"Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands
for war, my
fingers for battle." Psalms 144:1 (A Psalm of David)
Dear friends,
Let it be known that I never take a "holier than thou"
attitude toward
anyone. If, however, you don't have any more personal
integrity than,
let's say for example, Bill Clinton, I won't hesitate
to adopt a "less
sleazy than thou" attitude. I'll do that in a heartbeat.
* * *
Did you know that in Iceland there is a national law forbidding
any
changes to the native language? A wonderful thing about
that is that
an Icelander can pick up a piece of literature written
a thousand years
ago and read it and understand it.
Similarly, France has a law forbidding the introduction
of foreign words
into the French language. Just a few days ago the French
government
allowed a very, very light relaxing of this law. It is
now legal for a
Frenchman to say: "Cheeseburger." That's it, just cheeseburger.
I'm not making this up. I saw it on CNN Headline News
just a few
days ago.
Don't get me wrong. I know that CNN will tell lies. I
know CNN, like
all major news media outlets, is controlled by The New
World Order
[ie., leftists]. But in this case, I believed the story;
because I sat there
asking myself: "Why would they lie about a thing like
that? What kind
of liar could be imaginative enough to fabricate such
a weird thing?"
The English language can be very confusing, so let's try
to clarify
some terms.
Question: What is a conservative?
Answer: A liberal who's been mugged.
In other words, when left-wing disinformation specialists
[read: liars]
completely dominate the media, after a while, some terms
become
meaningless. Many years ago (before the BATF popped me)
I was
visiting a left-wing friend (I'll call him "Bubba") when
another visitor
dropped in. The conversation became a political debate.
Bubba told
the other guest: "John is about five miles to the right
of Buckley."
He meant it as sort of a "left-handed" compliment, but
I didn't take
it that way. So I corrected him, saying: "Wait a minute.
That's not
true. That's a gross understatement. I'm a radically
ultra-conservative
right-wing extremist. So from my position, Bill Buckley
seems almost
to be a left-wing moderate. Pat Buchanan is five miles
to the right of
Buckley, and I'm about a hundred miles to the right of
Buchanan."
Expectedly, the other two laughed at this candor, even
though it was
said mainly for emphasis, not so much as a joke.
That was back in the days not long after I had taken a
keen interest
in politics and was still somewhat politically naive.
The reason I used
to describe myself thus was to be shocking and offensive
and to express
my "in-your-face" attitude toward the left-wing (in general,
not toward
Bubba personally). So it was my way of throwing down
the gauntlet
and saying: "I'm not going to be nice anymore. When the
wicked have
begun to wage war against innocent, helpless victims,
it is no longer
nice for nice men to be nice."
But as my understanding of politics increased, I began
using those
terms less and less to describe my position. Some have
become
meaningless, and others can be misconstrued. For example,
I'm not
radical at all, but merely reasonable. I only proclaim
truth, neither
more nor less. And truth, by virtue of being true, is
always reasonable,
never radical. But leftists don't think there is any
such thing as eternal
truth- truth independent of whether most people believe
it or not.
Since the media have diverted the meaning of "conservative"
from
the original, it no longer makes sense to use it. Folks
couldn't be sure
what you're talking about. Conservative? What kind? We
use words
to draw pictures, in other peoples' minds, of what we're
thinking. So
a word's true meaning is what most people think it means,
even if
they're "wrong" (that is, not in accordance with the
dictionary or
original meaning).
For example, if you look up the word "faggot", you'll
discover it can
refer to a bundle of sticks or twigs, especially to be
used as fuel. But
I'll tell you one thing: if you and I ever go camping
together and are
ready to build a fire, I won't tell you I'm going out
to pick up a faggot.
A faggot can also be a kind of jacket. When the weather
turns cold,
though, if you and a friend approach me wearing jackets,
I won't tell
you: "That's a nice-looking faggot you've got there."
I can promise
you that much right now.
About a year or so ago I read a letter to the editor of
a mainstream
[read: left-wing] newspaper wherein the writer described
himself as
a conservative Republican who was pro-abortion. If the
anti-abortion
position is not such a quintessential position that,
without it, no one
could be a true conservative, then I suppose I don't
know what
"conservative" really means.
A recent editorial in a far-right newspaper tried to make a distinction
[In] his book...the rabid leftist Dallas A. Blanchard
tried to say
something nice about me; but I don't feel too bad about
it, because
it was due to a misunderstanding between "conservatives"
and
"populists". The paper was asserting its editorial policies
were
populist and implying that conservatives are relatively
moderate.
To tell the truth, even the mainstream media has taken
that
inclination recently viewing "conservatives" as relative
moderates.
