The last of three videos on why it is imperative to vote for Donald Trump. This one outlines the globalist agenda. As I've mentioned earlier this month:
What we are witnessing, since 2010, is the decapitation of secular leaders in the Islamic world and the empowerment of the worst monsters on the planet. And the US is behind it all, or is at the very least complicit and is aiding this sea change in the balance of power in the world through the use of military action. Egypt got lucky. The Egyptian military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood. But Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and likely Syria have fallen. Turkey looks like it is close to toppling as well.
And why do militant atheists who run the New World Order throw their support behind fanatical Islamists? Because they share a common enemy. The atheists want to eliminate the one power in the world that can defeat them: Christianity. But they can't do it alone. Generations of propaganda and brainwashing in the public schools have greatly weakened the Christian West, but the atheists cannot openly bloody their hands to deal the death blow. They must import millions of Muslim rapefugees to act as their shock troops. This mercenary army of mostly adult male supposed refugees then acts out of its own natural inclination to destroy that which it despises the most: the narcissism, hedonism, and meaninglessness that is what the West has degenerated into. The NWO do not need to command the thousands of radical Muslims who are being shipped in along with the millions of unvetted migrants, there doesn't need to be any established chain of command, the NWO just needs to invite the starving lion into the arena and let it do what it does naturally.
We in the West have one chance left to prevent our own enslavement and the destruction of the brightest light humanity has ever seen. If we don't elect Donald Trump in November then the destruction of the West will be complete. It's a gamble, to be sure. Trump might be assassinated, or overpowered by a criminal Congress, or a criminal Supreme Court, or he might just turn feckless upon taking office. But he's the one and only chance we have left. However big a gamble, he's our only hope, and we have to elect him this November.
Runs 26 minutes:
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Friday, July 29, 2016
Donald Trump and the Threat of Global Jihad
Here is the second video in the series on why we need to vote for Donald Trump. It deals with the Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority.
There is a threat, not only to our way of life, but to our very existence. This is what I said three years ago:
There has been a war going on for the past 1400 years for the destruction of Western civilisation. Plague had weakened the West, allowing Islam to spread, but because Islam never invented anything on its own, instead relying on knowledge stolen from conquered peoples, it stagnated. The Mongol invasions introduced new technologies to the West where lack of strong centralised authority and easy money allowed for great inovation. Hand cannons became guns, Indian mathematics became banking and mercantilism, and the desire to cut free of the Islamic yoke prompted explorers to find alternate routes for the acquisition of spices and, ultimately, the discover of the New World. The West surged technologically and beat back Islam until, by the 20th century, most of the Islamic world was divided up among Western colonies.
The West grew complacent, and Islam appropriated Western technology, growing stronger, waiting for the perfect opportunity to turn the tide of the war. March 1994, US President Clinton pulls out of Mogadishu. CIA trained Islamist Osama bin Laden saw this as the turning point in the war. The West had backed down. Furthermore, the West had grown soft. The elite intelligentsia had been denigrating the West for thirty years. The time was ripe to strike.
It's been twelve years since 9/11. Bin Laden and his ilk set out to destroy the Western way of life. With a United States government set on eliminating freedom of speech, the right to self defense, the total obliteration of privacy with unreasonable search and seizure of everyone's data, and the extrajudicial killing of Americans with drone strikes, it is safe to say that they have succeeded. The terrorists have won. The West is over.
And this is what Bill Maher said.
Looking at Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump I'm beginning to rethink my assertion that the West is over. There is a chance, however slim, to halt the Islamic invasion. There is a chance to take our countries back from the globalists. It is a huge gamble, and it may very well fail, but it is our last chance, because if we don't do something now there won't be enough of us in the future to do anything. The West has stopped breeding. Unless we do something now we'll be so vastly outnumbered in a generation that it will be impossible to fight back.
Runs 30 minutes.
There is a threat, not only to our way of life, but to our very existence. This is what I said three years ago:
There has been a war going on for the past 1400 years for the destruction of Western civilisation. Plague had weakened the West, allowing Islam to spread, but because Islam never invented anything on its own, instead relying on knowledge stolen from conquered peoples, it stagnated. The Mongol invasions introduced new technologies to the West where lack of strong centralised authority and easy money allowed for great inovation. Hand cannons became guns, Indian mathematics became banking and mercantilism, and the desire to cut free of the Islamic yoke prompted explorers to find alternate routes for the acquisition of spices and, ultimately, the discover of the New World. The West surged technologically and beat back Islam until, by the 20th century, most of the Islamic world was divided up among Western colonies.
