, the firstborn of men and animals. He sent his signs and wonders into your midst, O Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants. He struck down many nations and killed mighty kings Sihon king of the Amorites, Og king of Bashan and all the kings of Canaan. (Psalm 135:6-11)

There are times when God belly laughs when the wicked perish since what the wicked are receiving is the just deserts of their wickedness. Would any of us not delight in the destruction of a serial murderer? Would any of us not delighted in the destruction of a Stalin or a Mao or Pol Pot or a Castro? All who are outside of Jesus Christ who are perishing from the Wuhan virus results in God being delighted. After all, He had warned them to repent or they would “perish in the way.”

Speaking of repentance brings us then to a further point in this brief essay.

There was a time in our history when our Christian father’s understood that such visitations of pestilence such as we are now experiencing with the Wuhan virus were times wherein God’s people especially needed to repent. Such times were for the proverbial sackcloth and ashes. This would be preached from pulpits. Assemblies would be called for the purpose of public repentance. God’s people understood then that “Judgment begins in the household of God,” and believing that they set about a season of repentance.

For example, during the Pequot war (1637-1637) when the Pequot Indians attacked Boston, the area ministers called a synod to ask: “What are the evils which have called the judgment of God upon us? What is to be done to reform these evils?” The Boston area clergy did not search for sinners to whom they could ascribe blame. Rather, they asked what they themselves had done to test God. They assumed the need for their repentance.

And why wouldn’t they? This need to repent in light of tragedy seems to be the point of Jesus at the tower in Siloam incident.

Luke 13 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. ² And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? ³ I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. ⁴ Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? ⁵ I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

There is never a time that is not a good time for repentance as Luther reminded us in theses #1 of his 95 thesis,

“When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

however, in times of crises the need for repentance is perhaps even more necessary if we are to take the example of our Reformed forefathers as precedent.

We should understand that there was a reason why our fathers in Christ immediately moved to repentance when crisis was at hand. The reason was that unlike us they believed that the world was God’s world and that everything that happened in this world was an effect behind which God was the cause. They believed in God’s personal providence. They believed that God was involved in the affairs of men, and so unlike moderns they did not just chalk up “natural disasters” to nature. They saw the finger of God in what today we refer to as “natural disasters.” For them God was the ultimate cause and as such the ultimate cause must be considered in any and every event and so they would cry out to God for relief, while at the same time teaching that God’s ways are altogether just.

Of course, the danger in this kind of thinking is the ever present temptation to say with authority and certainty, “this is that.” There is a danger among certain clergy to step forth as the spokesman of God and say the reason we are experiencing this earthquake, or this flood, or this pestilence is that the wicked are committing this or that particular sin. To be sure we can always speak truly enough by saying things such as “just as God justly judged Sodom so He is justly judging America and the world,” or “If God is just then His justice is unquestioned in judging a world where the judicially innocent are tortured and murdered.” However, this kind of speech, apart from considering our own need to repent for our own sins come across more as “I told you so” then the prophet who is laboring over his people’s sin.

Having said all the above, I close by offering the caveat that I’m not convinced that the Wuhan Virus is all that the doomsayers are saying that it is. Personally I’m more concerned about the death and mayhem that will come from the result of what looks to be largely manufactured crisis. I’m more concerned by the liberties lost as a result of the Tyrant-State gone wild.

But even if that happens … it will be the case that God was pleased to bruise us by means of the Tyrant-State

“No doubt this knowledge and wisdom (which Paul speaks of in his corpus) in all their extent and explications do not simply coincide with faith; they are not gifts that, as it were, are ready to hand: they (knowledge and wisdom) must be discovered, traced, and investigated with all the saints and all generations. For the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge are more than be comprehended by one man, one church, and, — we may add to this — one generation.”

Herman Ridderbos
Paul — p. 245

Perhaps the greatest indicator of the anti-Christ nature of the contemporary visible Church in the West today is its delight in being stupid. Read the quote again. Characteristic of every Christian and every Church in one degree or another should be knowledge and wisdom and yet we throw knowledge and wisdom overboard for experience and emotion.

