The Kingdom of God

“To call, then, the Kingdom of God the Kingdom of Heaven is to ascribe to the Kingdom of God every heavenly and spiritual perfection. The Kingdom of God is, for example, heavenly in its origin—that origin is the bosom of the eternal Father. The Kingdom of God is heavenly in its purpose—that purpose is to restore creation to its original glory. The Kingdom of God is heavenly in its king—that king is the Son of the Highest, Head and body. The Kingdom of God is heavenly in its subjects—those subjects are the children of God. The Kingdom of God is heavenly in its nature—that nature is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The Kingdom of God is heavenly in its entrance—that gateway is not by birth of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but by birth of God. The Kingdom of God is heavenly in its laws—those laws are not ordinances, rules, or regulations—they are spiritual principles. The Kingdom of God is heavenly in its method—that method is not by might, nor by power, nor by the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but by the Spirit of the living God. The Kingdom of God is heavenly in its prerogatives—those prerogatives are for the sons of God to be the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a kingdom of priests after the order of Melchizedek, saviours on mount Zion. The Kingdom of God is heavenly in its privileges—those privileges are to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ to the inheritance which is incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. In brief, the Kingdom of God is the Kingdom of Heaven—it is the Kingdom of Heaven because it is the kingdom or dominion of the GOD OF HEAVEN!”

“The epistle to the Hebrews was written to those who were following on to know the Lord. In the twelfth chapter the writer informs his readers that God wanted to wean them from their babyhood walk in God and that which appealed to their physical senses in order to introduce them to that which was real and lasting—the Kingdom. To experience the Kingdom, they would have to forsake the elementary principles which the whole church world glories in today, and go on to perfection. Jesus as King would become the living reality of their lives. But for this to happen, their earth and heavens first had to be shaken. That the earth in us (our humanity) must be shaken before we can enter into the Kingdom is a truth very few would deny. But that our heavens (religious experiences, concepts, understandings, ministries, activities) must also be shaken before we can receive the Kingdom is another matter. To realize all that God has for us as His sons in the walk of the Kingdom, our earth and heavens must give way to a new order—to a new earth and heaven. Not a new earth of mountains and valleys and streams and trees; not a new heavens of galaxies, solar systems, suns, planets and moons; but a NEW HUMANITY AND NEW SPIRITUAL DIMENSION. Only then can we know what the Kingdom really is and how to walk in it and minister it to creation. All religious activity apart from the realm of the Kingdom is nought but hay, wood, and stubble. It makes very impressive edifices, but it is not the Kingdom of God, and will disappear forever in the all-consuming fire of God.”

J. Preston Eby and KINGDOM BIBLE STUDIES-The Kingdom of God 1, Kingdom of Heaven – Kingdom of God.

“We Understand Nothing”

Crying Wolf, Once Again!

The above image shows two different Time Magazine covers: one from the ’70s (on the left), when so-called “scientists” were claiming a “man-made ice age” was imminent, and the other from a current issue warning of the “impending doom” that will supposedly be caused by a “man-made global warming”, or “global climate change” (take your pick). Both of these magazine covers, in my estimation, only serve to reveal the extreme exaggerations, or bald-faced lies, of the “scientific” materialists: exaggerations and bald-faced lies that have much more to do with manipulative corporate greed, and postmodern religious-dogma, than “saving the planet”.

Below is a quote from an article a close friend sent me. The author of this article (Fred Reed) definitely knows how to cut to the chase and not pull punches:

“The immense beingness of a dark forest, the tens of millions of things—winged things, crawling things, hunting things, plants and moss and mold, soft hungry things in decomposing logs, ants, moths with huge spectral eyes, all in the intricate endless dance of life—these we do not know; we say chitinous exoskeleton and Gibb’s free energy and adenosine triphosphate and Darwin, AND BELIEVE WE UNDERSTAND WHEN WE UNDERSTAND NOTHING, NOT WHENCE NOR WHITHER NOR WHY NOR HOW…

There are scholars who believe, much to the chagrin of today’s Darwinian/atheistic anthropologists, that the earliest peoples on earth (antediluvians) were far superior to modern man: physically, intellectually and technologically (see Earth’s Earliest Ages: G.H. Pember). But these advanced human beings (not the materialists’ little green Martians) were never so arrogant as to believe they had all the answers to life.

But, as this author hints, people, today, are so in love with themselves, so full of “self-esteem”, so “self-actualized”, that they, in their adolescent-egocentric and hedonistic stupor, claim to know and understand almost everything; when, in reality, they know and “understand nothing”.

Here is how Solomon described mans’ arrogant pursuit of knowledge and wisdom:

2 “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher,
“Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”

3 What advantage does man have in all his work
Which he does under the sun?

12 I, the Preacher, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 And I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with. 14 I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, ALL IS VANITY AND STRIVING AFTER THE WIND. 15 What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I said to myself, “Behold, I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind. 18 Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain. (Ecclesiastes 1)

Solomon, in the wisdom the Lord had granted him, understood that man can only attain to so much temporal (earthly) knowledge and wisdom, and, after that point, man’s endeavors to understand himself and his surroundings become nothing more than a vain pursuit, a chasing after the wind.

This chasing after the wind is the very picture of the postmodern/Darwinian/atheist (postmodern religionists). These postmodern religionists have a minuscule – at best – knowledge of the earth, solar system and universe, and they run with this infinitesimal bit of knowledge as if they were gods who know everything. Like an overconfident child, these “enlightened” megalomaniacs make extravagant claims about things they can’t even begin to comprehend. For instance, they claim that the universe came into existence by means of a “Big Bang”, but, when confronted with the question, “Where did the material come from for this so-called ‘Big Bang’”, they simply come up with multi-syllabic “scientific” jargon, and not-so-imaginative “multi-verse” fairy-tales, to avoid admitting that there is a God Who created them: in psychological terms, this is referred to as “intellectualizing” and “denial”. These impotent gods are so wrapped-up in their atheistic (“self-actualized”) arrogance, and “scientific” mumbo-jumbo, that they truly believe they have become omniscient (“all knowing”):

A hazard of being the most intelligent creature in the neighborhood is that IT FOSTERS AN ILLUSION OF OMNISCIENCE. Today we prostrate ourselves before the sciences, which tell us tales of origin and destiny, about which THEY KNOW NOTHING AND CAN GUESS LESS THAN THE MOST MINOR OF POETS. But we have no poets, and so accept the SOLEMN NARROW TWADDLE of the laboratories. Oh well. Perhaps the best that can be said of scientists is that the brightest of a large number of hamsters IS STILL A HAMSTER.” (emphasis added)

via Fred On Everything.

“Oh well. Perhaps the best that can be said of scientists is that THE BRIGHTEST OF A LARGE NUMBER OF HAMSTERS IS STILL A HAMSTER.” Humans look pretty intelligent, when compared with hamsters! So what! Perhaps these Darwin-worshipers should, as returning Roman conquerors, have slaves, following right behind them, day-in and day-out, who continually whisper in their ears, “All glory is fleeting! You are still mortal!”