The West grew complacent, and Islam appropriated Western technology, growing stronger, waiting for the perfect opportunity to turn the tide of the war. March 1994, US President Clinton pulls out of Mogadishu. CIA trained Islamist Osama bin Laden saw this as the turning point in the war. The West had backed down. Furthermore, the West had grown soft. The elite intelligentsia had been denigrating the West for thirty years. The time was ripe to strike.
It's been twelve years since 9/11. Bin Laden and his ilk set out to destroy the Western way of life. With a United States government set on eliminating freedom of speech, the right to self defense, the total obliteration of privacy with unreasonable search and seizure of everyone's data, and the extrajudicial killing of Americans with drone strikes, it is safe to say that they have succeeded. The terrorists have won. The West is over.
And this is what Bill Maher said.
Looking at Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump I'm beginning to rethink my assertion that the West is over. There is a chance, however slim, to halt the Islamic invasion. There is a chance to take our countries back from the globalists. It is a huge gamble, and it may very well fail, but it is our last chance, because if we don't do something now there won't be enough of us in the future to do anything. The West has stopped breeding. Unless we do something now we'll be so vastly outnumbered in a generation that it will be impossible to fight back.
Runs 30 minutes.
Why Trump Is The Best Candidate For President
I was writing a piece titled "What is at Stake in the Next Election" until something called a "heat dome" descended upon the US and created weather approximating the fifth circle of Hell. Since both computers and humans don't like intolerable heat, that piece had to be put on hold. It appears that someone else has done a lot of the work for me, creating a fabulous three part video series that covers almost all of the same ground.
The first video examines the differences between Donald Trump, Hitlery Roddamn Clinton, and Obola. Two are career politicians who have never worked a day in their lives and have gotten to positions of high power through corruption, propaganda, and identity politics. Donald Trump has worked almost non-stop since he was a little boy and has taken incredible risks to create a global megabrand, recognised the world over as the mark of high quality. People say Donald Trump has no experience in politics, so this disqualifies him from being president. That's a lie for two reasons: 1. we've seen over the past two and a half decades what happens when we let career politicians run things, so being a career politician does not qualify someone to be president either, and 2. Donald Trump has extensive experience dealing with local, national, and international governments through his business operations. To get a board nailed or a bucket of concrete poured in New York requires deals to be made with half a dozen government agencies. Multiply that by all the properties Trump has built all over the world, and all the deals he has negotiated, and you can see that he does have political experience. Donald Trump has political and real world experience. That makes him the most qualified person to run in a long time.
Runs 20 minutes.
The first video examines the differences between Donald Trump, Hitlery Roddamn Clinton, and Obola. Two are career politicians who have never worked a day in their lives and have gotten to positions of high power through corruption, propaganda, and identity politics. Donald Trump has worked almost non-stop since he was a little boy and has taken incredible risks to create a global megabrand, recognised the world over as the mark of high quality. People say Donald Trump has no experience in politics, so this disqualifies him from being president. That's a lie for two reasons: 1. we've seen over the past two and a half decades what happens when we let career politicians run things, so being a career politician does not qualify someone to be president either, and 2. Donald Trump has extensive experience dealing with local, national, and international governments through his business operations. To get a board nailed or a bucket of concrete poured in New York requires deals to be made with half a dozen government agencies. Multiply that by all the properties Trump has built all over the world, and all the deals he has negotiated, and you can see that he does have political experience. Donald Trump has political and real world experience. That makes him the most qualified person to run in a long time.
Runs 20 minutes.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Reincarnation in Early Church Politics
A lot of people tend to say that the Council of Nicea in 325 outlawed belief in reincarnation so the bishops could control people. If you only have one life then they can control you.
This is incorrect for two reasons. First, reincarnation was not discussed at the Council of Nicea. The closest thing to reincarnation was the pre-existence of the soul, and that was declared anathema in 553 at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. That would rule out reincarnation by extension, but reincarnation itself was not mentioned there either.
A number of heavy hitters within the early church did oppose the idea of reincarnation, and the general push seems to have come from Irenaeus who lived in the second century. Irenaeus lived during a time when Rome regularly, and often brutally, persecuted Christians. He found himself in charge of a sizable Christian community basically because all the people above him in the area had been killed. There was a lot of confusion and discord within the community, so he thought that if Christianity was to survive there needed to be unity of belief. There had to be one catholic (meaning universal) church.