They now refer to those who are even further from them
than
conservatives as "the Christian-right" or "the religious-right".
Now let's deal with the right-wing/left-wing thing. If
you've read
previous issues of TBR, you've surely noticed how often
this column
derisively refers to left-wingers. You rightfully concluded
the term
was being slung around as an insult. But you would have
been incorrect
to assume that, by flogging the left-wing so often, I
was implying myself
to be a right-winger. With leftists in control, "right-wing"
might be the
most confusing term of all.
When and where did these terms originate? I don't have
documentation
but have read or heard a legend, somewhere, that in the
early days of
the French Revolution the two factions held town meetings
in a church
to try to talk out and resolve the issues. The "enlightened"
secular
humanists sat together on the left and the Christians
on the right.
Perhaps the church building even had two wings, thus
the "wing"
part of the terms.
When the leftists gained control of the media they
naturally used
the term "right-wing" as an insult to such and such persons
and
organizations. And if they called you a right-wing extremist,
it was
their way of calling you the absolute scum of the earth,
and trying to
be somewhat polite about it.
That's not why I stopped calling myself a right-winger.
Far from
being bothered, I like it when the media "insults" me.
Far from
taking it as an insult, I consider it an honor. I'd be
ashamed if the
left-wing ever said anything nice about me. I'd wonder
where I went
wrong, and think: "Gee, don't they think I'm a fanatic
anymore?
Don't they hate me as much as they used to?"
On page 313 of his book, Religious Violence and Abortion,
the rabid
leftist Dallas A. Blanchard tried to say something nice
about me; but
I don't feel too bad about it, because it was due to
a misunderstanding.
The reason I stopped claiming to be right-wing is because
the
media started applying nuances to the term which could
cause
confusion and misunderstanding. "Right-wing" can now
mean
any number of things, some of which are ambiguous or
incompatible
with one another.
The media calls the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, etc., "right-wing
extremists." I renounce white supremism and anti-Semitism.
But
if you merely call yourself a right-winger, you might
be identified,
even if mistakenly, with one of these factions.
The way the left-wing uses the term can change over a
period of
time. Leftists are a very confused people. They will
not hesitate to
re-adapt the meaning of a word from an older definition
which they
themselves had previously established! This can be confusing
to
normal people like us. As noted earlier, they have recently
introduced
these new buzz words - "Christian-right" and "Religious-right".
Some
of the individuals they hang these new tags on are relatively
nice and
moderate. Take, for examples, Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell. Any
of the specific individuals or groups they now call "the
Christian-right"
would surely renounce white supremism and anti-Semitism.
In this way
the leftists have, unwittingly, sort of "sanitized" the
term right-wing.
So maybe it's okay, now, if you want to call me a right-winger.
But
wait a minute! Then people might think I'm a relative
moderate. So
let's just keep saying I'm a fundamentalist and an absolutist.
Question: What is a fundamentalist?
Answer: An evangelical with an attitude.
"Fundamentalism" is another one of those left-wing buzz
words.
There may be some fine theological distinction between
fundamentalists
and evangelicals, but leftists have their own political
ideas of what
these things mean. [Note: warning: If you, the reader,
are a friend of
this column and you consider yourself an evangelical,
please do not take
offense at me, personally, for what appears below. I
will be speaking
not from my own point of view but from a leftist perspective.
Not being a
theology expert, for all I know, I might be an evangelical,
theologically,
myself.]
The leftists' distinction between evangelicals and fundamentalists
is based on how firmly you believe in the Bible and how
literally
you interpret it:
Evangelicals believe some of the Bible is not true or
that it doesn't
really mean what it says. Fundamentalists, on the other
hand,
proclaim the entire Good Book to be true; and you better
believe
it, pal.
Evangelicals carry little Bibles. Fundamentalists carry
big Bibles.
The Evangelical carries his Bible politely. The Fundamentalist,
on the other hand, openly waves his Bible at you (perhaps
menacingly).
He may or may not be smiling. Evangelicals always smile.
Evangelicals are embarrassed by the harsh, true parts
of the Bible;
appreciating only the nice, true parts. Fundamentalists
delight equally
in all parts of God's sacred Word. Since Evangelicals
are embarrassed
by much of the Bible (and consider much of the remainder
irrelevant
in these modern times) they will quote only a few select
verses. While
they quote the Bible, they pat it gently. On the other
hand, while a
Fundamentalist quotes the Bible, he holds it firmly in
one hand, and
thumps it violently with the other. Fundamentalists carry
sturdy,
leather-bound Bibles. They have very hairy arms and sloping
foreheads.
