When I saw the headline yesterday about how “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson had commented on a certain sexuality-defined group, I wondered how long it would be before he got the “treatment.”
I saw the next headline no more than a few hours later.
In case you haven’t heard, the faith-filled Louisianan wound up in hot water after being asked what was sinful by a GQ interviewer and offering the following answer, as presented by the magazine:
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”
Can you guess which of the above groups caused what subsequently befell Robertson: suspension from his A&E show?
It wasn’t the greedy.
Or the idolaters.
It wasn’t bestialists, though there’s an effort to legitimize their behavior now, too.
Nope — not the slanderers, either.
Hint: One of the organizations whose complaints got Robertson suspended was GLAAD, and that doesn’t stand for Guiding Light Advocates for Adulterers and Drunkards.
Of course, we all know the answer. GLAAD characterized Robertson’s comments as vile and “extreme,” and now he joins Dr. Laura Schlessinger and others whose careers were hobbled by the Velvet Mafia.
This is probably where I’m expected to ask, “Where’s freedom of speech?” or whine about how the left should respect the other side’s beliefs. But this would ignore reality, which is that every civilization has its “values.” And as someone once pointed out, stigmas are the corollaries of values; if we’re going to value certain things, it follows that what contradicts or condemns them will be de-valued.
People who don’t understand this will utter refrains such as “I don’t care what you do in your private life, just don’t shove it in my face,” as if something can be completely de-stigmatized but then, somehow, remain in the closet. Those who do grasp it, however, might say something such as what homosexual activists Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk wrote in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. They said that once homosexuality was normalized, those who would “still feel compelled” to oppose it would be “cow[ed] and silence[d]…as far as possible” and that if homosexual activists can “produce a major realignment solidly in favour of gay rights, the intransigents (like the racists of twenty years ago) will eventually be effectively silenced by both law and polite society.” And what do we see 20 years later? Criticism of homosexuality will get overseas Westerners punished through law and Americans punished through social pressure.
How’s that tolerance workin’ for ya’?
“Tolerance,” as it has been marketed, was always a con. Aristotle said that “[t]olerance is the last virtue of a dying society,” but it’s also the vice that kills it. And it so often is a vice because it’s generally misunderstood. For one thing, tolerance always implies a negative, real or perceived; you wouldn’t have to tolerate a beautiful car or a delectable meal — you relish those things. But you might have to tolerate a cold or bad weather. Thus, tolerance is only noble in two situations: One is when dealing with something objectively negative that cannot be eliminated, such as irremediable pain. The other is when confronted with something you don’t happen to like and could avoid, but that is objectively good or neutral; an example would be tolerating a food you detest in order to avoid offending your hosts.
So while we might admire a person who can bear a cross with a stiff upper lip, what if he abides a negative he needn’t put up with? He then is either a doormat or a masochist.
The doormat, that is.
This brings us back to that modernistic “I don’t care…just don’t shove it in my face” attitude. This is a pipe dream and the first step toward degradation and tyranny; it is a false Americanism. As John Wesley said, “What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace.” And once this happens it is ridiculous to wonder why the thing in question is out of the closet; accepted things by definition always will be. At this point those with an affinity for it will take the next step: marketing.
This is precisely what Madsen and Kirk prescribed with respect to homosexuality, writing that Americans needed to be desensitized to the behavior via a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising,” a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” Madsen, mind you, was a marketing man by trade.
And when this marketing is successful enough and the newly exalted product is considered a good, what will that which condemns it be considered? This is how good becomes bad, bad becomes good, and those conned into being tolerant come to be seen as intolerable (I discuss this in-depth here).
And thus is Christianity being suppressed. Make no mistake, the concept of sin is central to Christianity — and sexual sin is part of that centrality. Lust, correctly defined as disordered sexual desire, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. So saying you cannot talk about sexual sin — in its entirety — is to say you cannot talk about Christianity in its entirety. And this is part of the process of relegating Christianity to the closet.
This tolerance trap is why Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen wrote in 1931:
America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.
…Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. …Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in their laboratories….
Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.
Our culture war is a fight to the death. The barbarians are inside the gate, and they don’t listen to reason. Show them the same tolerance they show you — and then show them the door. In the case of A&E, what should happen is that they be boycotted till brought to their knees.
To their knees.
Unless we can rediscover virtue and muster total intolerance for the intolerable, our decline will be inexorable.
Imagine a documentary film about the Holocaust which makes no mention of Nazi Germany.
Imagine a documentary film about the 1965-66 slaughter of as many as a million “communists” in Indonesia which makes no mention of the key role in the killing played by the United States.
But there’s no need to imagine it. It’s been made, and was released this past summer. It’s called “The Act of Killing” and makes no mention of the American role. Two articles in the Washington Post about the film made no such mention either. The Indonesian massacre, along with the jailing without trial of about a million others and the widespread use of torture and rape, ranks as one of the great crimes of the twentieth century and is certainly well known amongst those with at least a modest interest in modern history.
Here’s an email I sent to the Washington Post writer who reviewed the film:
“The fact that you can write about this historical event and not mention a word about the US government role is a sad commentary on your intellect and social conscience. If the film itself omits any serious mention of the US role, that is a condemnation of the filmmaker, and of you for not pointing this out. So the ignorance and brainwashing of the American people about their country’s foreign policy (i.e., holocaust) continues decade after decade, thanks to media people like Mr. Oppenheimer [one of the filmmakers] and yourself.”
The Post reviewer, rather than being offended by my intemperate language, was actually taken with what I said and she asked me to send her an article outlining the US role in Indonesia, which she would try to get published in the Post as an op-ed. I did so and she wrote me that she very much appreciated what I had sent her. But – as I was pretty sure would happen – the Post did not print what I wrote. So this incident may have had the sole saving grace of enlightening a Washington Post writer about the journalistic standards and politics of her own newspaper.
And now, just out, we have the film “Long Walk to Freedom” based on Nelson Mandela’s 1994 autobiography of the same name. The heroic Mandela spent close to 28 years in prison at the hands of the apartheid South African government. His arrest and imprisonment were the direct result of a CIA operation. But the film makes no mention of the role played by the CIA or any other agency of the United States.
In fairness to the makers of the film, Mandela himself, in his book, declined to accuse the CIA for his imprisonment, writing: “The story has never been confirmed and I have never seen any reliable evidence as to the truth of it.”
Well, Mr. Mandela and the filmmaker should read what I wrote and documented on the subject some years after Mandela’s book came out, in my own book: Rogue State: a guide to the World’s Only Super Power (2000). It’s not quite a “smoking gun”, but I think it convinces almost all readers that what happened in South Africa in 1962 was another of the CIA operations we’ve all come to know and love. And almost all my sources were available to Mandela at the time he wrote his autobiography. There has been speculation about what finally led to Mandela’s release from prison; perhaps a deal was made concerning his post-prison behavior.
From a purely educational point of view, seeing films such as the two discussed here may well be worse than not exposing your mind at all to any pop culture treatment of American history or foreign policy.
Getting your history from the American daily press
During the US federal government shutdown in October over a budgetary dispute, Washington Post columnist Max Fisher wondered if there had ever been anything like this in another country. He decided that “there actually is one foreign precedent: Australia did this once. In 1975, the Australian government shut down because the legislature had failed to fund it, deadlocked by a budgetary squabble. It looked a lot like the U.S. shutdown of today, or the 17 previous U.S. shutdowns.”
Except for what Fisher fails to tell us: that it strongly appears that the CIA used the occasion to force a regime change in Australia, whereby the Governor General, John Kerr – a man who had been intimately involved with CIA fronts for a number of years – discharged Edward Gough Whitlam, the democratically-elected prime minister whose various policies had been a thorn in the side of the United States, and the CIA in particular.
I must again cite my own writing, for the story of the CIA coup in Australia – as far as I know – is not described in any kind of detail anywhere other than in my book Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (2004).
America’s ‘New’ Reality of Non-Self and Madness…
In the wake of the insurrection against the living, personal God of Revelation that began during the Renaissance eventuating in the proclamation of the death of God and cataclysmic eruptions of fire, brimstone and rivers of blood during the 20th century, ex-atheist Alexander Solzhenitsyn said the world had never before known,
“…godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.” (goodreads.com)
In his analysis of Marxist Communism and its’ alter ego, scientific materialism, Frank Meyers, an early conservative intellectual concluded that Communism is the state form,
“….taken by a materialist faith determined to rule the world.” Godless Communism is the “final synthesis of all heretical tendencies that have pervaded Western civilization for many centuries.” It is materialist scientism of which, “Communism is the culminating hubris of the Promethean man who reaches out for the world and means to remake creation. It is scientism gone political.” (The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, George H. Nash, pp. 251-252)
Both scientific evolutionary materialism and its new age evolutionary pantheist counterpart belong to the family of ‘new’ pagan or modern naturalism. Modern naturalism refers to a one-dimensional view of reality grounded in a monist pagan philosophy holding that only void, matter and evolutionary (developmental and change-making) energies exist. Therefore void, matter and energy are the Ultimate One Substance of which the universe consists and with which all life is in continuity, thus “all is one” and “everything is perpetually evolving and ascending.”
The main difference between these two views resides in whether matter is thought to be physical (i.e., Greek Atomism) or spiritual (Hinduism). However, both views share in common the following:
- Hatred of the supernatural God of Revelation and of man as His spiritual image-bearer
- One dimensional views of reality
- An inverted account of origins and history lending itself to the notion that since there was no fall then Lucifer is not the devil and men are not sinful but rather evolving into gods
- Scientific materialism or its’ New Age spiritual science counterpart
- Evolutionary conceptions. These serve two main functions. First, as a mechanical process of development and second, as a mechanism for purification of matter
- The nihilism of Buddha
Jesus Christ to Buddha,
“…you took God away (and) your espousal of an absence of self is the most unique and fearsome claim you made.” (The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha, Ravi Zacharias, pp. 59, 67)
Life is only with the living God of Revelation, the creator and upholder of the life and being (soul/spirit) of men. But if He does not exist, it logically follows that there is no ultimate source for life, conscious being, meaning and purpose; or for the sanctity of human life, worth, dignity, individual liberty and personal property. Without God the Father Almighty unalienable (God given) human rights are as meaningless as America’s founding documents have become in our Godless pagan society.
If man is not God’s spiritual image-bearer then he is less than nothing, a conclusion Buddha reached long before Jesus Christ God Incarnate walked this earth:
“Six centuries before Jesus Christ, the Buddha already knew that if God does not exist, then the human self cannot exist either…Therefore, he deconstructed the Hindu idea of the soul. When one starts peeling the onion skin of one’s psyche, he discovers that there is no solid core at the center of one’s being.” Thus your sense of self becomes illusion, “Reality is nonself…You don’t exist. Liberation, the Buddha taught, is realizing the unreality of your existence.” (The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, Vishal Mangalwadi, p. 6)
Naturalism: the Antithesis
Modern naturalism is in every way the antithesis of God’s Revelations and Christianity, the spiritual and moral foundation of Western civilization. For fifteen hundred years, Christendom and then later Protestant America had affirmed the biblical view of total reality. In this historically unique view total reality consists of two interfacing, interactive halves: the seen (natural) and the unseen (supernatural).
According to this view, man faces both unseen and seen and interprets truth against these two interfacing halves of reality. Thus Paul declares that as men live out their lives they are spectacles, “unto the world, and to angels and men.” (1 Cor. 4:9)
In opposition to modern naturalism’s one dimensional view, Paul affirms that total reality consists of two halves, hence this earth (the seen) is really a theater and men are actors on its stage observed not only by other men (the seen) but by the Spirit of God and angels (the unseen).
