Archive for December, 2012

Is the future black? (see image below) Let’s hope not, but chances are that some of your friends & neighbours have contributed to a conservative total of 300 000 000 hours (updated estimate *) of thinking about dark things recently. Shooting people, basically. How about thinking about the influence that has on people in terms of mass killings that take over the headlines now and then? Think gun control is all that’s important? Well, does mind control sound over-the-top? It’s happening. Face it. Even Donald Trump agreed when he tweeted: “Video game violence & glorification must be stopped — it is creating monsters!”. Others are also asking this question again.

* 150 million hours quoted below excludes PC play time & another 16 days has passed since this number was quoted which would effectively double time spent to date – on just this one game.


At first the Call of Duty franchise was a little behind the last installment, Modern Warfare 3. But as Variety tells us, Black Ops hit the billion milestone a day ahead of Modern Warfare, which racked up a billion in 16 days. Meaning, it’s both a record for the franchise and the gaming business. (Comparing gaming to movies, Avatar made a billion in 17 days).
Call of Duty Black Ops 2 also clocked in over 150 million hours on Xbox Live and PlayStation Networks. As Bobby Kotick, the CEO of Activision proudly told Variety, “The release of Call of Duty has been one of the most significant entertainment events of each of the last six years.” He also bragged that, “Life-to-date sales for the Call of Duty franchise have exceeded worldwide theatrical box office receipts for Harry Potter and Star Wars.” – Source

call-of-duty-black-ops-2b – The Briefing. Listen to full audio here.

By William Sullivan,

The French government is wringing its hands in frustration about how to deal with wealthy French nationals who are expatriating to avoid France’s crushing new tax hikes.

World-renowned actor Gérard Depardieu, for example, has recently decided to take up residence just across the Belgian border to avoid the tax penalty he would incur by remaining in France. This is merely an allegation at this point, of course, but it seems a safe guess that Depardieu has noticed French politicians’ distaste for the wealthy — which is not a feat of consciousness, considering that the new socialist president François Hollande has famously quipped, “I don’t like the rich” while campaigning on promises to “tax annual income of more than one million euros per year at 75 percent.”

It’s just the latest of many black eyes for France’s new administration. France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, has applied for Belgian citizenship, and according to The Telegraph, “among Mr. Depardieu’s new neighbors in the village of Nechin will be members of the Mulliez family, who own the Auchan supermarket chain.” And for months now, wealthy French families have been buying real estate in England, thanks in part to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s shrewd marketing. Seeking to poach tax revenue from France, he has promised successful French families and businesses that the U.K. will “roll out the red carpet” in welcoming them. Understandably, they find that message a tad more attractive than Hollande’s.

This presents problems for French socialists beyond the immediate loss of revenue which would finance their proposed top-down redistribution. There is also the issue of image. After all, convincing the world that France’s socialist government is successful is a pretty tough sell when the successful want absolutely nothing to do with it.

It is no coincidence that those who would be required to finance a Utopian redistribution of wealth are rarely supporters of implementing such a model. John Locke observed that natural laws exist, independent of any system of government, and among these are not only the individual’s fundamental right to life and liberty, but also a right to “property,” which can be described as the product of a person’s labor and enterprise.

Most Westerners would say that they accept this assumption in theory, but due to a curious caveat in human nature, many only limitedly accept it in practice. An individual will typically be far more concerned with the preservation of this natural right to “property” when it is his own “property” that is targeted for seizure. The Occupier of Zuccotti Park, for example, may find it a travesty that a homeless man steals his wallet to subsidize a livelihood, but when a homeless man has his livelihood subsidized by someone else’s wallet in a transaction brokered by the government, the incident somehow becomes noble and necessary.

It is the tragic flaw by which the grand ambition of socialism has always failed, and will always fail. Human nature resists any attempt to seize one’s property beyond what he would willingly give. This is the very basis of the social contract between a free man and a just government. A man chooses to take part. If that social contract is amended to be uniquely biased against his right to property, absent his consent, he may rightfully exercise his right to liberty and seek avenues to establish a new contract with a government, either by revolution or, more commonly today, expatriation.

France lacked the foresight to anticipate this natural outcome, which poses a massive problem for the country’s future. In a sense, the fate of the nation is tied to the outcome of its redistributive endeavors. And so, France finds itself it the distinctive, though not unique, situation where left-wing socialism and far-right nationalism have become symbiotic bedfellows.

Therefore, these wealthy individuals, who have the audacity to abscond with their own property that the government has decided belongs to the collective, are being vilified from all angles. Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault stirs the anger of the socialism-loving French people by reminding them that “[w]e cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity.” Consumption minister Benoit Hamon called the move by Depardieu, in particular, “anti-patriotic.” Ever the tolerant ideologues, voices of the French left have kindly commented on Depardieu’s personal choice by labeling him a “drunken, obese petit-bourgeois reactionary.” And right-wing nationalists aren’t letting the leftists poke all the fun, as National Front leader Marine Le Pen said that wealthy exiles like Depardieu just want to “have their cake and eat it,” a phrase which arouses a particularly clever subtext in terms of the history of French nationalism.