For all out there who would deny the Creator and brag about man’s knowledge and technological advances, I would ask this: Where are your “scientific” gods now, Mr. and Ms. Postmodern/Atheist (so cool, so brilliant), when the entire Gulf of Mexico is being destroyed by the very oil that your own personal (materialistic) “scientific” gods, through their “advanced technology”, brought to the surface? So why, now, when they are needed so desperately, can’t your Darwinian heroes (materialistic, “scientific” gods) figure out how to put an end to this catastrophe and save the Gulf? What’s the matter, guys, is your love of Darwin and humanity (your perverse love of self), and denial of God, failing you at the moment? Come on, you “enlightened” supermen and superwomen, suck-up that oil, seal that leak, restore the vitality of the Gulf, heal those suffering animals and fishes, and restore the livelihoods of millions of people along the Gulf coast and beyond. You believe you’re omniscient, so put your money where your “politically-correct”, “tolerant” and God-hating mouths are, and rescue all of us from this out-of-control disaster!

What’s this I hear? Oh yes, I recognize this! It’s silence!

Goodbye, Gulf of Mexico! Goodbye, dolphins, fishes, crabs, shrimp, oysters, pelicans, marshes and estuaries! Goodbye, fishing industry and tourist trade! Goodbye, income of millions of working people along the coast and beyond! Hello, postmodern world of materialistic, Godless and worthless “science”! Welcome to what’s left of the world that, in their earth-bound, Spiritual ignorance, and obnoxious arrogance, the postmodern/atheists continue to destroy!

P.S.

Robert Jastrow (b. 1925 d. 2008) PhD Theoretical Physics recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement

At present, SCIENCE HAS NO SATISFACTORY ANSWER to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but THEIR CHOICES ARE LIMITED; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. THE SECOND THEORY IS ALSO AN ACT OF FAITH. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, WITHOUT HAVING CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT BELIEF. Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy … For the scientist WHO HAS LIVED BY HIS FAITH IN THE POWER OF REASON, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107 (emphasis added)

Note: Robert Jastrow was a true man of science (a rarity in this day and age), and not some narcissistic and materialistic PhD who simply feels free to make-it-up as he (or she) goes.

It’s A Postmodern “Make-It-Up-As-We-Go” World: Two Blaring Examples

According to the (Atheist) "Experts in Education", this is an Absolute No No!

Here are a couple of well known and wise adages:

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

“Measure twice, cut once!”

These are pretty straightforward: if something is working well, then leave it alone, but if something is broken, then be very careful (“measure twice”) not to rush into making changes (“cut”) that, in the long term, might make things worse.

But here, unfortunately, is how postmodern atheists interpret these adages:

“If it ain’t broke, then there must be something really wrong with it! De-construct! De-construct!”

“Don’t bother to measure, that’s an old-fashioned waste of time, let’s just go ahead and cut and see what happens!”

And here is the postmodern atheist adage:

“Don’t worry if we screw everything up, or take something that worked well and ruin it, the government will still kowtow to our every whim!”

These “self-actualized” and “enlightened” folks must destroy anything that is working properly, and then remake it in such a way as to guarantee its never working properly again. They just can’t help themselves: it’s a postmodern-feminist-lesbian-homosexual-atheist thing, a “make-it-up-as-we-go” thing, that is just so backward and upside down that they truly have no choice but to make things worse. If it weren’t for the fact that these folks so continually mess almost everything up for the rest of us, they would almost be deserving of our concern and pity.

With this in mind, then, it seems that a few of these “self-actualized” and “enlightened” folks (“education experts”) have decided that elementary aged children shouldn’t have best friends:

…from Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn to Harry Potter and Ron Weasley, the childhood “best friend” has long been romanticized in literature and pop culture — not to mention in the sentimental memories of countless adults.

But increasingly, some educators and other professionals who work with children are asking a question that might surprise their parents: Should a child really have a best friend?

Most children naturally seek close friends. In a survey of nearly 3,000 Americans ages 8 to 24 conducted last year by Harris Interactive, 94 percent said they had at least one close friend. But the classic best-friend bond — the two special pals who share secrets and exploits, who gravitate to each other on the playground and who head out the door together every day after school — signals potential trouble for school officials intent on discouraging anything that hints of exclusivity, in part because of concerns about cliques and bullying.

“I think it is kids’ preference to pair up and have that one best friend. As adults — teachers and counselors — we try to encourage them not to do that,” said Christine Laycob, director of counseling at Mary Institute and St. Louis Country Day School in St. Louis. “We try to talk to kids and work with them to get them to have big groups of friends and not be so possessive about friends.”

“Parents sometimes say Johnny needs that one special friend,” she continued. “We say he doesn’t need a best friend.” (emphasis added)

via The End of the Best Friend – NYTimes.com.

Yes sir, let’s do away with best friends: I mean who needs best friends, in particular, children? These over-educated busy-bodies have decided that having a best friend is an act of “exclusion”. In other words, children who are sullen and self-contained, and will probably remain that way for the rest of their lives, are being, in the minds of these blind-guides, excluded by the children that need and can make friends: and, “Darwin knows”, the postmodern atheist can’t have one group of children doing better than the others around them, because that’s not equitable. This is how they approach competition of any kind, in particular, sports. To these “effete impudent snobs”, sports are fine as long as they’re not competitive: no keeping of scores or stats, no winners or losers. This is why we have a large number of children who can’t compete in life; and some of these children, over the past fifteen years, have carried automatic rifles to school and murdered their competitive and life-loving peers.

“Parents sometimes say Johnny needs that one special friend,” she continued. “WE SAY he doesn’t need a best friend.” This is a revealing statement! It seems that parents’ opinions mean little to these postmodern “experts”, as is the case in this next disgusting news item:

The Excuse!

First grade thru six graders can ask for condoms.

Provincetown, MA – Elementary school children, as young at six years old, could ask for condoms in one Massachusetts school district.

First thru six graders can receive the contraceptives if they ask in the Provincetown School District, which is right outside of Boston.

All 66 high schoolers and the 89 students in the lower grades can start asking for these latest school supplies in September.

There will be no papertrail and the school isn’t’ taking names AND WILL NOT REPORT BACK TO PARENTS. (emphasis added)

via First grade thru six graders can ask for condoms.

In a society where there is so much paranoia about pedophilia and “lost innocence”, it seems very strange, and even more hypocritical, that postmodern atheists (religionists) would be so keen on supplying sexual aids to extremely young children. I guess, in the dark recesses of the postmodern atheistic mind, it’s alright for elementary aged children to have sex, as long as it is with children of their own age. What’s the difference, then, in reality, between a pedophile seeking to introduce a child to sexual activities (“corruption of a minor”) and an “education expert” providing children with the means to have sex without the threat of pregnancy or disease? It seems to me that both have a rather perverse interest in the sexual behavior of young children, if there is such a thing as sexual behavior in young children. The difference between the two, of course, is the postmodern atheist (“education expert”) will get away with his or her perversion (under the guise of “science”), while the pedophile won’t (no PhD)!

Note, once again, that the parents are not to be contacted. The reason for this is obvious: most parents, with any sense of decency, would immediately withdraw their children from the school system where these so-called “experts” (perverts) have any control or influence.

Yes sir, it’s just another day in this postmodern-atheistic “make-it-up-as-we-go” world!