Though men cannot see the Spirit of God and very rarely see angels they can see, hear and interact with men. The Spirit of God opens our eyes to understanding (Ps. 118: 34, 125, 144), tests our hearts, knows out secrets, motives, and thoughts (Psa. 17:3; 44:21; 139:1-4).
Both holy and unholy angels are all around us, watching, listening, helping and protecting if holy, if unholy then binding the disobedient to their power. Just as the Lord of Hosts gives His Holy Spirit to those who love and obey Him, He can send evil spirits upon those who are rebellious, live in persistent sin, practice occult arts or men who in their pride, covetousness and envy reject and hate Him as was the case with Karl Marx and Nietzsche, the apostate Christian philosopher who proclaimed the death of God. Unto these men the Lord of Hosts sent evil spirits just as He sent one to King Saul (1 Sam. 16:14). The evil spirit influenced and disordered Saul’s thinking, afflicted him with obsessions and paranoia, befouled his conscience, and inflated his disordered passions thereby, “filling him with unrest, anger, fear and murderous intent.” (Occult Bondage and Deliverance, Kurt E. Koch, p. 137)
Dr. Kurt Koch (1913-1987) was a highly respected German minister who pastored, counseled and delivered in excess of twenty thousand people suffering from demonic subjection. According to Koch, demonic subjection is an increasingly common occurrence in post-Christian Western and American society. Most people have little or no clue that they are in fact demonically subjected while some people, such as Marx, Nietzsche, Hitler and Stalin seem to possess a limitless supply of demonic energy, especially when engaged in imposing their will over the wills of others.
There are many underlying causes of demonic subjection. Koch delineates some of the leading ones common to apostatizing America:
“If a person blatantly lives a life of sin and persistently resists the Spirit of God and remains completely unrepentant, or…carries the sin of murder or abortion on his conscience, or has committed perjury or practical incest, if he has cursed his fellow men or blasphemed against the cross or against Christ, the Holy Spirit, or God, then he will have laid himself open to the devil’s attacks. Every curse is in fact a cry to the devil, and can…lead a person into bondage.” (Koch, p. 138)
“….God created man in his own image…..male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:27
According to the uniquely Christian view of total reality, the essence of the human is not the body and brain (the seen) but the unseen…the soul/spirit:
“It is the soul alone that God made in his own image and the soul that he loves…For the sake of the soul…the Son of God came into the world…” (Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 25, Ancient Christian Devotional, Oden and Crosby, p. 153)
Building off of the view of man as embodied spirit, St. Augustine (AD 354-430) affirmed that as all men are the spiritual image bearers of the supernatural Triune God in three Persons, then it logically follows that each man is a person; a trinity of being comprised of soul/spirit (unseen), and body, brain (seen).
The citadel of the soul is spirit (heart). Spirit is immortal and self-aware. It can will and think and is responsible for what it wills, thinks, speaks, and acts on while in this world.
Spirit is the unique property that distinguishes soul from the material body in which it is fully embedded. In Biblical thought, spirit allows man to spiritually transcend the natural dimension in order to access the third Heaven. By way of prayer and petitions the spirit of man’s mind allows him to enter into a personal relationship with the Spirit of God. Through this relationship, spirit is renewed over time, thus enabling man to more perfectly orient the manner of his thoughts, passions, words and actions in this world in preparation for eternity in Paradise.
In Christian thought, a person is a spirit (self) and personality is the total individuality of the spirit. Without spirit there is no ‘self,’ hence no person.
The key to personal liberty in the natural or sensory half of reality is man’s spiritual liberty contrasted against a genetically pre-programmed animal-like orientation. Animals have souls but not spirits, the basis of intelligence, sensitivity, imagination, self-consciousness, reflection back and forward into time, and the capacity for truth and moral goodness.
A person is uniquely free because he can spiritually transcend his material brain to access the Spirit of the Lord as Paul affirms:
“Now the Lord is Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” (2 Cor. 3:17)
Vishal Mangalwadi, India’s foremost Christian intellectual observes that this historically unique concept of man as God’s spiritual image-bearer gave birth to the “belief in the unique dignity of human beings,” and this is the force,
“…that created Western civilization, where citizens do not exist for the state but the state exists for the individual. Even kings, presidents, prime ministers, and army generals cannot be allowed to trample upon an individual and his or her rights.” (Truth and Transformation: A Manifesto for Ailing Nations, Mangalwadi, pp. 12-13)
One-Dimensional Godless Naturalism: the Reality of Non-Self
Modern naturalism, whether of materialist or pantheist permutation positing a non-existent immanent conception of deity (i.e. Omega, Gaia) is at bottom Godless, and said Ravi Zacharias, absolutely nothing,
“… has a more direct bearing on the moral choices made by individuals or the purposes pursued by society than belief or disbelief in God.” Key issues of the day “whether it be…sexual orientation and practice, or life in the fetal stage, sooner or later filter down to whether there is a God, and if so, has he spoken?” (The Real Face of Atheism, Zacharias, p. 21)
In “The Gnostic Religion,” Hans Jonas provides a full-scale study of the heretical world of pre-Christian and Christian era pagan Gnostic nihilism together with its modern variants: materialist and pantheist naturalism.
Jonas writes that while ancient Gnostic pagan man was thrown,
“…into an antagonistic, anti-divine, and therefore anti-human nature, modern man (is thrown) into an indifferent one.” (p. 338)
The ancient gnostic conception was still anthropomorphic despite the nihilism, hostility and demonic. But its’ modern counterpart with its’ indifferent nature, its’ completely godless, soulless, anti-human, demonic nature, represents the “absolute vacuum, the really bottomless pit.”
At least the ancient Gnostic dualism, as fantastic as it was, was at least self-consistent, as there was the illusion of a source for ‘self’ (being). Not so for its’ modern counterpart:
“So radically has anthropomorphism been banned from….nature that even man must cease to be conceived anthropomorphically if he is just an accident of nature. As the product of the indifferent, his being, too, must be indifferent. Then the facing of his mortality would simply warrant the reaction, ‘Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die.” (ibid, p. 339)
“…modern nihilism (is) infinitely more radical and more desperate than gnostic nihilism ever could be for all its panic terror of the world and its defiant contempt of its laws. That nature does not care, one way or the other, is the true abyss. That only man cares, in his finitude facing nothing but death, alone with….the objective meaninglessness of his projected meanings, is a truly unprecedented situation.” (Jonas, p. 339)
In other words, the death of the living God of Revelation means there is neither source for life and ‘self’ (soul/spirit) nor for higher truth and morality, purpose, meaning, salvation and eternity. For depersonalized man, the evolved ape or bag of chemicals, there is nothing—no heaven above, no hell below and no,
“…. vast mind behind the framing of the world; no transcending voice giving counsel to this world…no light at the end of the tunnel (hence only) the loneliness of existence in its most desolate form.” (Zacharias, p. 27)
The determined assault against the living Holy God that began during the Renaissance gained speed and force with the materialist implications of Darwin’s neo-pagan theory. The idea that humans evolved by chance and natural selection from non-life bearing chemicals lay the axe at the very foundation of the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. On the heels of Darwin’s theory Christianity came under forceful attack allowing a one-dimensional worldview draining into nihilism to be declared a scientifically supported reality.
Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published in 1859 and instantly and uncritically accepted by people such as Karl Marx, T.H. Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Ernst Haeckel in Germany and large numbers of clergy more eager to be thought scientific and modern than to defend the faith once given.
For materialist and pantheist alike, Darwin’s theory was a wish come true and so became the center of their respective one-dimensional worldviews.
The demonized Karl Marx hated the God of Revelation and his exuberance for Darwin’s idea prompted him to consider dedicating his Das Kapital to Darwin, an honor which he declined. Since Marx favored scientific materialism the rationale behind his invitation to Darwin was that he saw how Darwin’s materialist theory provided a scientific framework to support the economic infrastructure on which Marx could build his godless communist utopia.
Darwin’s materialist theory and Marxist materialist presuppositions (economic theory based on envy and hatred of God) together with Freud’s materialist-based analysis of religion and human sexuality threw faith in God and Christianity “over the wall of civilization,’ said Zacharias:
“With such abusive attacks directed at religious belief coming from so many directions, it was left for someone to cast this creature called theism completely out, and exorcise the world of all such influence. The one who did that was the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.” (p. 25)
By the time of Nietzsche, perceptive thinkers had already been expressing apprehension at the prospect of multitudes of unsuspecting Westerners who would eventually be cruelly exploited by anti-human haters of God.
With Nietzsche, dreadful apprehension deepened into certainty, for Nietzsche despised religion in general, but upon Christianity he poured his unbridled fury:
“I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of
revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhanded, too underground, and too petty.” (Nietzsche in “The Life of Nietzsche,” Faru Forster Nietzsche, 1921, p. 656)
However, rather than mindless infatuation for Darwin’s idea, Nietzsche (1844–1900) harshly criticized it:
“What surprises me most when I survey the broad destinies of man is that I always see before me the opposite of that which Darwin and his school see or want to see today: selection in favor of the stronger, better-constituted, and the progress of the species. Precisely the opposite is palpable … I incline to the prejudice that the school of Darwin has been deluded everywhere…” (Nietzsche: The evolutionist who was anti-God and anti-Darwin, Russell Grigg, creation.com)
Nietzsche was not anti-evolution but rather had his own evolutionary conception which he called “the will to power.”
While Darwin received his idea from his pantheist grandfather Erasmus Darwin, Nietzsche’s conception was preceded by mystical ecstasy. Nietzsche experienced two mystical encounters with the first one taking place in August, 1881.
Charles Andler writes that previous to his scientific reasoning, Nietzsche received revelations during mystical encounters just as Spinoza did. Mystical ecstasy,
“…. preceded (Spinoza’s) system and his geometric form, thus, with Nietzsche mystical ecstasy preceded his scientific reasoning.” (Charles Andler cited by Henri De Lubac, “The Drama of Atheist Humanism,” p. 481)
According to Henri De Lubac, secret knowledge was revealed to Nietzsche that he was “….the first of men to know.’ The shock of it was sudden and profound. Though no direct document relates his experience sure evidence is found in an agitated page of Ecce Homo where Nietzsche wrote:
“Suddenly, with sureness, with indescribable delicacy, a thing makes itself seen, makes itself heard. It shakes you, it overwhelms you right to your innermost depths. You hear it…You let it fill you….A thought blazes forth like a flash of lightening…It imposes itself as a necessity…I never had to choose it. It is an ecstasy….You are enraptured, taken outside of yourself…All of this…is accompanied by a tumultuous feeling of liberty, of independence, of divinity…There you have my experience of the inspiration.” (Lubac, p. 472)
In the months that followed he remained silent about the knowledge he received. But in August of 1882 he discussed his experience with Lou Salome. Salome writes that Nietzsche spoke of his encounter only in obscure words and with hushed voice. Giving “every indication of the most profound horror” Nietzsche described the terrible and marvelous revelation he had received with two words: Eternal Return. (ibid, p. 473)
In the autumn of 1882 he experienced his second encounter which he described in the poem Sils Maria:
“I was sitting and waiting, without waiting for anything/Beyond good and evil, tasting Light sometimes and sometimes shade/Absorbed by this brew…When suddenly…what was one became two, And Zarathustra passed before me…” (ibid, p. 475)
It was a vision without a doubt, precise and sudden:
“I could tell you the day and the hour….Zarathustra has fallen on me, he assaults me..” (ibid)
Zarathustra was an evil spirit who confirmed to Nietzsche the ‘truth’ of the revelations already received, which included man’s evolution from worms:
“You [mankind] have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now the human being is still more of an ape than any ape is.” (Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue section 3, trans. by G. Parkes, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005, p. 11)
Henceforth, Nietzsche is an inspired prophet who knows for certain that the God of Revelation is dead, that man’s evolution from worms is absolutely true, and that he is Jesus Christ’s successor, the ‘new’ Christ. Within ten days he drafted by way of automatic writing the whole first book of his prophecy. He called his finished work Zarathustra, the new Bible of scientific evolutionary naturalism, and told the world to throw away all other books, for now you have my Zarathustra, “a new Holy Book.”