Why do we do that? Because of egalitarianism. We want everyone to be equal in the Church and if knowledge and wisdom were seen as signs of sanctification then clearly not everyone would be equal. BUT if we get rid of wisdom and knowledge as harbingers of sanctification and instead embrace experience and emotion then all Christians can be equally sanctified. Everybody can gin up some emotion and regale you about their experience.

This provides explanatory power to why the celibate sodomites in the Church no longer want to talk about Scripture, Doctrine, or theology but instead have taught their people, “Just tell your stories.”

Question for Doug — “Do you have warnings or encouragements related to interracial marriages?”

“I want to begin by objecting to the phrase ‘interracial.’ I’ll begin there. I think the question is really talking about inter-ethnic marriage. There is only one race. The human race. And so I think races — the whole concept of races — is problematic. The one human race is divided by language. divided by culture, divided by tribes, divided by history. There are many things that divide us.”

Doug Wilson
Minister — CREC

It’s amazing to me that putatively educated people can say things like what Doug Wilson says in light of the hard concrete realities that laugh at their statements as presented in this USA Today article.

https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2019/05/29/family-3-year-old-leukemia-plead-bone-marrow-transplant-donor/1203940001/

This USA Today article is about a little girl (Aliani) who needs a bone marrow transplant. I quote the article in defiance of Wilson’s pastoral professional malpractice as on display in the Wilson video.

“In order for bone marrow transplants to have the highest rate of success, the donor and the recipient need to be of the same ethnic and racial background. The challenge for Ailani, who is half black and half white, is that the majority of prospective donors registered with the National Marrow Donor Program, which operates Be The Match, are white. 

“It’s difficult for any (multiracial) person to find a match on the registry,” Schatz said, explaining that while white people have a 77% chance of finding a perfect match on the registry, people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds have much lower odds.

Latinos, for instance, have a 46% chance of finding a match, and blacks have a 23% chance of a match, according to Schatz.

She didn’t know how likely it is to find a multiracial match though the registry, only that the chances are even lower for people like Ailani, whose life now depends on it.

In light of this reality how do people like Wilson and others offer up with a straight face that race does not exist or is a social construct? In point of fact in light of the reality of Aliani and people like her Wilson is showing himself an unworthy Shepherd when he advises people that there is no such thing as race. Can’t you just hear Aliani’s parents saying to the Doctors and to their family members upon receiving the shattering news that finding a bone marrow donor match for Aliani would be especially difficult since Aliani was a mixed race child, “But Rev. Wilson told us that race did not exist before we decided to get married?”

And Aliani is just one example that overturns Wilson. There are diseases also that focus their wreckage on particular races over and above other races. Further, Pharmaceutical companies develop medicines that are especially designed to profit one race vis-a-vis other races. Whole books have been written to substantiate that different races tend to different IQ abilities. (See Charles Murray’s “The Bell Curve”). To suggest that races don’t exist is irresponsible, ignorant, and a clear indicator that someone has given into the politically correct zeitgeist.

There can be no doubt that it is true that all people belong to the human race. However that does not mean that within the one human race as species, varying sub-species don’t exist — each fully human, each Image Bearers of God, but each a distinct expression of the one human race. And together communicating the idea of the One and the Many character of God. Further, within these sub-species there exist different ethnicity, tribes, and families.

Wilson mentions the things that divide us, but note that none of those things that divide us, per Wilson, are genetic. It’s almost as if Wilson is denying that genetic differences exist. Such a position borders on Gnosticism. Forgive me for bringing that up but there is so much Gnosticism in the Church today that it needs to be mentioned.

Rev. Wilson’s position fits well with the the cultural Marxist vision which embraces the idea of all colors bleeding into one, which in turn has a very Genesis 11 Babel feel about it.

“As an MIT PhD in biological engineering who studies & does research nearly every day on the Immune System, the #coranvirus fear mongering by the Deep State will go down in history as one of the biggest frauds to manipulate economies, suppress dissent, & push MANDATED Medicine!”

