THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT -- Feedback Box:

Vol I, No. XI August 1994 All Rights Reserved

NOTICE TO NEW READERS: these are chapters of a book being published, a chapter at a time, as John Brockhoeft writes them. (The book will be further revised, of course.) You are starting in the middle. John wants you to have the first chapters so you can understand where he is coming from. If you subscribe specifically to our /C/ "Pro Life Controversies" issue, your subscription will already be counted from December 1993 to December 1994, and you will be sent the back issues from Brockhoeft's beginning. But if you have subscribed to the weekly P&A, and would be interested in the back issues, just write or call, and we will send them -- free. (P&A, 137 E. Leach, Dsm IA 50315; 515/256-0637)

"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 slight 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.

[Ed: sorry to interrupt, but as a musician, I sometimes see "faggot" as an alternate name for "bassoon". But if I were a faggot player, I wouldn't say...in fact, I wouldn't even say it, not being a faggot player.]

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 eve 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.

[Ed: Me again. My Century Dictionary (1903) adds "In the politics of continental Europe, that part of a legislative assembly which sits on the left of the president; specifically, the liberal or democratic party, as that party, according to custom, always sits on this side of the house."]

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 don'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:

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 glad my editor, Dave Leach, is always encouraging folks to point out mistakes in print. We all make mistakes, and Dave is no exception. I'd like to point out a couple things.

The first is so inconsequential it's almost not worth mentioning. At the beginning of each Brockhoeft Report Dave has a little editorial note explaining that I'm writing a book and that each of these reports is a chapter of it. Actually, that's accurate enough that Dave can leave the note intact if he wants.

Actually, that was the idea in the beginning, so it's an honest "mistake" on Dave's part. So he had no idea the concept was taking a slightly different course. 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 Texe 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.

Folks, I'm a little shy about pointing out this other inaccuracy that appeared in print. I'm sorry to be putting Dave on the spot, but he unwittingly put me on the spot. And I can't let this particular thing to uncorrected. It's not entirely his fault, because I told him in the beginning he could feel free to exercise broad editorial discretion and make any changes he saw fit. To his credit I must admit he keeps changes to an extreme minimum. He publishes the reports almost exactly as he finds the manuscripts.

In the introduction to TBR, Vol 1, No. 5 (Feb. '94) I was apologizing if I seemed "egotistical" about my use of force. I was trying to emphasize vigorously that I never look down on other activists engaged in tactics of lesser intensity than my own. Lesser intensity doesn't necessarily mean less effective )) especially in the long run.

I was describing my reaction upon hearing that a blockader had been scoffing at picketers and sidewalk counselors because their tactics are less confrontational than his. Here's how the passage in question appeared in print:

When I saw it in print I was astonished and thought: "I couldn't have written it like that, could I? I couldn't have used the word 'superior', could I? Or even if I did, at least I would have encased it in quotation marks )) "superior" )) to signify "not really". But I could hardly believe I had used the word "superior" in any context.

When Dave mailed back my handwritten manuscript I compared it. Sure enough, I hadn't used the word "superior" at all. Here's how I had actually submitted it:

I hope I'm not embarrassing Dave too much by making this correction. If only he had not used that one word )) superior! If he had written about me like that himself, and it was obvious to the reader he himself was saying it, I still would have been uncomfortable. But I would have pointed it out to him privately. But I simply can't let anyone think I said it of myself! If these reports are ever compiled in book form I wouldn't let it be published that way. Also, since my writings may never actually appear in book form, these may be my only chance to set the record straight.

Don't think for a minute I don't feel bad about taking Dave public like this. I do. If you like reading The Brockhoeft Report, we can't be too hard on him. If it wasn't for him 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.

So if you like this column, don't hold Dave's mistake against him. Because if it weren't for him 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.]

[Ed: How could you do that to me, Johnny? I thought you were my friend. Just for that, I edited your correction! I found a misspelled word, and added some quotation marks.

[Actually, doesn't that first phrase in my re-write indicate it's not you that considers bombing "superior" to blockading, but the natural extension of his logic?

[Nevertheless, I agonized over that re-write. It was more extensive than I wanted to undertake without your approval, but there was no way I could call you! But I did it because the original seemed unclear. I still can't quite get my teeth around the concept of "scoffing up".

[But Johnny, when you accuse me of smoking, that's going too far!]

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. 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

PS 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 .

Chapter 12, The Brockhoeft Report

Back to Contents

Feedback Box Got feedback? Send it, along with name or url of the article, and a little of the text on either side of where your comment belongs, so I know what you are responding to, and I'll post your response. I might even place it right smack dab in the article! (If you don't want your email posted, SAY SO!)