Postmodern, “Politically-Correct” & “Tolerant” Hypocrisy: It’s Everywhere!

This is a short follow-up post to Freedom of Expression vs. Postmodern Despotism II.

Here is one current example of the postmodern-religious despotism and hypocrisy I have described:

June 15, 2010

SC senator again refuses to resign over ‘raghead’ comment, says he has been called names

by Seanna Adcox

The Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A state lawmaker again apologized Tuesday but refused to resign for calling the Republican gubernatorial front-runner a “raghead,” adding he’s been called names, too, and he’ll proudly accept the redneck label.

Sen. Jake Knotts said the Republican Party should embrace the redneck term and its origin.

“I am proud to be stereotyped as a redneck. The true meaning is a hardworking farmer who works from dawn to dusk to support his family and got a red neck from working in the sun,” said Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia, rattling off a list of rednecks’ positive traits. “If all of us rednecks leave the Republican Party, the party is going to have one hell of a void.”

His comments on the Senate floor came after GOP leaders in his home county publicly reprimanded him. Last Thursday, the executive committee of the Lexington County Republican Party voted to censure him and ask him to resign for his comment made about state Rep. Nikki Haley during an Internet political talk show. (emphasis added)

via Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

It is evidently alright for Mr. Knotts to be referred to as a “redneck”, in the eyes and minds of postmodern religionists, but it’s not alright for Mr. Knotts to refer to someone else as a “raghead”. This, of course, is a hypocritical double-standard.

Why is it that Caucasian-middle-aged men, no matter their politics or ideology, can be insulted and discriminated against, and no one, on the postmodern left, will come to their defense, while Asian, Hispanic, Arab, and African American men (and women), in particular, are treated like “sacred cows”? Caucasian-middle-aged men have, over the past half-century, become accustomed to being portrayed and LABELED (“profiled”) as weak-willed and incompetent “racists”, “bigots”, “sexists”, “crackers”, “Whiteys” and “rednecks” (depending on where they hail from, and what they believe): just check out any sitcom from the ’70s’ All In The Family to the ’90s’ Married With Children and Everybody Loves Raymond and you’ll see Caucasian-middle-aged men portrayed as bumbling mama’s boys who are in need of a postmodern/feminist/homosexual/atheist makeover. But let one of these Caucasian-middle-aged men call a woman “honey”, or say to a group of African Americans or Hispanics (without malice), “You people…,” and the postmodern-politically-correct machinery will rear-up and seek to destroy him. Today, a White man addressing an African American assembly, with the opening, “You people…,” will elicit the same response as a true racist shouting, “Hey, boy….,” would have elicited fifty to eighty years ago. It truly is an upside-down and backward world we live in: the lunatics are, without doubt, running this planet-sized asylum!

Years ago, when I was teaching in an inner city high school, I was standing hall duty, and there were several African American and Caucasian students, in between classes, hanging out around their lockers. This was, according to the school’s administrator, against the rules: students were only to be at their lockers first thing in the morning, at lunch, and after school, and it was my responsibility to enforce the rule. So I told them, “Let’s go folks, get to your classes. You know you’re not allowed to be at your lockers now.” Most of the students moved on and did as I told them. But one African American (male) student stood there and said, “What do you mean by ‘folks’?” I ignored this asinine and inflammatory question, knowing that he was seeking to assert his “rights” as a “politically-correct” African American, and asked him if he’d like to talk to the principal instead of going to class. He moved on, while mumbling, “Racist”.

This is what “political-correctness”, “tolerance”, and “valuing diversity”, has gotten us: disrespectful, self-involved, and BIGOTED, “victims-of-racism” who, for the most part, want to get away with murder, or make a political stink every time a Caucasian male, in particular, calls them out for being irresponsible or worse. These postmodern, “politically-correct” “sacred cows” believe they have, somehow, someway, earned the “right” to not be offended in this life, even though they themselves are in desperate need of being offended and changed for the better: they, on the other hand, have no problem at all with offending others, in particular, Caucasians (“Crackers”, “Whitey”). I guess “being offended” means something different in postmodern land: I “offended” this impudent, disrespectful, and RACIST, student by holding him accountable for breaking the rules, not, as he was seeking to claim, by referring to him and the other students (including Caucasians) as “folks”. I didn’t put up with his “racism” nonsense then, nor would I put up with it now.

{I had Caucasian, African American and Asian students in my program, and all of them were held to the same educational expectations and discipline. I loved my students, and they knew my expectations were the same for all of them: I expected them to complete the work assigned, to take pride in their work and their fellow student’s, to obey the rules, and to respect each other, my co-teacher and me. And all, but a tiny few, were successful in my program.}

We Caucasian-middle-aged men find ourselves in this “politically-correct” and “tolerant” mess because we haven’t, as yet, stood up to this out-of-control postmodern religious tyranny (despotism). Just because the color of my skin happens to be white doesn’t mean that my great grandparents were slave owners or that I’m a card carrying Klansman. And the fact that I’m treated as such by many African Americans, who don’t know me from Adam, exposes their own racist tendencies or outright bigotry. The racist card has been played way too often: it’s much like the boy who cried, “Wolf,” just once to often.

Getting back to the point of my post, mature adults, on either side of this political circus, should not stoop to childish name calling. It is, however, the postmodern religionists who most often take part in this kind of childish behavior, which, of course, makes them nothing more than hypocrites. Postmodern religionists need to practice what they love to preach to everyone else; they need to practice shutting-up long enough to allow someone else to EXPRESS (as in freedom of expression) a dissenting opinion or belief, and then be “tolerant” of that opinion or belief. This, of course, will never happen, since impudent, child-like adults are almost always incapable of change!

The GOP: The Political “Ace-in-the-Hole” of Big-Banks & Corporations!

The GOP, with arrogant and totally insensitive bravado, has, once again, turned on its loyal, but not too bright, working/middle-class conservative base, while, as usual, kowtowing to the wealthy and powerful ten percent who own it: lock, stock and barrel.

Republicans block Senate bid to extend benefits for jobless

By David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers David Lightman, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Thu Jun 24, 7:09 pm ET

WASHINGTON — No end is in sight for the plight of hundreds of thousands of jobless people whose unemployment benefits ran out this month, after the Senate failed Thursday to garner enough votes to pass the funding.

Sixty votes were needed under Senate rules to shut off debate and move to passage, but the vote was 57-41, so the plan to pay for extended unemployment benefits, summer jobs for at-risk youth, help for ailing state budgets and other emergency programs fell three votes short. Forty Republicans and Sen. Ben Nelson , D- Neb. , voted against ending debate, and two senators didn’t vote.

As a result, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D- Nev. , the Senate plans to move on to other business, leaving the fate of the emergency plan uncertain. (emphasis added)

via Republicans block Senate bid to extend benefits for jobless – Yahoo! News.

{Note: I have no respect for the Democratic party either, but it’s the Republicans who are, at this moment, truly stinking up the atmosphere!}

Here is how the conservative, “God fearing” GOP truly feels about its working/middle-class constituents!

Republicans appeal to your soft side

By Tim Louis Macaluso

It sucks to be unemployed, but it just got a whole lot worse thanks to a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Republicans are under the impression that there are millions of jobs out there that unemployed Americans are simply TOO FAT AND LAZY TO ACCEPT; THEY’RE TOO SOFT AND HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO GET A JOB.