[J.B. note: boy, oh, boy, I just thought of something!
There are some
leftists on our mailing list, including some "mainstream"
media moguls.
They probably wish that they had written these things!
Well, listen up,
you leftists: if you want to quote from my parody of
your view of us
Fundamentalists, go ahead. If so, all you have to do
to avoid my filing
a lawsuit against you is to make clear to your readers
that I did not mean
to be saying these things as if I were speaking for myself.
I was
pretending to speak for you. I made that clear. You understood.
So
get it right, or leave it alone.]
While the media often sneers at "fundamentalists", you'll
rarely catch
them mentioning "evangelicals". It's because the media
doesn't have
anything bad to say about Evangelicals.
In a nutshell, my claim to being a Fundamentalist is as
much a
political statement as an assertion that I'm a Bible-believing
Christian.
When our Lord spoke of "the world" in the fifteenth chapter
of the
gospel of St. John, He wasn't talking about the planet.
He was speaking
of worldly people ( un-Godly people ) leftists. In verses
18-19, He said:
"If the world hate you, ye know
it hated me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world,
the world would love his own: but I have
chosen you out of the
world, therefore the world hateth you."
Reprobate left-wingers hate our Lord, so I want them to
hate me,
too. During a time of war, it isn't always right for
Christians to always
be nice to everybody. Every generation of Christians
before the Vietnam
War believed that, during a time of war, it was Un-Christian
to always
be nice to everybody. Just ask Richard the Lionhearted
(the Great Crusades).
Ask George Washington (The Revolutionary War). Ask Teddy
Roosevelt
(the Spanish-American War) or Sergeant York (World War
1). Ask my
dad (W.W.II). Ask Paul Hill (the Abortion War).
So, during this time of terrible national crisis, I'm
not satisfied with
merely proclaiming my Christianity to the Lord's (and
our) enemies
on the left. My emphasis that I'm a fundamentalist Christian
is a way
of drawing a line in the sand, challenging the reprobates,
and encouraging
them to hate me even more. [oooo! He's a...a...(gasp!)...a
fun-da-MEN-tal-ist!]
Why do some Christians today seem to dread that the media
and
other leftists might hate them? Especially at a time
like this? I'll never
figure that out. If, as a Christian, the world doesn't
hate you, you might
have a serious problem on your hands. Try it. You'll
like it. Just wave
your biggest Bible at them (perhaps menacingly). Then
shout: "Hey!
Hey, you leftist, I'm a fun-da-MEN-tal-ist!" Then thump
that Bible
violently, and add (loudly) "You hear what I'm telling
you? I said
I'm a fun-da-MEN-tal-ist! See how hairy my arms are?
See how my
forehead slopes back? I'm a fun-da-MEN-tal-ist, you gotta
problem
with that, mac?"
Go ahead, try it. It really gets your blood pumping and
makes you
feel so...alive! I'll tell you another thing. They'll
treat you with more
respect than ever before. Take it from me.
* * *
CORRECTIONS
I'm still writing a book, and it will still be
drawn largely from these
reports. But not necessarily all of what is published
in the separate
reports will find its way into the finished book. And
there might be
a little extra in the book that doesn't appear in these
monthly reports.
That's not a commercial to sell more books. If you've
read all the
monthly reports, it wouldn't be worthwhile to buy and
read the book,
too. I'll be honest with you.
In the finished book there might be matters that would
be okay
for the book but that would not be interesting enough
to stand
alone as an individual report. Like some personal
biographic stuff,
for example.
I'm a mean ol' man, so I might try to make the book slightly
nicer
in the hope that more than a few people would read it.
Most of my
original readers (especially from when Shelley was my
publisher) are
combat-hardened, old veterans of the Abortion War, so
they have not
been offended by the severity of these individual reports.
But I hope
some newcomers who have never made a commitment to hard-core
absolutism will read the book, too.
Yet, those of you who like my bluntness need not worry
that I'll
sacrifice such essential truths that the book won't have
the potential
to make a difference.
I don't have any illusions that the book will make me
rich or famous.
Those things won't happen, and they're not the reason
I'm writing the
book. I'm writing it in the hope of making a difference,
however small
or great, in a lukewarm church and in the complexion
of the Abortion
War itself. If the book has no chance of making a difference
in these
areas then there will be no sense in publishing it. It
won't be that nice.
It'll be harsh enough to get the point across: the church
is guilty.
I'll tell you another thing. I won't reword or rephrase
anything that's
previously been published (in the monthly reports) in
such a way as
to make it more polite. If I can't say it the way I want,
I'll just omit
that part altogether.