It was Nietzsche, the ‘new’ Christ, who saw that the death of the personal God had already begun to cast its first dark shadows over Europe, and though,
“the event itself is far too great, too remote, too much beyond most people’s power of apprehension, for one to suppose that so much as the report of it could have reached them,” still its advent was certain, and it was men like Nietzsche, the ‘new’ Christ who were “the firstlings and premature children of the coming century,” the century of the “triumph of Nihilism.” (Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age, Eugene Rose, p. 44)
Nietzsche was the first apostate Christian to gaze fully upon man’s loss of faith and its terrifying consequences. With no living God ‘up there’ to obstruct his vision, the nihilism he saw was agonizing. As there was no longer any Light from God above, there was only darkness in the hermetically sealed world below. The paralyzing darkness that overtook the mind of the ‘new’ Christ was spiritual. It was not so much,
“….an exterior phenomenon crowding inward but rather an inner blinding that spread outward.” (Ravi Zacharias, p. 27)
This was precisely Nietzsche’s point. With the death of the personal God of Revelation the darkness of objective meaninglessness
Speaking through the writings of the ‘new’ Christ, Zarathustra went on to say that because God had died in the 19th century there would follow two terrible consequences beginning in the 20th century. (Romans 1:18)
First, the 20th century would become one of the most evil century’s in history, and second, a universal madness (Romans 1:21, 22) would break out and turn the once glorious W. Europe and America upside-down.
Though apostates and the apostatizing professed themselves wise, their cognitive thought processes would become darkened (vain) and with their conscience dead to sin they would become fools, meaning they would accept and publicly profess incredibly stupid conceptions of themselves (i.e., man is an evolved worm, ape or robot; man is evolving into god).
“And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them.” Isaiah 3:4
In turning away from the Spirit of God and the truth He has given, ‘wise’ males will become effeminate cowards and females mannish. They will be adolescent emotional-tyrants in adult-size bodies: sinister, greedy, spiteful, vindictive, treacherous, back-stabbing sophists. They will celebrate Lucifer (the devil) and in their madness actively seek the way of Luciferian initiation because they will be spiritually blind in regard to total reality. Like demons they will flee from the cross of Jesus but exalt the devil as the first free thinker, the genetic creator of man, the seething energy and angel of evolution. Truth will be lies, evil will be good, unfaithfulness will be faith and the ‘wise’ will preach and blaspheme from pulpits, exercise political power, enact legislation, and wield broken law to plunder, punish, and ruin.
Zarathustra has been right on both counts. First, apostatizing W. Europe and America, though dotted here and there by small islands of Light, decency and sanity, are becoming darkened, satanically inverted places ruled by the ‘wise,’ hence boiling over with madness, particularly Hollywood, academia, mainstream media and the highest, most powerful political offices in the land. Second, Nietzsche was made to show the ‘wise’ what is in store for them by spending the last eleven years of his life insane.
A talk at Rhodes Forum, October 5, 2013…
First, the good news. American hegemony is over. The bully has been subdued. We cleared the Cape of Good Hope, symbolically speaking, in September 2013. With the Syrian crisis, the world has passed a key forking of modern history. It was touch and go, just as risky as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The chances for total war were high, as the steely wills of America and Eurasia had crossed in the Eastern Mediterranean. It will take some time until the realisation of what we’ve gone through seeps in: it is normal for events of such magnitude. The turmoil in the US, from the mad car chase in the DC to the shutdown of federal government and possible debt default, are the direct consequences of this event.
Remember the Berlin Wall? When it went down, I was in Moscow, writing for Haaretz. I went to a press-conference with Politburo members in the President Hotel, and asked them whether they concurred that the end of the USSR and world socialist system was nigh. I was laughed at; it was an embarrassing occasion. Oh no, they said. Socialism will blossom, as the result of the Wall’s fall. The USSR went down two years later. Now our memory has compacted those years into a brief sequence, but in reality, it took some time.
The most dramatic event of September 2013 was the high-noon stand-off near the Levantine shore, with five US destroyers pointing their Tomahawks towards Damascus and facing them – the Russian flotilla of eleven ships led by the carrier-killer Missile Cruiser Moskva and supported by Chinese warships. Apparently, two missiles were launched towards the Syrian coast, and both failed to reach their destination.
It was claimed by a Lebanese newspaper quoting diplomatic sources that the missiles were launched from a NATO air base in Spain and they were shot down by the Russian ship-based sea-to-air defence system. Another explanation proposed by the Asia Times says the Russians employed their cheap and powerful GPS jammers to render the expensive Tomahawks helpless, by disorienting them and causing them to fail. Yet another version attributed the launch to the Israelis, whether they were trying to jump-start the shoot-out or just observed the clouds, as they claim.
Whatever the reason, after this strange incident, the pending shoot-out did not commence, as President Obama stood down and holstered his guns. This was preceded by an unexpected vote in the British Parliament. This venerable body declined the honour of joining the attack proposed by the US. This was the first time in two hundred years that the British parliament voted down a sensible proposition to start a war; usually the Brits can’t resist the temptation.
After that, President Obama decided to pass the hot potato to the Congress. He was unwilling to unleash Armageddon on his own. Thus the name of action was lost. Congress did not want to go to war with unpredictable consequences. Obama tried to browbeat Putin at the 20G meeting in St Petersburg, and failed. The Russian proposal to remove Syrian chemical weaponry allowed President Obama to save face. This misadventure put paid to American hegemony , supremacy and exceptionalism. Manifest Destiny was over. We all learned that from Hollywood flics: the hero never stands down; he draws and shoots! If he holsters his guns, he is not a hero: he’s chickened out.
Afterwards, things began to unravel fast. The US President had a chat with the new president of Iran, to the chagrin of Tel Aviv. The Free Syrian Army rebels decided to talk to Assad after two years of fighting him, and their delegation arrived in Damascus, leaving the Islamic extremists high and dry. Their supporter Qatar is collapsing overextended. The shutdown of their government and possible debt default gave the Americans something real to worry about. With the end of US hegemony, the days of the dollar as the world reserve currency are numbered.
World War III almost occurred as the banksters wished it. They have too many debts, including the unsustainable foreign debt of the US. If those Tomahawks had flown, the banksters could have claimed Force Majeure and disavow the debt. Millions of people would die, but billions of dollars would be safe in the vaults of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. In September, the world crossed this bifurcation point safely, as President Obama refused to take the fall for the banksters. Perhaps he deserved his Nobel peace prize, after all.
The near future is full of troubles but none are fatal. The US will lose its emission rights as a source of income. The US dollar will cease to serve as the world reserve currency though it will remain the North American currency. Other parts of the world will resort to their euro, yuan, rouble, bolivar, or dinar. The US military expenditure will have to be slashed to normal, and this elimination of overseas bases and weaponry will allow the US population to make the transition rather painlessly. Nobody wants to go after America; the world just got tired of them riding shotgun all over the place. The US will have to find new employment for so many bankers, jailers, soldiers, even politicians.
As I stayed in Moscow during the crisis, I observed these developments as they were seen by Russians. Putin and Russia have been relentlessly hard-pressed for quite a while.
- The US supported and subsidised Russia’s liberal and nationalist opposition; the national elections in Russia were presented as one big fraud. The Russian government was delegitimised to some extent.
- The Magnitsky Act of the US Congress authorised the US authorities to arrest and seize the assets of any Russian they deem is up to no good, without a recourse to a court.
- Some Russian state assets were seized in Cyprus where the banks were in trouble.
- The US encouraged Pussy Riot, gay parades etc. in Moscow, in order to promote an image of Putin the dictator, enemy of freedom and gay-hater in the Western and Russian oligarch-owned media.
- Russian support for Syria was criticised, ridiculed and presented as a brutal act devoid of humanity. At the same time, Western media pundits expressed certainty that Russia would give up on Syria.
As I wrote previously, Russia had no intention to surrender Syria, for a number of good reasons: it was an ally; the Syrian Orthodox Christians trusted Russia; geopolitically the war was getting too close to Russian borders. But the main reason was Russia’s annoyance with American high-handedness. The Russians felt that such important decisions should be taken by the international community, meaning the UN Security Council. They did not appreciate the US assuming the role of world arbiter.
In the 1990s, Russia was very weak, and could not effectively object, but they felt bitter when Yugoslavia was bombed and NATO troops moved eastwards breaking the US promise to Gorbachev. The Libyan tragedy was another crucial point. That unhappy country was bombed by NATO, and eventually disintegrated. From the most prosperous African state it was converted into most miserable. Russian presence in Libya was rather limited, but still, Russia lost some investment there. Russia abstained in the vote on Libya as this was the position of the then Russian president Dmitry Medvedev who believed in playing ball with the West. In no way was Putin ready to abandon Syria to the same fate.
The Russian rebellion against the US hegemony began in June, when the Aeroflot flight from Beijing carrying Ed Snowden landed in Moscow. Americans pushed every button they could think of to get him back. They activated the full spectre of their agents in Russia. Only a few voices, including that of your truly, called on Russia to provide Snowden with safe refuge, but our voices prevailed. Despite the US pressure, Snowden was granted asylum.
The next step was the Syrian escalation. I do not want to go into the details of the alleged chemical attack. In the Russian view, there was not and could not be any reason for the US to act unilaterally in Syria or anywhere else. In a way, the Russians have restored the Law of Nations to its old revered place. The world has become a better and safer place.
None of this could’ve been achieved without the support of China. The Asian giant considers Russia its “elder sister” and relies upon her ability to deal with the round-eyes. The Chinese, in their quiet and unassuming way, played along with Putin. They passed Snowden to Moscow. They vetoed anti-Syrian drafts in the UNSC, and sent their warships to the Med. That is why Putin stood the ground not only for Russia, but for the whole mass of Eurasia.
There were many exciting and thrilling moments in the Syrian saga, enough to fill volumes. An early attempt to subdue Putin at G8 meeting in Ireland was one of them. Putin was about to meet with the united front of the West, but he managed to turn some of them to his side, and he sowed the seeds of doubt in others’ hearts by reminding them of the Syrian rebel manflesh-eating chieftains.
The proposal to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons was deftly introduced; the UNSC resolution blocked the possibility of attacking Syria under cover of Chapter Seven. Miraculously, the Russians won in this mighty tug-of-war. The alternative was dire: Syria would be destroyed as Libya was; a subsequent Israeli-American attack on Iran was unavoidable; Oriental Christianity would lose its cradle; Europe would be flooded by millions of refugees; Russia would be proven irrelevant, all talk and no action, as important as Bolivia, whose President’s plane can be grounded and searched at will. Unable to defend its allies, unable to stand its ground, Russia would’ve been left with a ‘moral victory’, a euphemism for defeat. Everything Putin has worked for in 13 years at the helm would’ve been lost; Russia would be back to where it was in 1999, when Belgrade was bombed by Clinton.