They would rather, some say, live off the government teat. So Republicans successfully killed a jobs bill yesterday that would have extended unemployment benefits to more than one million out of work Americans.

According to most reports, it’s taking anywhere from six months to a year for the unemployed to find a new job. (emphasis added)

via Republicans appeal to your soft side – News Blog – Rochester City Newspaper.

Hey conservative patriots, are you reading and listening? Are you opening up your eyes yet to the truth that is about to slap you hard in the face, once again: the truth that “The American Dream” only exists for the top ten percent of Americans who control our government, economic-system, society, and you, if you let them. The top ten percent, or the power elite, who lure-in the middle/working-class by waving “The American Dream” in front of their faces? Do you understand that your supposed conservative and wealthy “benefactors”, your political, ideological, and religious, “kindred spirits”, think you’re “too fat and lazy to accept a job”: a low-paying, lousy job that would, in reality, merely serve to put you further into the financial abyss.

How does this blatant insult affect you, conservative patriots? Imagine, if you can, these fat and lazy, silver-spoon-in-mouth millionaires and billionaires, who have never been in need of anything, nor did an HONEST day’s work in their life, think you have “no incentive” to find work. Are you reading and listening, conservative patriots? These financial predators can’t relate to your situation, because they’ve never had to work for a living or worry about how to house, clothe and feed their families. They have no idea of how many nights you lay awake worrying about where the money is going to come from: for your mortgage and car payments, insurance, property taxes, utilities, clothing and food for your children. These corporate, unfeeling machines have no idea of how you long to work and be productive; how you long to see your wife and children secure and happy, once again.

Conservative patriots, your malevolent “benefactors” (the power elite) are the folks whose grandparents and great-grandparents invented “The American Dream”, so folks like you would buy into it, and then sell your soul, as well as your family’s, to the bank (the mortgage), the new car dealer (every two years), the credit card companies, and Wall Street (401 Ks, etc). Now, after all the years of selling this economic-system to you (the working/middle-class), the power elite, through their own irresponsibility and perverse greed, have inadvertently blown up the very system their predecessors devised; and, in so doing, have exposed “The Dream” for the bald-faced lie it truly is and always has been.

So now, the power elite need a “scapegoat”, and you’re evidently who they’ve picked out! The inept power elite, all of a sudden, want to place the major blame for this “financial crisis” on you, conservative patriots: it’s your fault for buying property and building homes that you couldn’t possibly afford, even though the power elite themselves encouraged you (and others like you) to go into debt far beyond your means, and then they even made the way clear for your mortgages and loans to be approved. But it’s your fault, conservative patriots, because now, when jobs worth having are scarce, or even non-existent, you sense you must refuse to take a job (far beneath your training and skills) that, in reality, would never pay enough to make a financial difference for you or your family; even if you worked twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, for the rest of your life.

Are you getting this? The “too-big-to-fail” power elite, who were immediately “bailed-out” (under George Bush’s watch), to the tune of $700,000,000,000.00-plus, are now, with the help of their “ace-in-the-hole” (the GOP), going to deny you and your family a minuscule unemployment check; and simply because they think you’re “too fat and lazy to accept work”.

How long, conservative patriots, are you going to sit there, bent over and bleeding, and say to these crooks, “Thank you, sir! May I have another?” How long are you going to buy into the power elite’s other bald-faced lie: that always cutting corporate taxes, as well as letting the big-banks and corporations “regulate” themselves, will allow the wealth to “TRICKLE DOWN” to you and your family? How long are you going to remain satisfied, while waiting at your “master’s” feet (the power elite’s feet), for a few table scraps (“trickle down”) that he is willing, every once in a while, to slip you?

I’m not suggesting, here, that conservative patriots have to protest all of this, they don’t, nor would it accomplish anything! And I’m most certainly not suggesting, by any stretch of the imagination, that conservative patriots should riot or become violent, because they shouldn’t. I’m also not suggesting (just to clarify) that conservative patriots should become card-carrying socialists/communists, needless to say. I am suggesting, however, that conservative patriots should stop playing the game in which there is no way for them to win, but plenty of ways for them to lose. In other words, I believe conservative patriots (the working/middle-class) should stop supporting, and participating in, this corrupt system that is constantly raping them and their families, politically and financially: a corrupt and perverse system that then blames its victims for having allowed themselves to be raped, politically and financially (A “Catch 22″)!

President Dwight D. Eisenhower: A Prophet or a Socialist?

Dwight D. Eisenhower

The following is a portion of a speech given by President Dwight David Eisenhower in 1961 (his last speech in office).

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

* and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, WE MUST BE ALERT TO THE EQUAL AND OPPOSITE DANGER THAT PUBLIC POLICY COULD ITSELF BECOME THE CAPTIVE OF A SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL ELITE.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. (emphasis added)

via Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961.

“WE MUST BE ALERT TO THE EQUAL AND OPPOSITE DANGER THAT PUBLIC POLICY COULD ITSELF BECOME THE CAPTIVE OF A SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL ELITE.” I’m sure, if he were alive today, Eisenhower would be amazed at the technological advances that have been made but, at the same time, saddened that his warning was not heeded.

Consider this:

Before World War I, and even after, to a great extent, America was an isolationist/nationalist country: a country that believed wars in Europe, and other parts of the world, were the concern only of those nations involved. However, after World War II, as Eisenhower points out, America became anything but an isolationist/nationalist country. This major shift in world-policy would lead, over the next half century, to the U.S. being involved in war after war or “police action” after “police action”: it’s as if America, after World War II, had become the police force for the entire world.

Here is a list of the wars and “police actions” that the U.S. has been involved in since WWII:

1950-1953 Korean War

1960-1975 Vietnam War

1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion

1983 Grenada

1989 US Invasion of Panama

1990-1991 Persian Gulf War

1995-1996 Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina

1999 – present U.S. invasion and occupation of Serbia

2001 – present U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan

2003 – present U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq

via special report: History of American War Involvement Post WW2 « Moments In Time.

There have been ten wars or “police actions” involving the U.S. since 1950 (actually there have been eleven: they left out Somalia in the ’90s). In other words, thirty five of the last sixty years have seen the U.S. actively involved in some war or “police action”: America, since 1950, has been at war 58% of the time.

Here are the wars the U.S. was involved in during the sixty years prior to 1950:

1898 – The Spanish American War

1915-1918 – World War I

American History Timelines – Wars with American Involvement.

The Spanish American War was in response to a direct threat to the territory of the United States, and World War I was a war that the U.S., being an isolationist/nationalist country, did everything possible to avoid. What a huge difference this country’s choice to not mind its own business, after World War II, has made over the past sixty years.

I believe Eisenhower was warning us that war, in itself, is evil, but it is oh so good for the military, big business (corporate America) and materialistic “science” (“The Military/Industrial complex”: “Scientific Technological Elite”).

There was a time when military weapons came out of the private sector: dynamite, for instance, and, of course, the airplane. But over the last sixty years, in particular, many of our technological “wonders” have come from military research, and have then been adapted for commercial use by the private sector (“The Military/Industrial Complex”: “Scientific Technological Elite”). So, then, what is driving American ingenuity and commerce these days: the private sector, as it should be, or the military and materialistic “science” (“Scientific Technological Elite”)?