Thankfully, Mr. Depardieu doesn’t have a guillotine in his future. The ol’ blade of French social justice is a bit grotesque for modern sensibilities, having recently been retired and all. (However, I absolutely anticipate French bloggers and upcoming political cartoons to make use of its symbolic value in calling for these greedy villains’ heads.) But punishments for expatriation are being offered, including the threat to strip these rich defectors of their French citizenship if they refuse to pay the required tribute to their motherland. I expect that these punishments will only become more creative and painful as expatriation creates an increasingly large shortfall in the redistributive pot.

France is now presented with a choice, and frankly, it is not so dissimilar to our own, considering that Barack Obama’s vision for America mirrors (though currently to a lesser extent) that of Hollande. France can continue on its projected path to discriminately seize substantially more property from the wealthy, and watch as its most successful producers leave the country with their ample resources, leaving an impossible burden upon the middle class to finance the collective welfare. Or it can continue on that same projected path, but choose to do what socialist governments have historically done when confronted with selfish well-to-dos who refuse to finance a collectivist paradise for the ne’er-do-wells. They can institute rigid policy to punish the wealthy brigands for their insolence and confiscate the demanded tribute by any means necessary — and it will be presented as necessary, as the survival of France will depend on it.

At any rate, either path leads to failure in terms of freedom and prosperity. This is a fate that France now seems doomed to suffer.

France could, of course, take the third way, and abandon the foolish endeavor to redistribute its way to Utopia. But I harbor little hope for that, at least with the current administration — on that side of the pond or this one.


Cities, on average, are bad for people, that much I intuitively knew for some time – and that not just because of traffic & crime, or even stress. If you’re unconvinced, remember this post. Maybe you’ll rethink your position one day. Yes, I’m deeply convinced about this.

The following goes some way towards proving that thought. Economically, cities make sense of course, but then again that part is all about the money & greed. Like we know, “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” Even if you are not Biblically-minded, you can, hopefully, still see the truth of the quote above – even if you have to ignore the mention of “faith”.

Sadly, however, the balance has shifted so significantly that urbanization isn’t something that can be reversed in the bigger scheme of things. Much is likely only due to what people aspire to … and the difficulty in toning down our expectations to gain the more ‘invisible’ benefits in life.


Audio source: – The Briefing.

MindAndCosmosBookCan everything that exists, stars, planets, love, hope etc, be explained in terms of atoms & neurons in your brain?

Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford, 2012)

This book, published by a respected atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel of New York University simply states that the evidence doesn’t add up. This perspective from a non-theist is obviously what makes it more interesting. He doesn’t try to guess at what the ultimate cause & explanation of everything might be, but rejects the “consensus view” as utterly feebly supported.


I believe there are independent empirical reasons to be sceptical about the truth of reductionism in biology. Physico-chemical reductionism in biology is the orthodox view, and any resistance to it is regarded as not only scientifically but politically incorrect. But for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. … It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naive response not in favour of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favour of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples. (pp. 5-6)

My scepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life.  … I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science. (p. 7)

I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension. . . . I find this view antecedently unbelievable – a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. . . . I would be willing to bet that the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two. (p. 128)


Extract from article here.

For years, liberal newspapers used to be worried about the horrors of a “population explosion” (as was the implacable Anne Ehrlich, author in 1968, with her husband Paul, of the infamous “The Population Bomb”, which for 1980 predicted the extinction of whales, and the transformation of the UK into a desolate land).

Today, the same media wonder if Europe is really “going to survive.” At this time the answer is no. The collapse has begun. Nihilism thrives in Europe. (more…)

Was America ever a Christian nation? Is the clear departure from the biblical worldview in America all bad news, or is there hope? …and what about the world-wide gospel picture?

Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.

(By Timon Dias)

During Operation Pillar of Defense, it became clear to me that most Western college students and opinion makers do not despise or loathe Hamas the way it factually deserves. I personally do not understand this, and I know that most Israeli´s don’t understand this either.

Hamas represents everything that postmodern minds would be expected to oppose with vigor. It is an organization of freedom hating, theocratic, tyrannical, life loathing thugs that preaches deathcult and genocide. And they don’t just preach it. Through their zealous indoctrination, they make their Gazan subordinates practice what Hamas preaches.  (more…)

This radio show host cannot introduce his show – too many rocket alerts overrule his show’s start. Gives you a feel for how it was / is / will be again soon.

rockets fired to israel

Check out Israel National Radio – Tamar Yonah. Listen to full audio here.

Check out – Aaron Klein Show. Listen to full audio here.

Complaining can be more deadly than you think. Take a listen…


Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.

How would or should the youth of today relate to the gospel? How can it still be relevant in this day and age? If it is still relevant why do surveys find that “churched” youth often depart from the basics of the faith? Three audio segments combined above, full show linked to below.

Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here. Segments above: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.