The acme of this confrontation was reached in the Obama-Putin exchange on exceptionalism. The two men were not buddies to start with. Putin was annoyed by what he perceived as Obama’s insincerity and hypocrisy. A man who climbed from the gutter to the very top, Putin cherishes his ability to talk frankly with people of all walks of life. His frank talk can be shockingly brutal. When he was heckled by a French journalist regarding treatment of Chechen separatists, he replied:
“the Muslim extremists (takfiris) are enemies of Christians, of atheists, and even of Muslims because they believe that traditional Islam is hostile to the goals that they set themselves. And if you want to become an Islamic radical and are ready to be circumcised, I invite you to Moscow. We are a multi-faith country and we have experts who can do it. And I would advise them to carry out that operation in such a way that nothing would grow in that place again”.
Another example of his shockingly candid talk was given at Valdai as he replied to BBC’s Bridget Kendall. She asked: did the threat of US military strikes actually play a rather useful role in Syria’s agreeing to have its weapons placed under control?
Putin replied: Syria got itself chemical weapons as an alternative to Israel’s nuclear arsenal. He called for the disarmament of Israel and invoked the name of Mordecai Vanunu as an example of an Israeli scientist who opposes nuclear weapons. (My interview with Vanunu had been recently published in the largest Russian daily paper, and it gained some notice).
Putin tried to talk frankly to Obama. We know of their exchange from a leaked record of the Putin-Netanyahu confidential conversation. Putin called the American and asked him: what’s your point in Syria? Obama replied: I am worried that Assad’s regime does not observe human rights. Putin almost puked from the sheer hypocrisy of this answer. He understood it as Obama’s refusal to talk with him “on eye level”.
In the aftermath of the Syrian stand-off, Obama appealed to the people of the world in the name of American exceptionalism. The United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional”, he said. Putin responded: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.” This was not only an ideological, but theological contradistinction.
As I expounded at length elsewhere, the US is built on the Judaic theology of exceptionalism, of being Chosen. It is the country of Old Testament. This is the deeper reason for the US and Israel’s special relationship. Europe is going through a stage of apostasy and rejection of Christ, while Russia is deeply Christian. Its churches are full, they bless one other with Christmas and Easter blessings, instead of neutral “seasons”. Russia is a New Testament country. And rejection of exceptionalism, of chosenness is the underlying tenet of Christianity.
For this reason, while organised US Jewry supported the war, condemned Assad and called for US intervention, the Jewish community of Russia, quite numerous, wealthy and influential one, did not support the Syrian rebels but rather stood by Putin’s effort to preserve peace in Syria. Ditto Iran, where the wealthy Jewish community supported the legitimate government in Syria. It appears that countries guided by a strong established church are immune from disruptive influence of lobbies; while countries without such a church the US and/or France give in to such influences and adopt illegal interventionism as a norm.
As US hegemony declines, we look to an uncertain future. The behemoth might of the US military can still wreck havoc; a wounded beast is the most dangerous one. Americans may listen to Senator Ron Paul who called to give up overseas bases and cut military expenditure. Norms of international law and sovereignty of all states should be observed. People of the world will like America again when it will cease snooping and bullying. It isn’t easy, but we’ve already negotiated the Cape and gained Good Hope.
(Language edited by Ken Freeland)
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit.” (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
“Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ.”
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him. Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man—intellectually, morally, emotionally—the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism—channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, ‘gay’ shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential— Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
“It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary…they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today.” (“Superstitions, Old and New,” The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief—a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously—and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching—an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010,creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog—Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that “the Flood came and destroyed them all,” did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.”
Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”—the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil’s antithesis— evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
“On the August 6 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Dr. Ron Paul responded to this very straightforward statement which appeared in a recent New York Times article:
“‘Some analysts and Congressional officials suggested Friday that emphasizing a terrorist threat now was a good way to divert attention from the uproar over the N.S.A.’s data-collection programs, and that if it showed the intercepts had uncovered a possible plot, even better.’
“‘Well, it’s not amazing that this is the truth,’ Paul said in response. ‘It’s amazing, I think, that the New York Times would admit it.’
“Paul went on to say that the NSA’s claim of saving Americans from dozens of terrorist attacks is simply rhetoric to prove that the agency’s massive spying on Americans is a good thing.
“‘Their (the NSA officials) claimed successes are all built on lies,’ Paul said.
Paul referred to NSA Deputy Director John Inglis’ admission that the agency’s warrantless wiretapping only prevented maybe one terrorist plot and even that one is questionable, which contradicts the NSA’s earlier claim of 54 thwarted plots.
“‘It’s all based on lies and I think this is probably a benefit to us because most Americans now are being very, very leery of what our government tells us,’ Paul continued. ‘This is a terrible thing to have to go through… who wants to have to give up on their country?’
“‘We don’t want to give up on our country but I think it’s high time we gave up on a lot of our politicians and the way our government is being run.’”
See the report at:
What is even more amazing than the New York Times reporting such a story is the fact that some of Barack Obama’s biggest Hollywood supporters are beginning to recognize the evil machinations of Obama’s domestic spying.
Breitbart.com covered the following story:
“Actor Matt Damon told Black Entertainment Television (BET) that President Barack Obama ‘has some explaining to do:’
“‘There are a lot of things that I really question–the legality of the drone strikes, these NSA revelations. Jimmy Carter came out and said we don’t live in a democracy. That’s a little intense when an ex-president says that. So you know, he’s got some explaining to do, particularly for a constitutional law professor.’
“When asked his opinion of the President’s second term, Damon chuckled and said, ‘He broke up with me.’
See the report here:
Damon is not the only one in Hollywood angry over the NSA’s domestic spying. Included in the list are Alec Baldwin, Judd Apatow, Steve Martin, Rob Schneider, Patton Oswalt, John Cusack, Janine Turner, and even (Egad!) Michael Moore.
To read the actors comments, go here:
Here is my problem: how is it that liberal actors in Hollywood can see, and are willing to speak out against, the unconstitutional citizen spying apparatus that Barack Obama is implementing against the American people and our country’s pastors and Christian leaders neither see it nor have spoken out against it? What the heck is going on? You mean to tell me that actors in Hollywood care more about freedom than the men standing behind America’s pulpits? Creepers, Batman!
Plus, neither let us forget that it was George W. Bush who put all of the infrastructure, policies, and laws in place which created the machinery for everything that Obama’s NSA is currently using against the American citizenry. This is NOT a political issue. Both Republican and Democrat administrations and congresses have collaborated to eviscerate the Bill of Rights and turn America into a giant surveillance society.
What is it about people (including Christians and Republicans) that cause them to be infatuated with a police state? All one has to do is say that some law, no matter how egregiously oppressive it might be, is in the interest of “national security,” and, presto, everyone blindly supports it. Yes, yes, I realize that not everyone supports it. Ron Paul and a few others oppose this slippery slope; but the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats, pastors and Christians, liberals and conservatives, the media elite and journalists, do support it.
With all of this love and infatuation that so many people have with the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the NDAA, the NSA, etc., why don’t these same people love Nazi Socialism? After all, the surveillance society created by G.W. Bush and Barack Obama makes Hitler’s spy apparatus look amateurish by comparison.
Does anyone really not know that the NSA is lying to us? Does anyone really believe that the surveillance society is about protecting the American people from a few thousand Sand People?
The last report I read on the topic said that the TSA now has almost ONE MILLION people on the no-fly watch list. Almost one million! Al Qaeda has never numbered more than a few thousand people (not to mention that Al Qaeda is a contrivance of our own CIA). And at the rate we keep killing their “number two” guys, it is questionable just how many of them are truly left. Let’s put it this way: there are far more people on the TSA watch list than there are Al Qaeda members worldwide. But it really doesn’t matter how many or few of them there are; they justify America’s politicians turning the United States into a giant police state–for our own protection, or course. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!
Researcher Joel Skousen quotes a Reuters news report saying, “Details of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program that feeds tips to federal agents and then instructs them to alter the investigation trail were published in a manual used by agents of the Internal Revenue Service for two years.
“A 350-word entry in the Internal Revenue Manuel instructed agents of the U.S. tax agency to omit any reference to tips supplied by the DEA’s Special Operations Division, especially from affidavits, court proceedings or investigative files. The entry was published and posted online in 2005 and 2006, and was removed in early 2007. The IRS is among two dozen arms of the government working with the Special Operations Division, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency.”
Reuters broke another report about the way the government lies to us entitled, “U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans.” From the report: “‘I have never heard of anything like this at all,’ said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.
“‘It is one thing to create special rules for national security,’ Gertner said. ‘Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations.’”
See the report at:
Ron Paul knows the NSA is lying to us; Alex Jones knows they are lying to us; Stewart Rhodes knows they are lying to us; Joel Skousen knows they are lying to us; Matt Damon knows they are lying to us; Alec Baldwin knows they are lying to us; the New York Times knows they are lying to us; Reuters news knows they are lying to us; even Michael Moore knows they are lying to us. So, why don’t America’s pastors and Christian leaders know they are lying to us?
When thespians become caricatures of a popular culture that accelerates the demise of civilization, the routine loses all comic relief. The dramaturge of classic theater, relegated to the standing room galley or the cheap seats, creates a void in context and meaning. Today the promenade of audience interaction merges with the performance of a surreal life play. Looking into the rabbit hole applauds an adventure in the wonderland of narcissism by adopting the cult of celebrity.
Chris Renzo writes in Waking Times, How Celebrity Culture is Destroying Who We Are.
“We live in a world that celebrates image over substance and because of this we have lost sight of who we are. We are bombarded daily with images that celebrate vanity, debauchery, and acts of senselessness. Through the corporate mass media we are subliminally told what to think, how to interpret the way society operates, what is “right,” what is “cool,” and how to keep from looking old and unhip.”
It is said that the only thing funny about Henny Young jokes is his violin. Such quips like “My grandmother is over eighty and still doesn’t need glasses. Drinks right out of the bottle.” – seems downright dim-witted. However, the passé humor of your grandparent’s generation is benign and harmless when weigh against the licentiousness of the actual lifestyles of the celeb sect. By comparison, George Carlin appears tame. The political innuendo in his humor, “Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist.” approaches the wisdom of the Greek proverb, “Either dance well or quit the ballroom.”
The entertainment industry does not qualify as being a cynic since their value culture never came near to being noble-minded. When they perform on stage their boogie moves and trip the light fantastic toe of their kinky art, Fred Astaire turns in his grave. Their lack of class to exit the theater and perform on the streets, set afire from the relativism of their decadent imagery, causes the pop culture to sink further into the sewer of Hollywood excess.
Gone are the days of Milton Berle, Jackie Gleason and Jack Benny. Ethnic humor, now banned from the airwaves, replaced with hip-hop, and rap music, prompts the next class in the School of the Arts to do the hood boogie-woogie. Clowns like the tame Red Skelton or the risqué Benny Hill were mild showmen judged against the likes of the Showtime staple of vulgarism. Bob Newhart’s wit replaced with Kathy Griffin’s filth is analogous about the state of mind in today’s society.
The folksy humor of Will Rogers, rides into the sunset as the “Cowboy Way”, replaced by the broke back way of life roundup, spread across the plains. Where is the humor in the eviction from the “Little House on the Prairie”?
That familiar Three Stooges carnival has become the Barak Obama circus. The spotless reflection of presidential shame, exhibited with each Leno appearance, razz the faithful follower fools. A pre-presidential appearance on Saturday Night Live video has the touchy feely and future fearless leader geared up to bring in a new era. Somehow, the skits of Moe, Larry and Curley give more confidence than the nauseating charms of the current joke POTUS.In the NeoCon publication FrontPage, Mark Tapson gives a damaging account of Actor Steven Weber Proves That ‘Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out.’