It seems that Eisenhower was, to some extent, a true prophet, since much of what he warned of has come to pass. It is the military/corporate/materialistic “science” complex that is driving this nation further into the same abyss that other imperialistic world powers have, over the millennia, vanished in. America, over the past half century, has become a nation that thrives on conflict and conquest. Of course, as we all should know by now (if we have eyes to see, ears to hear, and a properly functioning mind to reason), the military/corporate/materialistic “science” elite have taken complete control of the government and made sure that warnings, like Eisenhower’s, would be either forgotten about or labeled as nothing more than socialist propaganda. Today, many of the people who benefit most from this country’s military/corporate/materialistic “science” complex claim that Eisenhower was a socialist. They base this fraudulent claim on some of Eisenhower’s statements:

Nearly 50 years ago, a famous American gave a speech that advocated spreading the wealth.

In some countries, this notable stated, “a few families are fabulously wealthy, contribute far LESS THAN THEY SHOULD in taxes, and are INDIFFERENT to the poverty of the great masses of the people.”

“A country in this situation,” he went on, “is fraught with continual instability.” Just who made this spread-the-wealth declaration against the dangers societies invite when they let wealth concentrate? The then-president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Ike’s words back in 1960 created no controversy. Americans overwhelmingly shared his spread-the-wealth convictions. Societies that discourage vast accumulations of private wealth, they believed, simply work better. (emphasis added)

via Was Dwight D. Eisenhower a socialist?.

Note the last sentence:

Americans overwhelmingly shared his spread-the-wealth convictions. Societies that discourage vast accumulations of private wealth, they believed, simply work better.

It seems that Americans, fifty to sixty years ago, had more common sense than most do today. They understood that those who benefit most from an economic system should pay the most to support that system. It is only equitable that the filthy rich, who have a perverse excess of money, should pay the most taxes to support the system that made them filthy rich: of course, this will never happen! But if, as the government claims so often, “we’re all in this together”, then why does only the top ten percent of the population (who control everything) truly benefit from being “in this together”? What is wrong with the filthy rich and powerful “sharing the wealth” a little, or, at the least, paying their fair share in taxes?

It seems strange that a country, whose people, for the most part, claim to be God fearing “church” goers, should be so greedy, uncaring and selfish. Remember, religious patriots, what the bible says:

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10: 25)

“1Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. 2Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. 3Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure! 4Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 5You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.” (James 5)

Yet conservative working/middle-class Americans, today, unlike their parents and grandparents in the fifties, will defend these gluttonous, greedy war mongers and claim that the wealthy and powerful should pay no more than any other tax payer.

{I have never understood why these middle-class conservative-patriots can’t discern this simple fact: if a filthy rich individual is taxed at a 45 to 50% rate on $1,000,000,000.00 (personal income), then that will still leave him or her with $500 to 550,000,000.00 (this rate of taxation will, in reality, be much lower, since the filthy rich have crooked tax attorneys to search out every legal and not-so-legal loophole). But if a working/middle-class person (married with two children) is taxed at 35% of $50,000.00 (lower-middle-class income), and without the help of “legal” loopholes, then that will leave him or her (without taking into account state and local taxes) with only $32,500.00 left to pay the mortgage, property taxes, home repair, utilities, food, clothing, schooling, car payment and maintenance, gasoline, insurances, health-care costs… This, of course, means that the working/middle-class person will likely have no money saved at the end of the year. And he or she will probably be trapped in credit card debt also, which, if left unchecked, will ultimately lead to financial disaster. Listen up, middle-class patriots! It isn’t the percentage rate of taxation that counts, it’s what a person has left after taxes, and basic living costs, that counts. $500,000,000.00, the last time I checked, went a hell of a lot farther than $32,500.00. Take off those “God-bless-America”, rose-colored glasses and get a grip on reality, you’re being ripped-off every time you pay your taxes! You’re footing the federal, state, and local, tax bill, so the wealthy and powerful can pocket their money!}

These particular working/middle-class conservative-Americans will defend the very folks who have shipped their job overseas, or sold their company out from underneath them, leaving them and their families to survive any way they can. It’s almost as if the more abuse they take the more they want: “Thank you, sir! May I have another?” To me, this kind of blind patriotism (idolatry) is either willful ignorance or the ultimate expression of self abuse.

Eisenhower was right on the money, because, in my estimation, we are living in the nightmarish reality he predicted: where continual warfare leads to the wealthy and powerful elite getting wealthier and more powerful, while the working/middle-class struggles just to survive; where “designer babies” are created in test tubes (“Scientific Technological Elite”), while unborn children are LEGALLY murdered in their mother’s wombs; where the government (“Big Brother”), through technology, spies on its people, and the people have no recourse. America has become a nation OF the corrupted wealthy and powerful few, BY the corrupted wealthy and powerful few, FOR the corrupted wealthy and powerful few who try to make life a living hell for the rest of us!

Freedom of Expression vs Postmodern Despotism (Part II)

This is Part II of Freedom of Expression vs Postmodern Despotism. Please read Part I first.

Postmodern religionists (“devolving” humanists) have evidently decided that creating their idea of an earthly Utopia will require them to radically alter the political and social structure of the nations. These postmodern religious zealots desire a “one-world order”: one government, one economy, and one man-made ideology/philosophy (a postmodern religion). But most of all, they desire a world where there is no Creator God and, thus, no believers in Him. A world where mankind is god. In essence, postmodern religionists simply want (without knowledge, of course) what the serpent, their true lord and savior, had promised Eve in the garden; what mankind has been tempted by ever since:

The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL (“enlightened”).” (Genesis 3)

As I have stated before, I don’t believe we (believers) have any political rights, and my belief is based on the earthly life our Lord and Savior exhibited. So I’m not posting on this issue to stir up a political hornet’s nest. I’m writing these two posts simply because I find most postmodern religionists to be hypocritical, especially when it comes to the subject of freedom of speech and thought (expression). Like this poster states, “No Opinions TOLERATED, But Ours!”

According to most postmodern religionists, only those who think, believe, and act as they do, are permitted to openly express their views. Anyone having an opinion, which falls outside of the narrow-minded postmodern-Utopian ideology, will immediately be silenced by the speech and thought police (gestapo): this silencing is accomplished by shouting down the offending party or by labeling them “politically incorrect”, “intolerant”, and/or purveyors of “hate speech”. In this way, then, the postmodern religious tail can wag the dog (the American majority) until it has been coerced into total silence. This is how most despots initially start their regimes; and then comes the intimidations (in public venues and college campuses), violent demonstrations, burning of books, mandatory oaths to the state, arrests, beatings, torture, and lastly, a hangman’s noose.

As an example of this far-left despotism, a few years ago a sports commentator made the mistake of claiming that many people of African descent have a distinct advantage over other races, physically and, therefore, athletically. He simply stated, and without malice, that this advantage was due to the physical nature of most Africans. This man wasn’t claiming that all Africans were athletically gifted or that athleticism was all Africans have to offer the world, he was just making the same observation that many of us, including many African Americans themselves, have made over the years. After all, most African American athletes, college and pro, are not at all shy, when it comes to bragging about their physical and athletic prowess.