So Irenaeus went around condemning people he saw as heretics. But he didn't do it out of desire for political power. Partly it was driven by fear. If Christians can't agree on anything then the whole movement might vanish in the face of Roman persecution. Another driving force behind his condemnation was because there really were a whole lot of fruitcakes out there. There were people trying to establish cults of personality, who preached that they could give you all the power of prophecy and unless every person was a prophet then you weren't really born again. You don't even have to think about it to see that this is insane. People take some initiation by a charismatic and then they get up on stage and start spouting whatever nonsense comes to mind as if it were genuine prophecy. Irenaeus did believe in genuine prophecy. He himself had had veridical visions (the death of his teacher Polycarp being one such vision). But there is no way to approach this idea that everyone gets to be a prophet in a rational way. You can't possibly test it. If everyone is a prophet then someone with impure motives can lead a whole lot of weak minded people astray. Irenaeus said that prophecy should be checked against what is written in the gospels (and you need to know which gospels are real in order to check, and Irenaeus was a driving force behind the establishment of the four canonical gospels as canon).
A spiritual successor of Irenaeus, Athanasius, was one of the chief opponents of Arius, whose beliefs were denounced at Nicea. Arius believed Christ was created by God and that the Holy Spirit wasn't even part of God at all. Athanasius was by no means popular. He was exiled several times but he kept managing to worm his way back into his old position as Bishop of Alexandria. I wouldn't say he had political motives, he probably was genuine in his beliefs.
Neither did Constantine himself have any political motives. He too was genuine in his beliefs, and he was a very simple man who wanted to keep everything simple. He convened the Council at Nicea to work out the basics that every Christian should believe, sort of to set out a definition, but he also believed that there was room for congenial debate and disagreement on particulars. He wasn't trying to beat anyone over the head with doctrine. There were times when the bishops were carrying on and he had to step in to resolve issues just to keep the council moving, but it wasn't out of any particular political agenda.
We then move on to the council in 553 and the rejection of Origenism. I don't see this as a power play either. Origen taught, like Arius, that Christ is less than God and is of a different substance than God. What he believed in regard to reincarnation specifically seems to depend on who you ask (and the agenda of who you ask). He believed in the pre-existence of the soul, definitely. All souls were created, not at conception out of nothing as if sperm and egg have magic powers, but by God prior to the creation of the universe. All souls started out as perfectly good, but they have free will, so some of them got bored of contemplating God all the time and they rebelled. When Origen talks about bad deeds souls did in their previous lives he seems to be talking about what souls did in Heaven prior to birth in a human body, not successive human lives on Earth. He also taught that all souls will eventually return to their primordial state of purity, so Hell is not eternal, even if it lasts a really long time.
The problem is that Origen wrote such a vast library of work that it's practically impossible for any one person to read, let alone comprehend, all of it. Whether he believed in reincarnation as such is not important, to me at least, because rejection of pre-existence of the soul automatically rules out reincarnation.
This is all just a side note, however, because the primary goal of the 553 council was the rejection of Nestorianism, which is an entirely different issue unto itself. Origen was just sort of tacked on as a rider. If there were political motivations at the council they weren't the bishop's motivations, they were the motivations of the Emperor Justinian himself. The "Church Fathers," or whoever, weren't trying to control people's lives, it was Justinian. Justinian was a despot and a tyrant and he believed himself to be the world's one true authority on absolutely everything. Anyone who disagreed with him on anything had to face his wrath. If anyone wanted to control a person's one and only life it was Justinian, not anyone within the church, but even Justinian's grip on power could not last forever, and bickering over minor issues would continue. (For example, the Cathars in the 13th and 14th
centuries believed in reincarnation, and they were pretty popular in
what is now southern France, until the king of France had them killed
for political reasons.)
Aside from the no pre-existence thing, I don't really see the control issue entering in. Most theologians just believed that the soul was created either by God at conception or somehow the soul was created by the union of sperm and egg (creationism and traducianism). However prevalent belief in reincarnation was for early Christians, it just seems to have died out by inertia. Theologians accepted the ruling against pre-existence, so they just didn't question it. Not questioning things is something adults do as a matter of being adults, that has nothing to do with trying to impose a power structure from the top down, it's about fitting into a power structure from the bottom up out of pressure for acceptance. People want to fit in. "If my teacher doesn't believe in reincarnation, then neither will I. Please like me." You have a handful of unpopular people with an unpopular idea, and over time there are fewer and fewer supporters until there are none left. That's just how things work.