“Weber, a self-described “wise-ass” (he got that half-right anyway), posted a painfully unfunny political rant there entitled ” Comedy Relief.” As near as I can decipher it, the piece asserts that conservatives are a big joke, what with their insistence on sabotaging this country and demonizing the genius President Obama despite all the good he has accomplished.Weber clearly amuses himself, but when it comes to savagely funny and incisive political commentary, the man is no Mark Steyn. Here’s an example of his wit and insight into current events: “Bin Laden’s been gone, Qaddafi’s ka-dead, and the Arab Spring’s been sprung.” Weber actually cites these as examples of Obama’s “real foreign policy victories.”
Weber is right about his vague statement that Obama has the American people “aroused and assembling.” Yes, millions of Americans are aroused and assembling – not in support of Obama, but in opposition to his dismantling of our Constitutional rights, our military, our economy, our borders, our very exceptionalism.”
While Weber is an insignificant celebrity, his essay in the Huffington Times reinforces the gonzo ignorance of glorified groupies exhorting their devotion to political correctness. The history of Hollywood disdain towards Free Speech is legendary, when practiced by traditional conservative Christians. The political affiliation of the Screen Actors Guild members is well known.
Backstage columnist Simi Horwitz reports in In Left-Leaning Business, Conservative Actors Feel Marginalized.
“There are well-known conservative actors—including Gary Sinise, Tom Selleck, Patricia Heaton, James Woods, Robert Davi, James Belushi, Dennis Miller, and Sylvester Stallone—but according to Morris, their numbers are far fewer than those in the left-wing camp and, more important, they simply don’t have the clout. “If you think even for one instance Stallone can get the same press as Clooney, you’re nuts,” he said. “Clooney is a media darling. If he says something he’s taken seriously. If Stallone says something, it’s ‘Look what the asshole said.’ “
Well, “That’s Entertainment” in the world of star power mania.
From Big Hollywood, the Breitbart team argues back in March 2013, Andrew Was Right: CPAC Hollywood Panel Confirms Culture’s Impact On Politics.
“Andrew’s message that culture is upstream from politics could be heard loud and clear Friday during a panel of Hollywood heavy hitters who implored to directly engage the entertainment industry.
John Sullivan, director of 2016: Obama’s America, told the crowd the biggest deficit conservatives face today isn’t at the ballot box. The “cultural deficit” remains staggering, Sullivan said, estimating about $4 billion is being spent “working against conservative values” when one considers the total money spent on movies and television product.
“Republicans will come into an election year, and they’ll match the Democrats in political campaign contributions and pat themselves on the back on doing a good job,” Sullivan said, ignoring the culture imbalance.”
Now the clowns that control the organization apparatus in both criminal political parties really despise Will Rogers the moralist.
Tom Ashbrook from On Point writes,
“Before Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and Mort Sahl and Lewis Black, Americans fell in love with a cowboy comedian who told it like it was, plain and simple.
Will Rogers was famous for his lariat and rope tricks, his aw-shucks way, his common touch. Everything he knew he read in the newspapers, he said.
But in his day, Will Rogers, homespun comic, was a much bigger draw than Oprah, and a political powerhouse. His humor moved the nation.”
“He was the most incisive political commentator of his era who, beneath his humor, provided his countrymen a critically honest appraisal of American politics and world affairs. Few men touched the American moral and political conscience more deeply than Rogers. His astute observations, his ability to go straight to the heart of the matter and then put that into words that resonated with his listeners, propelled him to a level of influence unequaled in American history. When the witty one-liners are stripped away from Rogers’s message, a sobering and powerful view of his political clout appears. A closer look at whom he met, where he traveled, and the subjects of his writings and speeches reveals not so much a comedian but a true political insider with the power to shape public opinion and ultimately influence public policy.”
The intense cultural imbalance that Mr. Sullivan asserts did not exist back in the day of Will Rogers. Although the reappearance of the American innocence of nearly a century ago will never return, the character of traditional principles and values remain intact for the remnant of faithful loyalists, who adhere to the spirit of limited government and individual liberty.
Corporatists and authoritarians, of all persuasions and ideologies are essentially anti (small r) republicans. There is no humor coming out of the camps of these culturally deprived “true believers”. The achievement of crowd ignorance is significantly a product of mass media distortion and deception. Entertainment artists are not a privileged class, contrary to their own self-pronouncement.
The stupidity that Will Rogers speaks of, intentionally designed to cast a tragic play for the country, is a national pandemic. Buffoons that use comedic lingo to push a repressive agenda are not funny. Actors who lionize tyrannical outlaws and insert subliminal messages in the recital of their play-acting are wretched role models.
Emphatically, the public needs to have the last laugh. An old fashion boycott is in order. Lost generations that swallow the poison from popular culture icons need a sanity intervention. Stop the support of your own ruin. Artists are naturally insecure. Make sure their fear becomes a permanent proviso every time they betray our heritage. Shut off the tube, turn the volume to zero and regain a healthy perspective on your own well-being.
Secret agents are supposed to be secret but their existence is common knowledge. We know that they exist, but most people don’t know what they get up to, what they actually do. The main reason for this is that the conventional news media coverage of intelligence agencies focuses almost exclusively on them gathering information, portraying them as passive observers of the shadowy underworlds that surround our ‘civilisation’. Their active role in covertly wielding influence on both a small and large scale is essentially ignored.
The vacuum left by the absence of real-life news media reporting on the actions of the secret services is filled with spy-fi, or spy fiction. The world’s most famous spy, James Bond, has been aped across the world, the US versions even sometimes bearing the same initials – Jack Bauer from 24 and Jason Bourne from the Bourne films are simple examples. Throughout the decades it has largely been British authors – Somerset Maugham in the 1930s, Ian Fleming in the 1950s, John le Carré and others since then – who set the tone and standards for spy-fi authors. Most of these people were themselves spies for the British security services – Maugham worked for MI6 during WW1, Fleming ran a naval intelligence commando unit during WW2, le Carré was MI5 and MI6.
It was in Fleming’s James Bond novels in the 1950s that the CIA, at that time an agency whose existence was not officially admitted, were first named and portrayed. As recent research by Dr Christopher Moran has shown, Fleming was friends with then-CIA director Allen Dulles, who was ‘fascinated’ by the Bond novels and in particular the gadgetry. Over time the two became closer friends, to the extent that Dulles even asked Fleming to use his popular books to help portray the CIA in a positive light. Similarly, it was British filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock who largely created the spy thriller genre in cinema in the inter-war period. It was in Hitchcock’s late-50s film North by Northwest that Hollywood first named and depicted the CIA. In both print and on the screen it was left to British creative talent to break the ground of public portraits of the CIA.
However, unlike Fleming and others, there is no evidence that Hitchcock himself ever worked for the security services, though he was spied on for a time by the FBI. This included one incident in the early 1960s where an FBI mole at Revue Studios told the Bureau that a character in an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents was an ‘improper portrayal of an FBI agent’. The Feds applied pressure and the character was watered down to being a private detective who used to work for the Bureau.
Much the same process continues today. The former head of MI5 Stella Rimington is writing popular spy-fi, the British security services provided ‘former’ officers as advisors on the hugely popular TV show Spooks and the CIA is deeply involved in Hollywood. In my previous article for this site I outlined how the CIA’s first official entertainment industry liaison Chase Brandon recruited actress Jennifer Garner to appear in a CIA recruitment ad. However, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Chase Brandon was a technical consultant on the show Alias, which launched Garner to stardom. He was also a consultant on The Sum of All Fears (2002) and The Recruit (2003), both immediate post-9/11 films that depicted the CIA in an extremely favourable light. Just like the pre-9/11 Enemy of the State (1998) the images and stories in these films and TV shows are a synthesis of high-value production with the glory of the security state. Sexy young things run about and look confused for our amusement, while advanced technology spies on everything to provide the watching audience with a near-omniscient perspective. Two spectacles for the price of one, you might say.
One particular interesting nexus of connections is worthy of greater scrutiny. The Sum of All Fears starred Ben Affleck in the ‘sexy young thing running about’ role. Not long after, Affleck and Garner met while co-starring in the film Daredevil (2003) and they fell in love and got married in 2005. This is perhaps not at all surprising as they had a lot in common: they were born in the same year, were both rising stars, and had both worked on CIA-assisted productions. Since they met Garner appeared in a CIA recruitment ad (2004) and more recently Ben Affleck directed and starred in the Academy Award-winning film Argo (2012) which tells the largely true story of the CIA setting up a fake film company as the cover for a black operation. It is fair to say that they are not only one of Hollywood’s favourite couples, they are one of the CIA’s favourites too.
The links don’t stop there. One of Argo’s producers was George Clooney, who made Syriana (2007), based on former CIA officer Bob Baer’s experiences in the Middle East. Clooney is also a listed member of the Council on Foreign Relations, perhaps the most influential foreign policy think tank in the US. Before he got involved in CIA productions Affleck also starred in Armageddon (1998) andPearl Harbour (2001), two action-disaster films that some people see as predictive programming for 9/11, the ‘new Pearl Harbour’. Both films were made by whizz-bang closeupwobblecam merchant Michael Bay, and both were produced with assistance from the Pentagon.
If all this is making you wonder whether Hollywood is largely populated by CIA agents and whether Affleck himself is a CIA agent then you aren’t alone. Fortunately, someone actually felt the need to ask Affleck about these issues:
That’s right, according to Affleck ‘Probably, Hollywood is full of CIA agents’ that we don’t know about. However, it is perhaps more pertinent to focus our attention on the ones we do know about, such as Chase Brandon’s replacement Paul Barry. He told Dr Tricia Jenkins that in his view, ‘Most Americans are content to accept Hollywood’s message. Very few ever conduct any research to determine the truth. This is reinforced to us by the public e-mail we receive. In most instances, Hollywood is the only way the public learns about the Agency and Americans frequently shape their judgments about us based on films.’
What can we do about this? For one, by spotting the spooks in Hollywood we can show those people who do shape their judgments about the CIA based on films that they are being duped, and deliberately so. The CIA is not a heroic, patriotic institution that wants to protect the lives of ordinary Americans and help spread peace and freedom, no matter how many Chase Brandon-aided films put phrases like that in their dialogue. If they were such an institution then they wouldn’t have to employ people like Brandon and Barry to massage their image and weaponise the dream factories. The very existence of people like Brandon and Barry tells us there’s a problem within the CIA, a problem Hollywood cannot solve. For another, the likes of Affleck and Garner are not celebrities we should look up to, but are the pawns of professional deceivers and therefore probably deserve our pity. At the very least we could stop paying for our own deception, and encourage others to stop paying for theirs.
Tom Secker is a British based writer, researcher and filmmaker who specialises in terrorism, the security services and declassified history. He has been writing on the philosophy and politics of fear since 2008. He also periodically contributes here on SmellsLikeHumanSpirit.com, and previously appeared on the Podcast in Episodes 12, 45, and 78. Below is his latest article, ‘The CIA’s role in Hollywood’
“If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.” — Morpheus, The Matrix.
As long as you are plugged into the computer program that is running your reality, you can’t escape its hold over your life. You are literally programming and reprogramming yourself, without your conscious will, to toe the line of some very sneaky potentates who would like for you to forget just how powerful a being you truly are.
As long as you are subservient to the status quo — the belief that you must slave away for the monarchy, namely the Rockefeller/Vatican/Gates/J.P. Morgan/World Bank delusionists, then you will not ever truly know that you can change your reality in the blink of an eye. The world in its current state is not meant to be your experience of life, yet playing the computer game that has been set before you keeps you disillusioned and deluded. It’s time to wake up. Following are 5 of the practically infinite ways by which the powers that be keep you thinking you are small, helpless and powerless, when in fact, you are Infinite in scope:
1. They are hypnotizing you with their agenda. If you participate in the mainstream media — watching its television programs, sitting in front of its Hollywood movies, or even leaving the tube on as you go to sleep, then you are programming your brain with the entirely ‘wrong’ frequency. Of course, it’s a choice. There really is no wrong or right — we can continue to portray minorities, women and any person who isn’t rich and white as less intelligent or capable, or portray endless scenes of violence and bigotry, hate and racism, but we have to ask ourselves what purpose this truly serves. It seems if we are fighting against one another, because of the color of our skin, our religious or cultural backgrounds, our sexual preferences or our gender, then we can’t really focus on the true ‘enemy’, which is really only like Oz behind a curtain.