The postmodern political machine (the race card pundits), of course, immediately moved into action and jumped all over this man: he was labeled a “racist” and a “bigot”. The news channels, over the next few days, ran his comments and ultimately, through their politically-correct witch-hunt, ruined this man’s career. And all this commentator had done, in reality, was dare to express his opinion.

"White Men Can't Jump!"

All anyone has to do is take a long-hard look at college and professional sports, and they’ll observe, if they have eyes to see and a mind to reason, that many, or even most, African American athletes have a distinct advantage, physically and, therefore, athletically, over other races they compete against; in particular, Caucasians. This conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry, or “hate speech” (or even jealousy), this conclusion simply is the result of observation and experience. Over the last forty-five years, I have watched thousands of sports events and have come to the same conclusion as this commentator. My conclusion is not a racist one, nor, in my opinion, was this commentator’s. I’m simply sharing my conclusion, which is based on forty-five years of watching African American athletes excel over other races.

{Remember the movie, “White Men Can’t Jump”? Where was the postmodern furor over this statement, this movie? It seems that “White men” do not fall under the same “politically-correct” and “tolerant” cover that African American men do. Can anyone say, “Double Standard” or, “Discrimination” or, “Racism”? There wasn’t any “double standard”, “discrimination”, or “racism”, involved in this movie: in comparison to most Black athletes, Caucasians (White men) can’t jump. This isn’t “intolerance”, “racism”, or “bigotry”, this is just the plain and simple TRUTH!}

In my opinion, this commentator’s only real mistake was being born a Caucasian male, first of all, and then, secondly, talking about the physical attributes of another race, especially people of African descent. We Caucasian males must remember to bear our “White guilt”, according to the postmodern lunatic fringe (the minority tail). I’m sure this commentator was totally unaware of the “politically-correct” machinery that was waiting (as it always is) to seek out and destroy anyone it judged to be “politically-incorrect” and/or “intolerant”. This Caucasian male commentator was stripped of his “right” to express himself (the “right” of any American citizen), simply because he chose to share his thoughts (to express his opinion) on the physical and athletic supremacy of most African Americans.

“Political-correctness”, “tolerance” and “hate speech” have become the weapons of choice for enforcing postmodern religious censorship: the despotic silencing of expression and, in many cases, the TRUTH. “Big Brother” is alive and well and, at the moment, probably taking part in a “gay pride” parade or “a woman’s right to murder” rally. As this quote from the article states,

“Respect is being redefined as agreement, and censorship disguised as a virtuous defence of diversity…”

It is no longer enough to “live and let live” and simply say, “To each his own,” which most of us are willing to do. In the postmodern Utopian world, those, who are of a different mind-set and, therefore, opinion, are not only to “tolerate” what they sense to be ABNORMAL and DOWNRIGHT WRONG, they are also expected to respect and embrace it. According to this postmodern despotic-dogma, I not only have to “TOLERATE” the fact that homosexuals have the “right” to marry, and women have the “right” to murder their unborn (and ALIVE) children, I also have to respect and embrace these ABNORMALITIES and ATROCITIES as if they were a normal function of life. It seems to me that our “political rights”, these days, have much more to do with being WRONG than ever being RIGHT.

{TOLERATE: 3. To PUT UP WITH; ENDURE.}

With all of this said, then, has anyone else noticed how truth, whether it be simple or absolute, seems to be disappearing from the face of the earth. Truth is not very popular these days, especially when it forces certain people, whether they be African American, Caucasian, Asian, or whatever, to take a good look at themselves in the mirror. By certain people, I mean those who were brought up in a society where the messing-up of one’s own life, as well as everyone else’s, was still worthy of a pat on the back. These particular self-absorbed and self-assured folks were raised-up in a postmodern/feminist/lesbian dominated society; where competition had become a dirty word, and not competing was worthy of reward; where men were weak-willed and effeminate, and women were more masculine than feminine; where a person’s “self-esteem” and “self-actualization” (self-everything) were more important than his or hers’ tested and proven character. These folks were raised-up in the U.S. of A., over the past forty years, and they are now running the show for the rest of us.

In a nutshell, the U.S. has become a narcissistic and hedonistic nation, where beauty, health, sexual appeal, and wealth and power, are prized above all else; where the Lord’s Truth is now considered to be “old fashioned” or “out of date”. “America is a nation of laws”, but it’s also a nation of poor excuses: poor excuses for being morally and ethically bankrupt, cruel, corrupt, perverse, slipshod, and downright mediocre at best.

In the battle between freedom of expression and postmodern despotism, the postmodern religionists have won. But they haven’t won the war, nor will they. The war will be won when the Lord comes, in great power and glory, to establish His reign on earth. So, as much as I’m troubled by all of this, and I truly am, I must wait on the Lord’s righteousness to be manifested in its fullness.

“Same Sex Marriage”: What’s the Solution? America’s God, the Constitution!

It’s time, once again, for California’s homosexuals to whine about not having the “right” to hire divorce attorneys, get divorced, and pay alimony and child support. It’s just another day in the good old U.S. of A., where “freedom”, “rights” and “entitlements” (the unholy trinity) reign supreme.

June 16, 2010

Lawyer: Gays denied right by Calif. marriage ban

by Lisa Leff

The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — The landmark federal trial over the constitutionality of California’s gay marriage ban resumed Wednesday, with a lawyer arguing that supporters of the ban were trying to deprive same-sex couples of a relationship the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as a fundamental right.

Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker set aside five hours to hear closing arguments in the closely watched case.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued for the two same-sex couples who sued to overturn voter-approved Proposition 8, claiming it was a violation of their civil rights.

Olson said the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized marriage as a fundamental right — one afforded to prisoners serving life sentences and child support scofflaws — while refusing to make procreation a precondition of marriage, as evidenced by laws allowing divorces and contraception. (emphasis added)

via Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Is there anyone else who is tired of this whole “same sex marriage” debate? Here’s a solution that would put an end to this circus: if there is nothing in the oh-so precious constitution stating that marriage is to be between a man and woman only, then gays, according to this “rights” oriented document, should be able to marry. Do I endorse marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman? Absolutely not, no more than I would endorse marriage between a man and a chimpanzee. But here’s the thing: all American patriots IDOL-ize the constitution, so, then, all American patriots should abide by the constitution, whether it, on particular issues, is offensive to them or not (let’s not “cherry pick”, patriots). There isn’t anything in the constitution that says marriage must be between a man and a woman, and if the constitution is as wonderful as all of you claim, then it can’t be wrong! Or can it?

There were homosexuals living together when this “holier-than-thou” manuscript was written, over two hundred years ago. So if the “founding fathers” (self-absorbed deists) didn’t feel the need to spell out what Godly marriage is to be (man and woman joined), then why should patriotic Americans, today, be so concerned with homosexuals being married? Come on, American patriots, lighten-up; just like your Tommy Jefferson, Benji Franklin, Georgie Washington and Tommy Paine did all those years ago! Be free! Spread your wings and fly! “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!”