This is incorrect for two reasons. First, reincarnation was not discussed at the Council of Nicea. The closest thing to reincarnation was the pre-existence of the soul, and that was declared anathema in 553 at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. That would rule out reincarnation by extension, but reincarnation itself was not mentioned there either.
A number of heavy hitters within the early church did oppose the idea of reincarnation, and the general push seems to have come from Irenaeus who lived in the second century. Irenaeus lived during a time when Rome regularly, and often brutally, persecuted Christians. He found himself in charge of a sizable Christian community basically because all the people above him in the area had been killed. There was a lot of confusion and discord within the community, so he thought that if Christianity was to survive there needed to be unity of belief. There had to be one catholic (meaning universal) church.
So Irenaeus went around condemning people he saw as heretics. But he didn't do it out of desire for political power. Partly it was driven by fear. If Christians can't agree on anything then the whole movement might vanish in the face of Roman persecution. Another driving force behind his condemnation was because there really were a whole lot of fruitcakes out there. There were people trying to establish cults of personality, who preached that they could give you all the power of prophecy and unless every person was a prophet then you weren't really born again. You don't even have to think about it to see that this is insane. People take some initiation by a charismatic and then they get up on stage and start spouting whatever nonsense comes to mind as if it were genuine prophecy. Irenaeus did believe in genuine prophecy. He himself had had veridical visions (the death of his teacher Polycarp being one such vision). But there is no way to approach this idea that everyone gets to be a prophet in a rational way. You can't possibly test it. If everyone is a prophet then someone with impure motives can lead a whole lot of weak minded people astray. Irenaeus said that prophecy should be checked against what is written in the gospels (and you need to know which gospels are real in order to check, and Irenaeus was a driving force behind the establishment of the four canonical gospels as canon).
A spiritual successor of Irenaeus, Athanasius, was one of the chief opponents of Arius, whose beliefs were denounced at Nicea. Arius believed Christ was created by God and that the Holy Spirit wasn't even part of God at all. Athanasius was by no means popular. He was exiled several times but he kept managing to worm his way back into his old position as Bishop of Alexandria. I wouldn't say he had political motives, he probably was genuine in his beliefs.
Neither did Constantine himself have any political motives. He too was genuine in his beliefs, and he was a very simple man who wanted to keep everything simple. He convened the Council at Nicea to work out the basics that every Christian should believe, sort of to set out a definition, but he also believed that there was room for congenial debate and disagreement on particulars. He wasn't trying to beat anyone over the head with doctrine. There were times when the bishops were carrying on and he had to step in to resolve issues just to keep the council moving, but it wasn't out of any particular political agenda.
We then move on to the council in 553 and the rejection of Origenism. I don't see this as a power play either. Origen taught, like Arius, that Christ is less than God and is of a different substance than God. What he believed in regard to reincarnation specifically seems to depend on who you ask (and the agenda of who you ask). He believed in the pre-existence of the soul, definitely. All souls were created, not at conception out of nothing as if sperm and egg have magic powers, but by God prior to the creation of the universe. All souls started out as perfectly good, but they have free will, so some of them got bored of contemplating God all the time and they rebelled. When Origen talks about bad deeds souls did in their previous lives he seems to be talking about what souls did in Heaven prior to birth in a human body, not successive human lives on Earth. He also taught that all souls will eventually return to their primordial state of purity, so Hell is not eternal, even if it lasts a really long time.
The problem is that Origen wrote such a vast library of work that it's practically impossible for any one person to read, let alone comprehend, all of it. Whether he believed in reincarnation as such is not important, to me at least, because rejection of pre-existence of the soul automatically rules out reincarnation.
This is all just a side note, however, because the primary goal of the 553 council was the rejection of Nestorianism, which is an entirely different issue unto itself. Origen was just sort of tacked on as a rider. If there were political motivations at the council they weren't the bishop's motivations, they were the motivations of the Emperor Justinian himself. The "Church Fathers," or whoever, weren't trying to control people's lives, it was Justinian. Justinian was a despot and a tyrant and he believed himself to be the world's one true authority on absolutely everything. Anyone who disagreed with him on anything had to face his wrath. If anyone wanted to control a person's one and only life it was Justinian, not anyone within the church, but even Justinian's grip on power could not last forever, and bickering over minor issues would continue. (For example, the Cathars in the 13th and 14th
centuries believed in reincarnation, and they were pretty popular in
what is now southern France, until the king of France had them killed
for political reasons.)