CBS and ABC both have officials that have top positions in the Obama administration. Monsanto and several large Big Ag, Big Pharma, and Big Oil corporations have cronies in almost every leg of the mainstream media. These people don’t report the truth. They promote their own greedy agendas. With just a little crack in the looking glass, you can see that there is another reality. David Icke’s The People’s Voice Network is just such an example. It’s literally time for a different program. Cut your addiction to mainstream media. They are keeping you enslaved to a decaying paradigm.
2. They are poisoning the enlightenment right out of you. Big Corporations are poisoning your water with fluoride, heavy metals and endless other toxins. Big Ag is poisoning your food with GMO crops. Big Pharma is supplying you with drugs that actually make your food-induced cancer or heart disease worse, as well as dumbing down entire generations with autism, while quietly paying out families for the damage that MMR vaccinations have caused. The secret of the Matrix is that these addictive patterns — high fructose corn syrup, McDonald’s Happy Meals and nutrition-less foods — do more than make you fat and sick. They literally block your ability to have an enlightened experience of the world — explicitly one which allows you to see outside the Matrix. These companies provide the pain and then feed you the pain-killers, which are really just another way to kill you. You are not a depressed, dark, lonely individual. You are a creature of light and hope, love and prosperity beyond your current imagining. Don’t let them drug you into oblivion. Eat wholesome foods, detox your pineal gland — the seat of enlightenment — and participate in age-old natural healing. It is not only for your physical well being, but for your spiritual ascension — and a great and final unplugging from the Matrix.
3. They use religion to perpetuate a lie. This is a hot button for many people. The truth is that use of religion alone is one of the easiest ways that they can divide and conquer. Every religion has at its core, a message of truth and LOVE, not the bastardized, quantified, you-need-me-to-get-to-God message that so many people mistakenly proselytize to the masses in order to keep them in check. The leaders of great religious movements know that we can only survive together as one. There are sites around the world that teach an integrated, accepting approach to realizing the Great Mystery of which we are all a part. Thanksgiving Square, for example, has been visited by the Dalai Lama, Catholic nuns including Mother Theresa, Zen Monks, famous Hindu yogis, Muslim and Christian spiritual leaders, and so forth. It is time to elevate our spirituality to one of inclusiveness instead of segregation and division. Realizing this is a great way to shun the Matrix lie that there is only one pathway to God.
4. They indoctrinate you early in public school. Henry Louis Mencken puts it so perfectly:
“The aim of public school is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry [slaves to the Matrix], to put down dissent and originality.”
There are numberless geniuses who were able to skip a ‘cursory’ education and, instead, used their own curiosity and creativity to guide them through the material world. Michael Faraday opened a famous bookshop without any formal education, but he also experimented with electricity, magnetism and other sciences on his own. William Herschel, a musical composer with no formal education in astrophysics, discovered the planet Uranus and was only later called an ‘astronomer’ for his discovery. Don’t let them tell you what you can know or limit your genius. This is another tactic to keep you enslaved to the Matrix. Teach your children to think for themselves and seriously question whether they need to attend public school at all.
5. They convince you that this is the only ‘REALity.’ You can create a world that does not poison its people, pollute its oceans, rivers and streams, air and soil. You can create a world where people do not engage in endless wars and genocides. You can create a world where a few greedy bastards don’t run the whole show. You have the choice to run another program. It starts with waking up to the reality that has been forced upon you so that you can choose differently.
Kurt Vonnegut once said in Mother Night:
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.”
You are just pretending this reality right now. You can just as easily choose another. As long as you have the belief that you are stuck in this version of reality, you will be. They reinforce this belief in every way they possibly can. Though our minds have a hard time conceiving of Infinity, it exists. Start expanding it to new levels, and suspend your disbelief. This will help you to untie your bondage ropes to the Matrix.
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Source: Christina Sarich | Waking Times
No question, we are a culture that loves to be entertained. Even churches have caught on to the public’s desire for 24/7 entertainment. As a consequence, a large number of evangelical churches are now driven by a need to fulfill this desire in their congregants. And what better way to pack the house in ginormous auditoriums than to offer a 90 minute stage show enhanced with state-of-the-art sound, lighting and video systems.
Lights, camera, action!
To boost the mood for the Praise and Worship segment of the service, a large number of churches feature a worship leader and several backup singers accompanied by a live band. I’ve been in services where the Praise Band could be the opening act for Switchfoot!
To help spice up worship, a team of want-to-be actors treat the audience to a short skit that ties in with the message (sermon). As the lights dim and the actors scurry off stage, a hip cool pastor wearing skinny jeans, a logo T-shirt, and a five o’clock shadow ambles out to preach the “new” Good News. Hip cool pastors aren’t your average run of the mill ministers. Some of these guys are genuine entertainers loaded with talent! They’re bona fide performers. True showmen. And some of them are comics! In fact, most hip cool pastors could walk off the church stage onto a Las Vegas stage and feel right at home. No really, they’re that good!
By in large, hip cool pastors’ main aim is to see that the folks find God, because once they find Him, they’ll find themselves and then…drum roll please….they’ll find their real “purpose” in life!
Now, I’m not attacking Church entertainment per say. I’m simply pointing out that in an effort to grow their churches many ministers adopt worldly methods such as the church growth model, a consumer oriented marketing strategy developed to attract the unchurched. And let’s be honest. For some pastors it’s not about saving souls, it’s about becoming the CEO of a thriving “megachurch.” Trying to attract large numbers of people, some pastors go way overboard. The end result is that the house of God has become like the world.
Warning: Adopting secular marketing techniques has risks. Often the Gospel becomes compromised when we adapt it to the culture.
Hellywood’s Influence On The Church
Many people are movie-goers…TV-viewers…music lovers…concert-attendees…
That Christians enjoy the same sort of entertainment as those who walk in darkness is revealing.
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (I John 1:5-7)
In this day and age it’s rare to find a movie or TV program that’s fit for Christian consumption. Hedonism, sexual explicitness and perversion, violence, occult themes and vile language aside, very few movies refrain from abusing God’s holy Name.
Have you ever noticed that Hollywood’s elite go out of their way not to offend ethnic groups, homosexuals, environmentalists, abortion providers, radical feminists, illegal immigrants, even Muslim terrorists? Yet evangelical Christians, Catholics and Mormons—especially those with conservative values—are all fair game.
It’s an undisputed fact that the entertainment industry is made up of liberals. Why should this matter to Christians? I answered this question in my column Sexually Transmitted Diseases Are A Result of Liberalism:
For most liberals right is wrong and wrong is right. Good is bad and bad is good. Normal is abnormal and abnormal is normal. Whatever advances their cause is what counts. “We must remember that liberalism is not just a system of bad ideas. It is a religion with its priests, creeds, confessions, and dogmas. Liberals worship the system, their church. They gladly sacrifice themselves and anyone else, friend or foe, who gets in the way of the cause. They are more religious than most Christians. They are more dedicated than most Christians.” (Liberal’s Are Evil, Wrong and Nuts!)
In the liberal’s way of thinking pretty much anything goes. Liberals view themselves as tolerant of the behaviors of others. They’re broad-minded. Generous. Untraditional. Unorthodox. Progressive.(Source)
Most Hollywood liberals don’t try to hide their disdain for conservatives — especially if they happen to be conservative Christians! And liberals don’t try to hide their blatant disrespect for the Lord Jesus Christ and for any of His followers who hold to biblical values.
So with this in mind, why do a large number of Christians tolerate Tinseltown’s deliberate abuse? Moreover, why do we cower when we’re labeled hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited, homophobic and worse? And why do we lay down our hard earned money at theater box offices when those in the entertainment industry (the same folks who make big bucks off of us) do not give a hoot that they’re dishonoring God’s Name?
While I’m on the subject of disrespect, I must mention that in churches all across America a number of pastors–especially younger pastors—have sunk to the level of using crude language and R-rated stories to “make a theological point.” Would profane pastors deliver a sermon laced with rough language to a church packed to the rafters with God’s holy elect angels? Of course not! Which makes one wonder, where are the deacons and elders – the so-called Church leadership? Why do they fail to roundly rebuke profane pastors? And when did the Church become Comedy Central?
Consider this also. Many professing Christians use God’s Name in vain and think nothing of it. For instance, you hear Christians utter “Oh G–!” and “Oh my G–!” all the time. How has it escaped them that they’re in violation of the 1st Commandment? The Bible explicitly says:
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain (Exodus 20:7).
Clearly, anyone who misuses the Name of the LORD will be held accountable.
Returning to Tinseltown, people who work in entertainment expose young and old alike to gratuitous violence and vile language in films…DVDs…TV…music, especially gangsta rap and grunge! Even pornography, including child pornography, is pushed on society in a myriad of ways through the marvels of modern technology. TV networks have dropped the few remaining standards of decency for prime time telecasts. Those who happen to be TV fans know full well that producers/writers/actors/
Welcome to the anything goes world of moral relativism, where pretty much nothing is off limits anymore and nothing is sacred – including God’s Name.
What’s In A Name?
God’s Name is special. His Name carries His personal identity. So why are followers of Jesus Christ not incensed when they hear someone misusing His Name whether it’s in a movie, on TV, or from the lips of one of your friends or business associates?
Look at it this way, Christian: If someone close to you, say a parent, spouse or child, is called a vile name for no good reason, you’d come to his or her defense, wouldn’t you?
Of course you would!
So the next time someone drags God’s Name through the mud in your presence, why not turn to the person and say something like: “I’m a Christian, so I’m offended when you take God’s Name in vain.”
Many Christians will spend two hours viewing a movie that’s peppered with language so profane that they readily admit they wouldn’t dream of inviting Jesus to watch with them — because they know perfectly well He’d turn down the invite!
Some believers I know offer some of the most flimsy excuses for putting up with hearing God’s Name misused. For example, when it comes to seeing a movie that tickles their fancy they deem using the Lord’s name in vain acceptable if it’s not overused.
Whenever I broach this subject, I receive a slew of emails from so-called believers providing me with excuses for their viewing habits. The top 4 are:
1) We are under grace not under the law; therefore we mustn’t maintain a pharisaic attitude.
2) The Holy Spirit hasn’t convicted me.
3) Christians can do what is right in their own minds.
4) It doesn’t bother me.
Clearly, some Christian moviegoers think they’re excused from the moral example God has set forth for His people. Those who fall into this category should consider this: Hollywood is using your hard earned money (God’s money) to mock your Savior and to advance a morally bankrupt ideology.
Consider, also, that leftist entertainers use the money they rake in to further an anti-Christian agenda which includes removing all mention of God from the public square; abortion on demand; normalizing every sort of sexual perversion; advancing same-sex “marriage”; and environmental extremism.
What does this tell you about biblical discernment?
What it says to this writer is that far too many followers of the Lord Jesus Christ hold a worldview that is more aligned with Secular Humanism than with biblical Christianity.
The sad fact is that many believers participate in a number of things that the Bible deems inappropriate, immoral, and even toxic to the soul.
Do God’s people’s viewing and listening habits really matter all that much to Him? I mean, we’re under grace not under law, right? Listen to the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 6:22-23:
The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be filled with darkness.