But do you know what concerns me most about the whole
thing?
I'm not worried so much about finding people to buy and
read the
thing. What concerns me is whether we'll find anyone
to sell it in
the first place! I mean - who's going to promote it?
You won't find
it on the shelves of Walden's bookstore. And there's
no possibility
you'll see a review of it in U.S.A. Today or any other
establishment-
controlled paper.
Can you imagine prolife moderates like Jerry Falwell,
Pat Robertson,
or Marlin Maddoux talking about it? I can't.
To be fair with Marlin, his degree of moderation in the
abortion
issue is probably as slight as it can be. But my book
will be of such
unadorned, uncompromising absolutism that it'll be too
hard for
anyone of even the slightest moderation. After all, the
whole purpose
of The Brockhoeft Report is to revile even the slightest
compromise
with abortion and to show the urgency of rejecting all
moderation in
our attitude towards the babies and their slaughter.
If the public, especially the churchgoing public, knew
about the
existence of such a book, perhaps folks would be curious
enough
to buy and read it. But how will they ever find out it
even exists?
I don't know. Maybe Tex Mars will publish and promote
it.
But for the time being, with so few people knowing who
I am,
and that I'm writing, it seems kind of silly and grandiose
for me to
even think of writing a book for publication. But I'm
writing it anyway,
because I believe the Lord wants me to. And what have
I better to
do behind these bars? And so what if it makes only a
little difference?
I'm not going to say: "No, Lord, it's too much work to
justify such a
little difference." Besides, if you save one child's
life you've made
a big difference. All the difference in the world.
So I'll keep writing these monthly columns, and even if
they're
never published in book form, I'll feel I did what I
was supposed
to do. May the Lord's will be done.
If it wasn't for Dave Leach you wouldn't be reading
my story
and commentary. Who else would have the guts to publish
such
controversial matter? No one. I write about abortion,
and if I'm
going to write something for publication, then the severity
of my
language is going to be in proportion to the desperation
of the situation.
I wouldn't tone down my rhetoric just to make it "suitable"
for some
nice, polite, moderate lukewarm publisher. If I had to
do that I would
remain silent. The world is full of nice, polite, moderate,
lukewarm,
prolife columns, and the movement doesn't need another
one.
In needs one like this.
If it weren't for Dave, this column would have disappeared
a year
ago when Shelley was arrested. Give him credit for some
guts. And
now he might be a little embarrassed on account of my
speaking
kindly of him. But at least I'm not making it look like
he's the one
saying it. (So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Dave.]
Scoffers and Counter-Scoffers
You may have noticed Dave omitted my scoffing from the
original.
It wasn't the first time I'd wanted to use that word
"scoffing" but
I chose not to, previously. For to use it would have
required a careful,
lengthy explanation of the usage. Because scoffing is
mentioned in the
Book of Proverbs. Scriptures there condemn it. The thing
to remember
is that these Scriptures were written in the Hebrew language,
whereas
"scoffer" is an English word. Somehow the Hebrew term
was translated
"scoffer". In the context it's used in, it seems obvious
the Bible is
referring to those who scoff at God and His Holy Word,
or at righteous
reproof. So, on the one hand, far be it from me to dare
to re-word
the Bible; but it does seem those verses refer to unbelievers,
particularly
sarcastic ones. I'm not that kind of scoffer. However,
according to
modern English usage I do scoff, big time, at scoffers.
So maybe I'm
actually a counter-scoffer.
I don't scoff at abortionists. That would be a waste of
time, a
waste of good scoffing. No, them I openly revile. My
favorite
targets of scoffing are today's superficial, lukewarm
church
(in general) and the prolife movement, in particular.
Please remember, we, who refuse to compromise, are not
members
of the prolife movement. We constitute the new anti-abortion
movement. And I'm not being sarcastic on account of how
the
media calls us all anti-abortionists, nor on account
of how nice,
moderate prolifers disdain to be called anti-abortionists.
I'm sincere.
Please don't ever call me a prolifer.
If you don't believe we (for example, Shelley, Paul, you,
me, and
many others) are not prolifers, just ask any "true" prolifer.
Ask the
women of the "true" prolife movement. Women like Patrick
Mahoney, Randall Terry, Terry Sullivan, and Carol Everett.
They'll tell you we're not prolifers. And they'll be
ten times more
emphatic about it than I am.
"They're not prolifers, they killed," says Carol Everett.
She was
talking about our people, our friends who execute abortionists!
"They are no part of the prolife movement," said Patrick
Mahoney,
immediately after the honorable Paul Hill executed abortionist
Britton.
