USDA Sec. Brooke Rollins: "We found 200,000 dead people getting food stamps, and 500,000 getting more than one benefit... in the red states. Blue states are suing us... The fraud is so stunning."
“Why is censorship used? To shut someone up, yes, but more importantly, to deceive the public, including students, parents, donors; to stop others from hearing; to convince a naive public there is some sort of consensus to support their actions.
But truth is not a team sport. Truth is not determined by consensus, by the number of people who agree, or by their titles. It is discovered through debate, proven by critical analysis of evidence… not by personal attack.”
Here are four things every serious anti-communist should understand about Marxism:
First, Marxism is not primarily a set of economic policies. It is a complete philosophical system built on the claim that private property and markets are the root causes of human oppression and alienation. This is why communist regimes did not simply make economic mistakes - they systematically tried to abolish the foundations of voluntary cooperation.
Second, Marxism focuses heavily on social structures and class forces while leaving very little room for individual choice and moral responsibility. Individuals are treated largely as products of their class position rather than as autonomous agents capable of shaping their own lives. This deterministic outlook underpins both Marxism’s repeated predictive failures and its readiness to justify coercive social engineering.
Third, the authoritarianism, terror, and centralised control seen in every communist state were not distortions of Marxism. They were logical consequences of attempting to impose a total transformation of society (and Mark understood that). Once private property and markets are rejected, coercive state power becomes necessary to enforce the new order.
Fourth, Marxism has never died. It has mutated. Much of today’s identity politics, critical theory, and institutional “equity” activism draws directly from Marxist frameworks - simply replacing economic class with race, gender or other identity categories while retaining the same oppressor-versus-oppressed logic.
Not every biblical doctrine is written as a single sentence with a ready made label attached to it. But that does not make it less biblical.
The truth of God is not found only in isolated phrases. It is found in the whole counsel of Scripture, in what God has said directly, and in what His words necessarily teach when read faithfully.
“The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting” (Psalm 119:160).
This matters because some reject sound doctrine simply because they cannot find the exact word printed on the page. But the question is not only, “Is the term found there?” The better question is, “Does Scripture teach the truth behind it?”
Jesus Himself reasoned from Scripture this way. He proved the resurrection from God’s words to Moses, saying, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Matthew 22:32). The doctrine was not stated in the exact form His opponents demanded, but it was truly there in the meaning of the text.
At the same time, we must be careful. This does not give anyone permission to smuggle human traditions into the faith and call them biblical. No doctrine has the right to bind the conscience unless it comes from Scripture or is necessarily taught by Scripture.
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
The church must not invent truth. It must receive truth. It must not force Scripture to serve tradition. It must bow before the Word of God and confess only what God has revealed.
True doctrine does not begin with man’s imagination. It rises from the text, is governed by the text, and leads the soul back to the God who has spoken.
Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor & Medical Authority
The most chilling argument for authoritarianism ever written is not in a political manifesto.
It is in a novel. Spoken by a 90-year-old Cardinal to a silent prisoner he intends to burn the next morning.
The prisoner is Christ, returned to 16th century Seville. The Cardinal has him arrested and comes to his cell at midnight to explain why he will be executed again.
His argument is not cruel. It is almost tender.
You gave people freedom, the Grand Inquisitor says. But freedom is a burden too heavy for most of them to carry.
They don’t want to choose. They want bread, and miracle, and authority. Give them someone to obey and something to believe in, and they will be happy.
We have corrected your work. We have given them what they actually need.
Dostoevsky wrote this in 1880.
In 2020, the Grand Inquisitor updated his résumé and applied to medicine.
The argument was structurally identical.
The population cannot evaluate evidence. The information is too complex. The stakes are too high.
Independent judgment in this domain is dangerous. Submit to the authority of those who know. The science is settled. The debate is over.
And the extraordinary thing, the thing Dostoevsky anticipated with prophetic precision, is how many people were grateful for it.
Not coerced. Grateful. Relieved to have the weight of judgment lifted. Eager to perform their compliance as evidence of their reasonableness and care.
The Grand Inquisitor understands human psychology more accurately than the idealists who believe people always want freedom. Some do. Many, when the burden is heavy enough, want to give it away.
And institutions that offer to carry it rarely give it back willingly.
Christ, in Dostoevsky’s parable, says nothing. He walks to the old man and kisses him softly on his dry lips.
Then he leaves.
Dostoevsky’s point is not that argument defeats authority. It is that something in the human being , something quiet and unkillable, cannot finally be administered away.
Your conscience is that thing.
No Grand Inquisitor, however credentialed, however certain, however genuinely caring, has the right to it.
And any system that asks for it should be answered with Dostoevsky’s silence.
And then your refusal.
@Tiempodetenis1 WTA should put an immediate stop to political statements of any kind while the players are engaged in a tournament. They can speak freely outside of the WTA sanctioned events.
"If someone plays poorly a piece by Beethoven, you don't blame Beethoven. Similar for Christians who reflect poorly the Lord Jesus Christ"
~ Alistair Begg
70–85% of the Bible is primarily focused on God Himself and His redemptive work
15–30% of the Bible is primarily focused on practical human conduct and Christian living
What should the church sermons look like then ?