A “good eye” should be fixed on the Person who made our eyes!
Would Jesus Invite His followers To A Service Such As This?
At the beginning of this article, I discussed churches that have gone astray and, in an effort to “keep people coming,” focus largely on creating a “fun” and “relevant” environment that will draw the seeker in. To that end, hip cool pastors dumb down their sermons in an effort not to offend anyone, church doctrines are disregarded, the gospel is glossed over, worldly music is the norm—some of it with unbiblical lyrics! Sadly, when people raise holy hands to the God they say they adore, their demonstration of praise and worship comes, not from the heart; it’s merely inspired by the music–especially if it has a good beat.
What Would Jesus Have You Do?
First of all, there’s no perfect church. In choosing one, a good rule of thumb is to see that you’re in a Bible teaching church that holds to the authority of Scripture. If your current pastor gives a “feel good” message that includes a few Scripture verses with good stories and applications but has no biblical basis, consider shopping for a church with solid Bible teaching. In other words, find a church where, for the most part, the pastor teaches one verse at a time and rightly divides the word of truth. (2 Tim. 2:15)
When it comes to entertainment, the professing Christian need only ask: Would I invite Jesus to sit down next to me during a movie or TV program or while I browse the Net…email…text…comment or “like” something on Facebook? Would I want my Lord to hear the music stored on my iPod? Would I offer Him the best-selling book I just finished reading? As I glance through a magazine would it make me a tad uncomfortable to have Jesus looking over my shoulder? If the answer to any of the above is in the negative, then hightail it out of the theater…turn off the TV…log off the computer…delete the music…close the book!
What happened to Michael Hastings? The revelation that Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings was working on a story about the CIA before his death and had contacted a Wikileaks lawyer about being under investigation by the FBI hours before his car exploded into flames has bolstered increasingly valid claims that the 33-year-old was assassinated.
Hastings died last week in Hollywood when his car hit a tree at high speed.
According to a prominent security analyst, technology exists that could’ve allowed someone to hack his car. Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke told The Huffington Post that what is known about the single-vehicle crash is “consistent with a car cyber attack.”
Clarke said, “There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers” — including the United States — know how to remotely seize control of a car.
“What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it’s relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn’t want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn’t want the brakes on, to launch an air bag,” Clarke told The Huffington Post. “You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it’s not that hard.”
It’s possible that Hastings car was hacked considering the people he had written about in his past and what he recently had been talking about.
Kathleen Fisher from DARPA recently did a presentation on the ease of hacking a standard american sedan. Volvo started the SARTRE (Safe Road Trains for the Environment) program in 2009 and they are now reporting that their testing has been “successfully completed.” Hacking of a lemmings train like Volvo’s, could lead to massive collisions on the roads and there should be major security concerns considering what recently has been learned.
Zombies rush the Israeli wall. Message: 1. Wall is justified 2. Palestinians (and others so determined) are subhuman and need to be exterminated
This is no surprise of course. What’s interesting is how they’re positioning Zionism and Israel in the apocalyptic finale. It certainly is playing a big role in bringing the world into World War 3 which has actually already begun since the US and Israel pulled the pin out of the grenade with 9/11.
Since then the number of countries drawn into these increasing staged middle eastern conflicts meets the definition of a world war.
World war: Merriam-Webster: “a war that involves all or most of the principal nations of the world” or the MacMillan dictionary says “a war that is fought between many countries from different parts of the world”. Looks like we’re there, people, and it’s just going to keep escalating. Clever how they slipped us into this unending conflict that only gathers momentum by the day.
World War for Zion
This WWZ type of predictive programming is standard fare in the media. It’s gone on for centuries via books and embedded religious teaching, but now with modern media they can really mash it down the mass mind with abandon – and they do.
Of course they call it “entertainment”. The definition? “Something that amuses, pleases, or diverts, especially a performance or show.” Remember diverts. Overall might sounds innocent enough, but we know better. It’s like the word “amusement”. The original meanings were “to divert the attention of so as to deceive”, “to occupy the attention of: absorb, distract, bewilder.” Now? “to entertain or occupy in a light, playful, or pleasant manner”.
It’s a tactic for diversion more than anything, while the war mongers carry out their Machiavellian plan.
WWZ – Predictive Programming Propaganda
This world war Z is just another propaganda flick, using the popularized zombie meme to the max to get the biggest bang for the buck. It’s written by the son of long time Hollywood Zionist insider Mel Brooks no less, so you can be sure he got all the right coaching, input, directions and help. And of course using another CFR/CIA type gofer in Brad Pitt who’s about to marry confirmed CFR member Angelina Jolie.
Predictive programming is very powerful, using the power of suggestion via carefully crafted emotionally charged scenarios to implant an idea for easier later acceptance as the actual scenarios roll out at the hands of the social programmers.
Alan Watt explains Predictive Programming:
“Hollywood is the magician’s wand (holly-holy) which has been used to cast a spell on the unsuspecting public.”
“Things or ideas which would otherwise be seen as bizarre, vulgar, undesirable or impossible are inserted into films in the realm of fantasy.”
“When the viewer watches these films, his/her mind is left open to suggestion and the conditioning process begins.”
“These same movies which are designed to program the average person, can give the discerning viewer a better understanding of the workings and the plan of the world agenda. ‘Be-aware’”
“Predictive Programming – The power of suggestion using the media of fiction to create a desired outcome.”
Enjoy this perceptive write up on “Z is for Zionism” as I call it, he nails it nicely:
Zombie Hasbara: ‘World War Z’ and Hollywood’s Zionist Embrace
I went to the Drive-In in Atlanta Friday night, to celebrate a friend’s birthday, a beautiful night under an almost full moon. We watched This is The End and Fast and Furious 6, and two of us stayed for the 2:00 am screening of World War Z. I’m not a zombie fanatic, so other than watching the Walking Dead, I had few expectations beyond the trailers that have been on TV since the Super Bowl. So I was surprised, jarred out of the movie really, when right in the middle of the narrative, Brad Pitt’s character, Gerry Lane, travels to Israel and spends more than 10 minutes in a full-on pro-Israel propaganda piece that was as corny as it was crazy.
The Times of Israel may be only slightly exaggerating when it calls this “the greatest piece of cinematic propaganda for Israel since Otto Preminger’s “Exodus.” Not only is Israel’s fanatical Wall Building proven to be justified, against the hordes of undead invaders, and not only are Jewish victimizations paraded to justify the aggrandizement of Israeli military prowess, but it’s Israel’s supposed humanism, and multicultural inclusiveness, which in the end weakens the fragile post-apocalyptic state and allows the zombies to overrun everything. Its pretty heady stuff.
It’s all a smokescreen, with a few hints at what’s really going on behind the scenes. Analyzing and looking for meaning in this mass propaganda we’re being sprayed with is like looking for corn in a dung heap. But see through it we must, and then wash our minds clean of the stench and stain.
Beware how much you take on board, this type of stuff is toxic and loaded with occult symbolism, trigger words and subliminal messages meant to drag you down to their low vibration where you become even more susceptible.
Stay clear, but see these phony projections for what they are. Same with the news. We’re getting what they want us to get in these “breaking” stories, no matter how “revelatory” some of these spying and government and finance “revelations” are. It’s under control, and timed releases to test for reaction as well as let people vent some outrage and feel they have some say so are a common tactic.
I just don’t take the whole world geopolitical picture that gets painted as a reality. It’s a construct and tool of manipulation by its very nature.
Don’t let them define your reality by unwittingly adopting their parameters or living within their prescribed playing field.
We’re not separate to be put at variance against each other at the drop of a hat. Humanity is one, sharing a common consciousness. The entities that deny and attempt to erase this knowledge are the enemy.
First, get your mind and spirit truly free. Then you will know what you are to do.
Then do it.
All of it.
[Hat tip: Bob Hitt – tx!]
It is a scene out of a futuristic political thriller—the Secretary of State issues secret orders for embassy officials to collect the DNA of foreign heads of state while the President, speaking at a $1000 a plate dinner, is surrounded by a contingent of Secret Service agents wiping clean his drinking glasses and picking up stray hair follicles. They are not just protecting the President—they are protecting the President’s DNA.
If this sounds like a script treatment for a Hollywood version of a Philip K. Dick novel, consider this: The Secretary of State’s name is Hillary Clinton and her directives to embassies were uncovered in a 2010 Wikileaks cable release. The President in this scenario is Barack Obama and the Secret Service unit pledged to protect his DNA is a group of Navy stewards, as revealed in the 2009 book by Ronald Kessler, entitled “In the President’s Secret Service.”
Our government’s DNA obsession was again in the news this week as the Supreme Court handed down a decision, worthy of penning by George Orwell, that law enforcement collection of arrestees’ DNA is not an invasion of privacy. The decision likened DNA to fingerprints, neatly sidestepping the fact that a person’s complete genetic makeup is contained in those drops of blood that the police can now collect with impunity and without fear of a civil rights lawsuit.
Beyond the obvious surface concerns that this decision violates both the Fourth Amendment and the subsequent exclusionary rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Since we are not yet threatened with the spectre of toddlers robbing banks or committing rape, one must look further to discern what is the big deal about our DNA.
Back in 1997, Dr. Wayne Nathanson warned a meeting of the Science and Ethics Department of the Medical Society of the United Kingdom that “gene therapy” might be turned to insidious uses and result in “gene weapons,” which could be used to target specific people containing a specific genetic structure. These weapons, Nathanson warned, “could be delivered not only in the forms already seen in warfare such as gas and aerosol, but could also be added to water supplies, causing not only death but sterility and birth defects in targeted groups.” /www.projectcensored.org/top-
Decades before Dr. Nathanson’s highly publicized warning, the U.S. Government was already hard at work in scientific endeavors to find gene and ethnic specific weapons. In an article entitled “Ethnic Weapons,” published in the Military Review in 1970, the author, Dr. Carl A. Larson, was found rhapsodizing about the state of technology facilitating the targeting of ethnic groups with covert weapons. Wrote Larson: “Surrounded with clouds of secrecy, a systematic search for new incapacitating agents is going on in many laboratories. The general idea, as discussed in open literature, was originally that of minimum destruction.”
However, his tone soon changes and he writes, somewhat chillingly, that “It is quite possible to use incapacitating agents over the entire range of offensive operations, from covert activities to mass destruction.”
Larson concludes with the following stark declaration: “The enzymatic process for RNA production has been known for some years but now the factors have been revealed which regulate the initiation and specificity of enzyme production. Not only have the factors been found, but their inhibitors. Thus, the functions of life lie bare to attack.” (emphasis added)
Dr. Wouter Basson’s research for Project Coast, the biological and chemical warfare unit under the apartheid government in South Africa, was known to be focused on developing a “blacks only” bioweapon. Basson, who was tied to intelligence facilities and labs in both Great Britain and the U.S., has been reported to have been successful in his endeavors, which were taking place back in the seventies. According to sources close to Basson, his research entailed locating substances which would attach onto melanin. Melanin is present in high degrees in darker colored skin.
Since Basson’s work on the melanin project, the rates of hypertension and diabetes have skyrocketed in people of color—specifically those of African descent and also indigenous, brown skinned populations. In some communities, the incidence of these diseases is now reported as up to 50%. Consonant with the reports that this disease- producing melanin- related substance has been leaked into processed food, one finds the spiking rates of the “silent killers,” hypertension and diabetes, to be present in the developed world, where people eat more processed food. In rural Africa, for example, where the population eats food from natural sources, the rates of diabetes and hypertension have remained constant over the years.