Dr. V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai

“If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average. The media coverage would have been less than for an NBA game between the two most indifferent teams.”

Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis

C. F. Rehnborg Professor in disease prevention in the school of medicine, professor of medicine, of health research and policy (Epidemiology) and by courtesy, of statistics and of biomedical data science and of Statistics; co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford.

Ioannidis’s 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”[10] has been the most downloaded technical paper from the journal PLoS Medicine and is considered foundational to the field of metascience.[18] Ioannidis wrote that “a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.”

What Dr. Ioannidis is telling us in the quote in bold relief is a proverb that Mark Twain popularized (though he didn’t originate it) is that when it comes to lying there are three types, (a) liars, (b) damned liars, and (c) statisticians. I am convinced that we have fallen into the hands of all three in this Wuhan virus scare with the statisticians doing the most harm.

In the midst of this Wuhan scare people have forgotten that facts are not neutral. They have forgotten that facts always come nestled in a set of organic relationships with other unspoken yet controlling facts. We are being given all kinds of facts complete with dramatic numbers of death totals from the Wuhan virus but what do we know of those statistician who are shoveling those facts? Dr’s Fauci, and Birx, who are the putative experts guiding the White House response to the Wuhan virus both are people from the constellation of the left. Does anybody pause to ask how their pre-theoretical ideological commitments are driving their “scientific” conclusions? Has Trump consulted chaps like Dr. Ioannidis and Dr. Ayyaduri to offset the fear-porn mongering of Dr’s Fauci and Brix?

And in this context what are we to think of the well respected British epidemiologist Dr. Neil Ferguson who at the outset insisted that Britain would suffer 500,000 deaths from the Wuhan virus only recently to have re-adjusted that figure downwards to 20,000 deaths? This Brit epidemiologist was to the Brits what Fauci has been to the Americans and now all of a sudden he says, “whoops,” regarding his model?

The fact is that all of these people, with their “facts” regarding the impact of the Wuhan virus are only as good as the Worldview and theology that is driving their reason for selecting the facts that they select. Their statistical models are only as good as the assumptions that inform their models and those assumptions are only as good as the Worldview and Theology that are basis for those assumptions.

So, before we embrace any expert pertaining to the Wuhan virus we should know something about their ideological pre-commitments. We should investigate what reasons they may have for gerrymandering their statistical models.

Really, why should we believe anything coming from the FEDS or any leftist news source? Why should we give credence to any information coming out of China or Iran?

Honestly…. what we know is just this much,

1.) There is a virus
2.) It is having an impact
3.) That impact is NOT uniform in the differing nations it lands in
4.) At least a part of all this is the Globalist media has an agenda to put an end to the rise of the nationalist-populist impulse which is challenging their New World Order plans for hegemony.

We also know that the projected numbers are all over the map and hardly constitute what we call “science.” This may be the black plague. It may be merely the swine flu. I don’t know. You don’t know. Clearly, the experts don’t know. They are all projecting and speculating. It is at least possible that we have been “H. G. Wells’ed.” You remember H. G. Wells and his “War of the Worlds,” which created a panic because given the way it was reported over the airwaves people really believed that they were being invaded by aliens. This Wuhan Virus may be our H. G. Wells moment.

So, before we continue to hyperventilate that this Wuhan virus may be the end of the world as we know it, we need to step back, take a deep breath, and ask ourselves “cui-bono,” (who benefits) from all this panic and fear-mongering.

Of course … the panic has already begun and so who knows where we end up but wherever we end up it is quite possible we will end up there more because of mass hysteria than because of the Wuhan virus. There are other games afoot here than the world being sick. Those possibilities include,

1.) Medical Martial Law implemented to the end of overthrowing our Constitutional liberties.

2.) Shifting from the dollar being the World’s reserve currency to the Yuan becoming the World’s reserve currency.

3.) Precursor event to the rise of a new globalism. (See former Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s article in TIME magazine as well as recent comments by former British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.)

Whatever is the consequence of this Wuhan virus scare you can be sure that the Wuhan virus was merely a pretext to set off a far grander vision of some kind of New World.