The amazing thing to me is that heterosexual marriage, in this country, has become a joke, so why make a stink about another perversion of the “institution”? Americans laugh at sitcoms where every adult in the show has been, or is in the process of becoming, divorced. Marriage in America, like everything else of God, has become something to scoff at; so why raise a big stink about homosexuals marrying?

After all, aren’t Americans all about “personal freedoms” and “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? Well, American homosexuals think (erroneously, of course) that marriage will bring them new (and “equal”) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How, then, can you true “freedom-ain’t-free” patriots, who are willing to sacrifice your own children “on the alter of freedom”, turn around and deny your fellow Americans, no matter how emotionally, mentally or Spiritually ill they may be, their freedom? Let’s not be hypocritical!

I say, if gays want to be married, then let them! Then they’ll get to suffer along with the 50 to 70% of Americans whose (heterosexual) “marriages” end in divorce, and simply because the Lord was not involved in the process. Plus, these marriages will mean long-term job security for American divorce attorneys: after all, we are still in a bad recession, and the last thing we need are divorce attorneys standing in line at the unemployment office.

On a more somber note, if marriage between a man and woman was taken seriously, and still held to as something sacred, then, perhaps, there wouldn’t be an issue like this to debate. {Why should we hold marriage sacred, when we can’t even hold human life in the womb sacred?} As the “institution of marriage”, over the last century-plus, has been cheapened and mutilated by self-involved (“self-actualized”) and non-committal heterosexual couples, who treat marriage like a ball-point pen (use it until it doesn’t work any longer, and then go get a new one), the door has been opened to this kind of perversion, as well as many others: “unwanted pregnancies”, abortion and mentally ill and angry, violent children (think sexual and physical abuse messes with a child, so does divorce!). The cry from the “religious-right” that “marriage is a sacred institution” falls on deaf ears these days, because marriage, in the U.S. of A., is anything but sacred. Nothing is sacred in the good old U.S. of A., because America has become an “enlightened” nation that has no need of “silly, sentimental superstition”!

Freedom of Expression vs. Postmodern Despotism

Below is a quote from a Pew Forum article that caught my attention.

“We are in danger of losing the battle for freedom of speech,” Mr. Rushdie said. It is being recast as a Western imposition, not a universal human right. Respect is being redefined as agreement, and censorship disguised as a virtuous defence of diversity…

Freedom of expression and imagination “is now very much back in question, and is strongly under attack by religious authorities and religious armies of different sorts, and not only Islam,” Mr. Rushdie said. (emphasis added)

via “We are in danger of losing the battle for freedom of speech”: Salman Rushdie.

I would imagine that many will come to the conclusion that Mr. Rushdie is speaking exclusively of the Islamic religion. But I believe Mr. Rushdie is also speaking of a worldwide political ideology that is actively seeking to silence all dissenting voices:

“Freedom of expression and imagination ‘is now very much back in question, and is strongly under attack by religious authorities and religious armies OF DIFFERENT SORTS, and not only Islam.’”

A worldwide political ideology that is, in reality, nothing more than a new form of religion: a despotic postmodern religion seeking to establish its version of a Utopian world.

Humanists, over the past forty or fifty years, have been absorbed into this new despotic religion. The humanists’ openness, intellectually and culturally, has all but disappeared and been replaced with the closed-off, arrogant, and aggressive, pseudo-intellectualism of postmodern religionists.

By pseudo-intellectualism, I mean older humanists, for the most part, were highly educated, intellectually gifted men and women who were open to differing opinions and ideologies. These men and women also loved and supported the Arts: painting, sculpting, theater, dance and music. Whereas today’s postmodern religionists refuse to listen to any differing opinion, whatsoever, have just enough education to be dangerous, and are, for the most part, lacking in knowledge of, or appreciation for, the (true) Arts. Postmodern religionists have also been “educated” in a more narrow-minded system (public and higher) than older humanists: an education system which, as opposed to teaching, indoctrinates students with its “politically-correct” and “tolerant” curriculum: “Women’s Studies”, “Multicultural Studies” and “The Impact of ‘Rap music’ on American Culture”. While claiming to “value diversity” and “open-mindedness”, this narrow-minded “education” system hypocritically seeks to silence all diverse opinions and ideologies; which are, in its opinion, “politically-incorrect” and/or “intolerant”. According, then, to these religious zealots, freedom of expression is only for those who have sworn their oath of loyalty to the postmodern religious dogma; all others are to either conform or be coerced into remaining silent.

The sad results of this narrow-minded and despotic education-system can be observed all around us. Today, there are far too many Master and PhD degrees in history, philosophy and biology, etc, who are almost dead, culturally/artistically: they adore Lady GaGa and Britney Spears, but have never listened to Beethoven’s nine symphonies or a Chopin Nocturne; they obsess on television sitcoms, comic books and X Box games, but wouldn’t know Rembrandt’s paintings from Pablo Piccaso’s, or Christine Aguilera’s on-stage gyrations from Twyla Tharp’s legitimate choreography. Many of these supposedly highly educated men and women (“our brightest minds”) cannot even take part in a controversial conversation without resorting to child-like shouting and name calling, nor can many of them even identify their own state on a map.

Thus many of these self-proclaimed geniuses are at a complete loss, when it comes to discerning what is true or false, politically, ideologically, morally or ethically, and what is true Art, as opposed to merely someone’s hobby, religious idol or garbage. The only political/ideological/moral discernment most of these folks possess comes from what they have heard from others or made-up in their own minds. And the only Art they are familiar with is the street-born, low-life variety (“crafts”): “rap” and “alternative Rock” (Music), “Saturday Night Live” and “The Kardashians” (Theater), a crucifix in a jar of urine and cartoons (Visual Art), and primitive bumping and grinding in an overtly sexual, vulgar manner (Dance).

Western European culture has been rejected by most postmodern religionists today. Postmodern religionists have real issues with those who set a high standard of excellence in their work and have a real sense of personal responsibility: if everyone took personal responsibility for their actions and sought to achieve excellence in their work and life, then the lazy, unproductive and low-life leaches in society would feel left out; and, “Darwin knows”, postmodern religionists can’t “tolerate” that. The postmodern must bring everyone down to the level of the lowest achiever. This is the reason why many bright and eager-to-learn students, in this country’s public “education” system, find it hard to excel: these students are literally held back, so the lazy, arrogant, and almost always absent, problem student (the “player”) doesn’t have his or her precious “self-esteem” affected in a negative way. Instead of seeking to raise these problem students up to the educational level of their peers, who attend school to learn (as opposed to goofing-off or selling drugs), the complete opposite is accomplished: “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America”. The other reason for the postmodern rejection of Western European culture is, in my opinion, due primarily to its Caucasian-male roots: Caucasian/heterosexual/Christian men are despised by most postmodern feminists, lesbians and homosexuals.

There is nothing in the postmodern reality that will ever be considered good or bad, right or wrong, since everything, in their warped reality, is “relative”: everything is “equal”, unless, of course, something is deemed “politically-incorrect” and/or “intolerant”. The postmodern Utopian world is a sad place, where mediocrity thrives and excellence dies a slow and tedious death.