The mapping of the human genome satisfied all the requisites for creating gene specific weapons. Geneticists have maintained that developing an ethnic weapon is actually far more difficult than creating a gene weapon to target a specific person. The differences between groups are apparently much smaller than the differences between individuals and therefore the creation of a genetic weapon to target, for example, a head of state or a President is far less challenging than creating such a weapon to target an entire race.
The FBI admits to a database of around 13 million offenders, many only arrested and never charged with a crime. According to Twila Brase, President of Citizens Council for Health Freedom, around 4 million samples (filed with the babies’ names) are collected each year by State Health Departments. Some states, such as Minnesota, have been collecting newborn DNA samples since the mid-eighties. Minnesota alone is reported to have a newborn database of over 1.5 million samples.
The delivery systems for a DNA weapon would be easy: Everything.
Because the weaponized genetic material would only affect the target, the weapon could be leaked into the food supply, the water supply or sprayed in an airborne delivery system, such as the inexplicable chemtrails that are now blanketing our skies. And should a low profile target suddenly die, who would ever know that he died of a gene based weapon? Should the target be high profile, like perhaps a Hugo Chavez or Canada’s Jack Layton, who would be able to trace a deadly disease back to a weapon targeting his DNA?
The insistence of the U.S. Government that it is only trying to protect its citizens from a terrorist threat is the perfect cover of plausible deniability. Under the mantle of “protection,” our rights have been systematically stripped away while wars abroad have been launched against the Semitic peoples of the Middle East. Genetic based weapons are another tool in the plausible deniability eugenics tool box. They may, in fact, be one of the most salient tools.
Years before Nathanson’s warning was issued, our government had already attained a significant level of ability to weaponize against ethnic groups. An article entitled Ethnic Weapons, published in the Military Review in 1970, found the author, Dr. Carl A Larson rhapsodizing about the scientific accomplishments enabling the creation and deployment of ethnic weapons. Wrote Larson: “Surrounded with clouds of secrecy, a systematic search for new incapacitating agents is going on in many laboratories. The general idea, as discussed in open literature, was originally that of minimum destruction.” However, his tone soon changes and he writes, somewhat chillingly that “It is quite possible to use incapacitating agents over the entire range of offensive operations, from covert activities to mass destruction.”
You Have the Right to Remain Silent…as the Grave…
Anyone who was a fan of the old ABC TV series “The Untouchables” or of the later series, also on ABC, called “The FBI,” would know something is terribly fishy about the FBI slaying of Ibragim Todashev.
According to the FBI, Todashev, 27, who was an acquaintance, or friend, of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing, was shot and killed by an FBI agent who was interviewing the young man, at his home, at midnight, allegedly because Todashev had suddenly attacked him, causing the agent to feel threatened.
There are an astonishing number of conflicing versions of this official story, involving a variety of different weapons and multiple explanations for how it happened. These versions variously had Todashev threatening the agent with a sword, a knife, a chair, a pipe, a metal pole or even a broomstick. But one thing that stands out is that the agent in each version was alone with Todashev, who was suspected of having been an participant, with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, in an as yet unsolved September 11, 2011 slaying of three suspected young drug dealers in Waltham, Mass. at least one of whom was also a friend of the Tsarnaev brothers.
The critical word here is “alone.”
Watchers of those FBI TV programs know that FBI agents always work in pairs. This is not just Hollywood. It’s FBI policy.
Ibragim Todashev and autopsy photo showing FBI agent’s “kill shot” to the head during a midnight household “interrogation”
Indeed, when my father was informed back in 1969, by a colleague at the University of Connecticut School of Engineering where he was a professor, that the FBI was investigating me for my anti-war activities, the colleague, an arch-conservative backer of the US war in Vietnam, said that “two FBI agents” had come to his office to inquire about my activities (he had been outraged that the agents had come to him and not to my father for information about his son!).
It was also a pair of FBI agents who came, unannounced, to my dorm room at Wesleyan University a year earlier, when a group of us students had been hiding my roommate’s older brother, a Marine who had deserted from the service on a visit home from Vietnam whom we later helped escape to Canada and ultimately Sweden. In fact, so common were the visits by agents to anti-war activists that we on the left back in those days used to laugh that the FBI guys always looked like Jehovah’s witnesses when they’d knock on your door on a visit, traveling in pairs and wearing their neatly pressed suits.
Jokes aside, though, there is a reason that FBI agents work in pairs. It’s not that they can’t handle themselves in a confrontation, though safety no doubt is part of it. It’s that lying to a federal law enforcement agent is a felony — one that is very easy to prosecute and win conviction on and that has long proved useful for locking people up when conviction for a bigger crime might be difficult — but it is necessary to have a witness to make such a case. Two FBI agents means that there is always a witness to such lying — one that a jury will be inclined to believe.
So how did it come to pass that when Todashev made his alleged lunge — armed with knife, sword, chair, pipe, broomstick or whatever — at the FBI agent in question, that agent was alone in the apartment with him?
We’re asked to believe that the other agent (two actually, as there were reportedly three of them involved in a five-hour interrogation at the house earlier that night), and several Massachusetts state cops who were also along in Orlando, Florida for the questioning of Todashev, had inexplicably just “left the room” for some reason. That’s a lot of people all needing to relieve themselves at the same time!
This “explanation” for the creation of a situation allowing for a fatal two-man fight strains credulity to the breaking point. The FBI also claims that Todashev had already “confessed,” or was “about to confess” (whatever that means) to having been involved in the triple murder of the drug dealers, though that alleged confession (or pending confession) was, also incredibly, not recorded. Todashev was being questioned too, reportedly, about his links to the Tsarnaev brothers, and was thought to know about their alleged plans for marathon mayhem, so presumably keeping him alive to testify would have been very important to the pending federal case against the surviving younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
I would submit that it is simply not believable that such a suspect would not have been carefully guarded, carefully searched for weapons, and carefully secured in some fashion — most likely with handcuffs, before being questioned. I would also submit that there is no way that one lone agent would have been left alone with him under any circumstances, and not just for security reasons, but because Todashev was supposedly being interrogated, and there had to be a witness to his answers besides just the agent doing the questioning.
On TV, we do see agents or cops playing the old “good-cop-bad-cop” game with suspects, but that is always in a locked interrogation room, where the suspect has been searched for weapons already, and where reinforcements are just outside the door, ready to rush into the room should things get out of hand. Maybe this agent was the “bad cop” who was going to beat the crap out of Todashev while the other agents and cops were not there to call him off, you say? But if that was the case, he would either have had to be a very confident black belt to be alone confronting Todashev, who was known by the FBI to be a mixed martial arts expert, or he would have had his gun drawn. Furthermore, if beating up Tsarnaev, or torturing him, was the plan, they would have already cuffed him and locked him to a chair or table, since there was no advantage to be had by leaving him loose and free to counter-attack or defend himself.
The agent’s response to being allegedly attacked by the apparently un-restrained and variously armed Todashev (the FBI is now admitting that the victim was unarmed  throughout the incident), was to draw his gun and kill the suspect with seven shots, including one fired, execution-style, to the back of the head.
Todashev, who had already been questioned, had already told a friend earlier that he was worried that he was being “framed” by the FBI. Does that sound like someone who would have willingly testified to guilt in a brutal triple murder?
I don’t know what happened at midnight in Orlando in Todashev’s apartment, but it seems clear to me that what the FBI is saying happened, and what it is claiming Todashev told them, is not what it was. The ACLU seems to agree and is calling for an “outside investigation”  of the FBI killing.
America under President and Drone Commander Barack Obama and a “Justice” Department headed by Eric Holder, is fast becoming a very dangerous place — one that has much more in common with the Colonies under British rule than the one that the Founders envisioned when they appended the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Indeed, if, as it certainly appears, Todashev was executed by the FBI, it is a country that more closely resembles China or Nazi Germany than the free country we all were taught that we lived in.
Source URL: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1778
Current scandals aside, when the history of the Obama Administration is written the topic of crony capitalism will need a section to itself. From the high profile failures of green energy projects to the bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit, handing out taxpayer dollars to private industry is a hallmark of the president’s economic policy. But President Obama is not alone responsible for approving these giveaways. Congress has played a critical role, especially when it comes to subsidies to Hollywood and the recording industry.
Instapundit.com creator, Glenn Reynolds, has done yeoman’s work connecting the dots. He has extensively documented how the “content industry” has taken advantage of the tax credits and subsides on the federal, state and local levels, to pad their bottom line. But Hollywood’s biggest giveaways don’t occur on the tax-writing committees in Congress but the Judiciary Committee — where copyright policy is written.
Using every means at their disposal, Hollywood has attacked the balanced approach inherent in our Constitution. Unfortunately, members of both parties have played the game that has stifled economic growth and competition and given the content lobby their near every demand. In short, Congress continues to look for more draconian ways to help copyright holders enforce their copyrights without regard to the impact on users and consumers.
That’s why it was a pleasant surprise to hear House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) announce a comprehensive review of copyright law. Goodlatte’s “Copyright Principles Project,” is an effort to build consensus around copyright laws between consumers, the content lobby and technology. Yet supporters of free market reforms viewed the announcement with both optimism and skepticism. There have been few supporters of reform within both parties and Mr. Goodlatte does not have a good track record of support for free market principles on these issues. But one can hope.
There are a number of reforms Mr. Goodlatte can endorse that will benefit consumers and help re-balance the law. Among them:
Unlocking Your Phone — When you buy a phone it is married to a specific wireless carrier. You can’t take it and go to another one because the cost of it was subsidized by the carrier with which you signed a contract. If, when that contract expires, you decide to switch to another carrier, or if you decide to pay the penalty and end your contract early for whatever reason, you, as the owner of the phone, become the proud owner of a technologically advanced and expensive paperweight. Your phone won’t work with another service provider. It would be like buying a car that you can never paint or change the radio, it has to be kept the same way it was when you bought it or it won’t work. You own it, technically, but General Motors controls it. There’s really nothing else you can buy that you, as the owner, have so little control over. Millions have been spent on lobbying to create and maintain this system.
Internet Radio — Internet radio is booming in popularity but the royalty scheme makes the model unprofitable. Internet radio websites pay six times the royalty rates of other broadcast mediums because the Copyright Royalty Board imposes price-fixing on the industry with standards created by Congress. Determining what standard applies depends on whether or not the service was “preexisting” in 1998 when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was enacted. New technologies are subject to a standard that results in much higher rates than those faced by “old” technologies like satellite radio. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced in the last Congress the Internet Radio Fairness Act, which seeks to fix the royalty rate mess. It should be a high priority for the Chairman.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle constantly rail against cronyism, yet both sides engage in it hoping you won’t notice. The “safeguards” built into that cronyism to protect the patrons of it are set up in such a way that you, the consumer, will place the blame elsewhere rather than where it ultimately belongs – the government. Companies use government as a weapon against competitors and consumers, companies know it and embrace it, consumers are kept in the dark.
Like how a raise in the gas tax is blamed on “greedy oil companies” for raising the price rather than government because consumers only see the end price at the pump without knowing it’s higher because their elected officials want a bigger slice, cronyism impacts you elsewhere. The company that makes your phone isn’t keeping you from using it however you want, and if your favorite Internet radio station goes away it won’t be because they couldn’t compete on a level playing field, an entire system has been set up to make it difficult, if not near impossible for them to exist. It’s just the way it is, but it doesn’t have to be.
Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.
In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.
Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get away with their lies, and for so long?
If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long? How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?
Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic? Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics? Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.
Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.
But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff, ‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills. Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.
In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.
Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.
Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.
A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.
So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.
As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.
Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organisations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.
The Visible Hand
The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.
Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.
Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.
If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it. that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.
It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.
We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.
Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.
In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned, ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.
When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinian were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.
This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionst war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.
For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.
Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.
So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.