"I'll push them out of the prolife movement," said the
disgraceful
Terry Sullivan.
We [who justify violence] have worked in cooperation,
shoulder-
to-shoulder, with these prolifers [who shun anyone who
justifies
violence], employing the same tactics. Who hasn't seen
Paul Hill
carrying a picket sign on T.V.? Shelley Shannon carries
deep
scars on her body from when she sat, blocking doors,
with Operation
Rescue, and the police dragged her across concrete pavement,
tearing the skin and flesh from her.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all my readers
who have
written words of encouragement. I'm especially gratified
that no
one has accused me of divisiveness or judgmentalism.
From the
above quotations you can see from which quarter the divisions
have arisen. Besides how the prolifers have haughtily
shunned us,
we have always held our arms out to them. We have always
applauded
when they saved a child's life. We have always supported
and
encouraged them in their work and their tactics. Indeed,
we even
employed "their" tactics, they're our tactics too! We
have worked in
cooperation, shoulder-to-shoulder, with these prolifers,
employing
the same tactics. {AGAIN} Who hasn't seen Paul Hill carrying
a picket sign on T.V.? Shelley Shannon carries deep scars
on her
body from when she sat, blocking doors, with Operation
Rescue,
and the police dragged her across concrete pavement,
tearing the
skin and flesh from her.
Why do "true" prolifers disdain to be called "antiabortion"
and
insist on being called "prolife"? It's because it sounds
nicer, and
they think nicer is better - even during a time of war!
It's because
of "false stupidity". They believe in a false good image.
Somewhat
conversely, and somewhat similarly, the media calls us
all
anti-abortionists (rather than prolifers) because of
false stupidity.
The media thinks they're putting a bad image on us, but,
in reality,
it's a false bad image.
What? You've never heard of "false stupidity" before?
Don't feel
bad, neither has anyone else. I'd never heard of it before,
either,
until discovering it on my own. At that point, never
having heard
of it, and so, not knowing what to call it, I coined
the term "false
stupidity" myself. When I define and describe it in a
future issue
(probably the next one), you'll clearly recognize it
(in others),
because you've all seen irrefutable proof of it. You
stare it in the
face every day. Most of your friends exhibit false stupidity
from
time to time. False stupidity is real (that is, it is
not genuine, but
it does observably exist), and it's dangerous )) more
dangerous,
by far, than the real thing.
* * *
About a week ago I was on the phone with my pastor, the
Rev.
Henry Irby. Henry had a letter published in the "C" July,
1994 A.D.
issue of Prayer and Action Weekly News, exhorting us
to put "A.D."
after dates to witness of Jesus.
Henry and I are a couple of eccentrics. It took us a minute
or two
to get on the same wave-length. But then, as usual, we
were in one
accord. Right off the bat I exclaimed "Henry, Henry,
why are some
of our friends and allies trying to get Bill Clinton
impeached?! That's
the last thing we want! Bill Clinton is the best president
we could have
right now! He's the least dangerous enemy to the babies
and the best
president we've had in decades!"
"In what sense do you mean?" the innocent Henry asked.
When I explained it to him, Henry shot back: "I'm in favor
of
higher taxes, much higher. I'd like to see a 95% tax
rate. That
would be good for this country."
You must understand... Henry and I weren't kidding around.
We
were serious. I want Bill Clinton in the White House
in order to help
the American people, and especially the prolifers, to
overcome their
false stupidity. It is absolutely essential that we stop
pretending like
we're even stupider than we really are! Otherwise, our
nation will
surely perish. Clinton is helping us overcome our false
stupidity.
Henry wants higher taxes, even 95%, under the theory that
it would
help the American people overcome "false zealotry". He's
probably
right.
Well, folks, thanks for reading through another lengthy
report. I'll
elaborate further on these matters in the next issue.
Dave wants this
manuscript in the mail tonight, so I have just a few
minutes to drop it
in the box. Till the next time, I'm still...
...yours-in-Christ,
Johnny
P.S. Remember that joke about a conservative being a liberal
who's
been mugged? That wasn't original, but it's so good I
wanted to
let you give me credit for it for a little while. I don't
remember
who said it first.
Click for Letter 12 of the Brockhoeft Report.
Back to John Brockhoeft Select Page.
Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed:
for in the image of God made he
man.
Numbers
35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are:
for blood it defileth the land:
and the land cannot be cleansed of the
blood that is shed therein, but
by the blood of him that shed it.
E-mail:
Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com
Telephone 1-757-204-4454
Or write to: Rev. Donald Spitz
Pro-Life Virginia
P.O. Box 2876
Chesapeake VA 23327
7