Is it any wonder, then, that the largest portion of public-school-indoctrinated students (Generations “X” and “Y”), over the past forty years, have been horribly lacking in basic reading and apprehension skills, basic writing and communication skills, and simple problem-solving. And, of course, these developmentally arrested lost sheep are totally incapable of discerning true Art forms from corporate-commercial excrement?

{I left out science and computation skills, because the Darwinian/atheist nature of this country’s public-school systems stresses “science” and math skills. After all, the postmodern/Darwinian/atheists need to keep their little student-robots prepared to carry on the war against God; so “materialistic science”, as opposed to legitimate science, and math skills are stressed, highly, in their tax-payer-funded indoctrination-camps (schools). For anyone who has ever watched Jay Leno do his street interviews (where he asks folks easy questions and the majority are totally clueless), what I’m writing, here, should not be that surprising or objectionable. Jay’s interviewees are the results of a public-education system run by postmodern religionists: a self-replicating education-system, where postmodern robots raise up more postmodern robots. A self-replicating education-system whose long-term (behavioral) goal is to raise up an entire world of mindless, “politically-correct” and “tolerant” ancestors of puke-eating chimps.}

Art!

In the postmodern religionists’ retro-grade-inverted sense of reality, a make-it-up-as-they-go reality, a carved out piece of wood from Africa (a fertility god, for instance) is as much a work of Art as Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa or Michelangelo’s David. The word “craft” has evidently been removed from the language, since everything in a creative sense is now considered to be Art, no matter how primitive and poorly made (“crafted”). It seems that our wonderful gifts from the Lord, creativity, the ability to learn and discern, which once set us apart from the rest of creation, are now being attacked and destroyed. It seems that the postmodern elite desire for man to become more animal-like (instinctual) and, thus, ungodly.

Craft!

According to postmodern religionists, everything is now to be done by instinct (“lifestyle”, “sexual orientation”, etc.): “What does your instinct tell you to do?” In a world of no absolute truths, where everything is totally up for grabs, instinct is all one really has to make any kind of decision or judgment: “free moral agency”. Evolved human instinct, in the mind of the postmodern, has replaced the leading of the Lord’s Spirit and Word.

{“Free moral agency”, in my estimation, wreaks of an individualism that stands in the way of true moral and ethical judgment, since every “free moral agent” has his or her own sense of what is moral and ethical behavior. How, then, can a nation of “free moral agents” come to a consensus on what is moral and ethical behavior? After all, if we’re all “free moral agents”, then how can we impose our will, when it comes to morality and ethics, or anything else for that matter, on other “free moral agents”? Isn’t every “free moral agent” FREE to decide what is moral and ethical and what isn’t, according to his or her own INSTINCTS: INSTINCTS, according to the postmodern religion, passed down from his or her ancestor (a puke-eating chimpanzee)?}

With this is mind, then, is it any wonder that what was once considered to be moral and ethical behavior is now considered “outdated” and “old fashioned”? And is it, then, any wonder that many people are becoming, everyday, more animal-like in their behavior?

Moral relativism, which is devoid of the Lord’s Truth and discernment, is, I believe, at the heart of our societal ills. Most of this postmodern INSTINCTUAL wandering (“free moral agency”) can, of course, be traced back to “the enlightenment” and one unsubstantiated and dehumanizing hypothesis: Darwin’s fairy-tale, “natural selection”/evolution.

I will finish this in Part II.

“A Deluding Influence” XVI

{I have decided, from time to time, to post certain items that I sense (through my Spirit, hopefully) speak to many of the issues I write on. These will be short snippets (NOT ALWAYS), and I’ve decided to call them, “A Deluding Influence” (2 Thessalonians 2: 11)}

The following articles exhibit, once again, the corrupt and pagan nature of Catholicism. It seems that Pope Benedict XVI is very “double minded”, he speaks out of both sides of his face: the political and the falsely religious:

June 11, 2010

Pope begs forgiveness, promises action on abuse

by Nicole Winfield

The Associated Press

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Addressing the clerical abuse scandal from the heart of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI begged forgiveness Friday from victims and promised to “do everything possible” to protect children at a Mass celebrated by 15,000 priests from around the world.

While symbolic, Benedict’s pledge failed to satisfy victims groups who said promises were useless without a clear-cut action plan to root out pedophile priests, expose the bishops who protected them and change the Vatican policies and culture that allowed abuse to continue.

His comments came during a Mass at St. Peter’s Square marking the Vatican’s Year of the Priest – a year marred by revelations of hundreds of new cases of clerical abuse in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, as well as cover-ups by bishops and evidence of long-standing Vatican inaction. (emphasis added)

via Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The Modern Hierophant: The Keeper of Mysteries

“…Pope Benedict XVI begged forgiveness Friday from victims and promised to “DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE” to protect children…” Remember the pope’s promise, here, as you read this next article:

June 11, 2010

Pope Benedict rejects calls to end celibacy rule

by Mitchell Landsberg

Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Rome — Standing before more than 10,000 Roman Catholic priests, Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday strongly reaffirmed the Vatican’s commitment to priestly vows of celibacy, cutting off speculation that he might reconsider the issue in light of the church’s sexual abuse scandal.

At an outdoor vigil in St. Peter’s Square that veered between moments of deep reverence and outbursts of enthusiasm more characteristic of a soccer game, the pope told the gathering of priests, believed to be the largest in history, that celibacy “is made possible by the grace of God … who asks us to transcend ourselves.” Celibacy would be a “scandal,” he said, only in “a world in which God is not there.” (emphasis added)

via Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The Ancient Pagan Hierophant: The Keeper of Mysteries

Yes, the pope promised to “DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE” to stop the abuse of children, everything, that is, except allowing priests to marry: celibacy is the primary cause of rampant homosexuality in the Priesthood, and homosexuality, in the priesthood, has led, I believe, to the abuse of children. As with everything else in Catholicism (EVERYTHING), the priesthood and celibacy have their origins in The Ancient Mysteries, or paganism.

Celibacy, as well as the pope (hierophant), the Vatican, the Eucharist, and the priesthood, is of Satan’s design, not, as the pope claims, by the Lord’s grace:

But while Constantine thus essayed to make the Christian Community respectable in the eyes of the world, and to swell the number of its adherents, he also endeavoured to impart to its Churches and services an external magnificence and splendid scenic effects, which should, not merely rival, but even surpass, the pagan temples and their ceremonies. He gave to the Christian bishops, for conversion into churches, several imposing buildings called Basilicas, which had been used for Royal Courts of Justice, and at the same time was lavish in his gifts of money for the elaborate decoration of the new places of worship, and for the provision of superb vestments for the clergy. And soon the Christian Bishop, exalted on his lofty throne in the apse of the Basilica, clad in costly vestments, surrounded on a lower level by his presbyters, and with a marble alter, adorned with gold and gems, on a still lower level in front of him, had no reason to fear comparison with the Flamen Dialis, or with any other of the great Pagan priests in Rome…

(The Great Prophecies of the Centuries concerning the Church Volume 4: [pages 537-39] G.H. Pember)

And so the abuse, delusions and outright lies of Christendom continue on!

Here are some older posts on the subject of pagan Catholicism:

The True Church of Christ Does Not Exist To “Make The World A Better Place”!

The True Church of Christ Does Not Exist To “Make The World A Better Place”! Part II