Aside from the no pre-existence thing, I don't really see the control issue entering in. Most theologians just believed that the soul was created either by God at conception or somehow the soul was created by the union of sperm and egg (creationism and traducianism). However prevalent belief in reincarnation was for early Christians, it just seems to have died out by inertia. Theologians accepted the ruling against pre-existence, so they just didn't question it. Not questioning things is something adults do as a matter of being adults, that has nothing to do with trying to impose a power structure from the top down, it's about fitting into a power structure from the bottom up out of pressure for acceptance. People want to fit in. "If my teacher doesn't believe in reincarnation, then neither will I. Please like me." You have a handful of unpopular people with an unpopular idea, and over time there are fewer and fewer supporters until there are none left. That's just how things work.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
A Dark Day for Turkey
Yesterday's coup attempt in Turkey failed. 200-300 people were killed and several
thousand injured. The military attempted to seize control from
president Erdoğan because
he is an Islamist shill for the US and NATO and Turkey was founded on
secularism. The Turkish military is good, relatively speaking,
but the government is corrupt and evil.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the closest thing the Turks have to a hero of the First World War, and the father of modern day Turkey, dissolved the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Caliphate in 1923. He was a committed secularist, believing that while religion was essential for the individual, it had no place interfering in the business of the state. For the past century the Turkish military has been the bulwark of Atatürk's vision, and they have used their power to check the government on four previous occasions, in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1996.
Erdoğan, on the other hand, is a committed Islamist and an Ottomanist. He stands for everything the military and Atatürk opposed.
Erdoğan took power under dubious circumstances. There were convenient blackouts during the election, and vans were discovered filled with pre-filled ballots. During his tenure he has sought to usurp power from the military for himself and has launched airstrikes against Kurdish fighters who oppose ISIS and ordered Russian jets flying over Syrian airspace to be shot down under false pretext. There are rumors that he and his ilk have also been directly funding ISIS and have been stoking the flames of the Syrian civil war.
Due to Erdoğan's military policy and his escalating attempts at the Islamization of the government, the military tried to oust him from power. They have failed.
Ralph Peters comments:
So who is the man our own president rushed to support because he was
“democratically elected?” Recep Tayyip Erdogan is openly Islamist and
affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which President Obama appears to
believe represents the best hope for the Middle East. But the
difference between ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t one
of purpose, but merely of manners: Muslim Brothers wash the blood off
their hands before they sit down to dinner with their dupes.
With barely a murmured “Tut-tut!” from Western
leaders, Erdogan has dismantled Turkey’s secular constitution (which the
military is duty-bound to protect). His “democracy” resembles Putin’s,
not ours. Key opposition figures have been driven into exile or
banned. Opposition parties have been suppressed. Recent elections have
not been held so much as staged. And Erdogan has torn the fresh scab
from the Kurdish wound, fostering civil war in Turkey’s southeast for
his own political advantage.
Erdogan has packed Turkey’s courts with Islamists.
He appointed pliant, pro-Islamist generals and admirals, while staging
show trials of those of whom he wished to rid the country. He has de
facto, if not yet de jure, curtailed women’s freedoms. He dissolved the
wall between mosque and state (Friday night, he used mosques’
loudspeakers to call his supporters into the streets). Not least, he
had long allowed foreign fighters to transit Turkey to join ISIS and has
aggressively backed other extremists whom he believed he could manage.
What we are witnessing, since 2010, is the decapitation of secular leaders in the Islamic world and the empowerment of the worst monsters on the planet. And the US is behind it all, or is at the very least complicit and is aiding this sea change in the balance of power in the world through the use of military action. Egypt got lucky. The Egyptian military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood. But Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and likely Syria have fallen. Turkey looks like it is close to toppling as well.
And why do militant atheists who run the New World Order throw their support behind fanatical Islamists? Because they share a common enemy. The atheists want to eliminate the one power in the world that can defeat them: Christianity. But they can't do it alone. Generations of propaganda and brainwashing in the public schools have greatly weakened the Christian West, but the atheists cannot openly bloody their hands to deal the death blow. They must import millions of Muslim rapefugees to act as their shock troops. This mercenary army of mostly adult male supposed refugees then acts out of its own natural inclination to destroy that which it despises the most: the narcissism, hedonism, and meaninglessness that is what the West has degenerated into. The NWO do not need to command the thousands of radical Muslims who are being shipped in along with the millions of unvetted migrants, there doesn't need to be any established chain of command, the NWO just needs to invite the starving lion into the arena and let it do what it does naturally.
We in the West have one chance left to prevent our own enslavement and the destruction of the brightest light humanity has ever seen. If we don't elect Donald Trump in November then the destruction of the West will be complete. It's a gamble, to be sure. Trump might be assassinated, or overpowered by a criminal Congress, or a criminal Supreme Court, or he might just turn feckless upon taking office. But he's the one and only chance we have left. However big a gamble, he's our only hope, and we have to elect him this November.
thousand injured. The military attempted to seize control from
president Erdoğan because
he is an Islamist shill for the US and NATO and Turkey was founded on
secularism. The Turkish military is good, relatively speaking,
but the government is corrupt and evil.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the closest thing the Turks have to a hero of the First World War, and the father of modern day Turkey, dissolved the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Caliphate in 1923. He was a committed secularist, believing that while religion was essential for the individual, it had no place interfering in the business of the state. For the past century the Turkish military has been the bulwark of Atatürk's vision, and they have used their power to check the government on four previous occasions, in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1996.
Erdoğan, on the other hand, is a committed Islamist and an Ottomanist. He stands for everything the military and Atatürk opposed.
Erdoğan took power under dubious circumstances. There were convenient blackouts during the election, and vans were discovered filled with pre-filled ballots. During his tenure he has sought to usurp power from the military for himself and has launched airstrikes against Kurdish fighters who oppose ISIS and ordered Russian jets flying over Syrian airspace to be shot down under false pretext. There are rumors that he and his ilk have also been directly funding ISIS and have been stoking the flames of the Syrian civil war.
Due to Erdoğan's military policy and his escalating attempts at the Islamization of the government, the military tried to oust him from power. They have failed.
Ralph Peters comments:
So who is the man our own president rushed to support because he was
“democratically elected?” Recep Tayyip Erdogan is openly Islamist and
affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which President Obama appears to
believe represents the best hope for the Middle East. But the
difference between ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t one
of purpose, but merely of manners: Muslim Brothers wash the blood off
their hands before they sit down to dinner with their dupes.
With barely a murmured “Tut-tut!” from Western
leaders, Erdogan has dismantled Turkey’s secular constitution (which the
military is duty-bound to protect). His “democracy” resembles Putin’s,
not ours. Key opposition figures have been driven into exile or
banned. Opposition parties have been suppressed. Recent elections have
not been held so much as staged. And Erdogan has torn the fresh scab
from the Kurdish wound, fostering civil war in Turkey’s southeast for
his own political advantage.
Erdogan has packed Turkey’s courts with Islamists.
He appointed pliant, pro-Islamist generals and admirals, while staging
show trials of those of whom he wished to rid the country. He has de
facto, if not yet de jure, curtailed women’s freedoms. He dissolved the
wall between mosque and state (Friday night, he used mosques’
loudspeakers to call his supporters into the streets). Not least, he
had long allowed foreign fighters to transit Turkey to join ISIS and has
aggressively backed other extremists whom he believed he could manage.
What we are witnessing, since 2010, is the decapitation of secular leaders in the Islamic world and the empowerment of the worst monsters on the planet. And the US is behind it all, or is at the very least complicit and is aiding this sea change in the balance of power in the world through the use of military action. Egypt got lucky. The Egyptian military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood. But Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and likely Syria have fallen. Turkey looks like it is close to toppling as well.
And why do militant atheists who run the New World Order throw their support behind fanatical Islamists? Because they share a common enemy. The atheists want to eliminate the one power in the world that can defeat them: Christianity. But they can't do it alone. Generations of propaganda and brainwashing in the public schools have greatly weakened the Christian West, but the atheists cannot openly bloody their hands to deal the death blow. They must import millions of Muslim rapefugees to act as their shock troops. This mercenary army of mostly adult male supposed refugees then acts out of its own natural inclination to destroy that which it despises the most: the narcissism, hedonism, and meaninglessness that is what the West has degenerated into. The NWO do not need to command the thousands of radical Muslims who are being shipped in along with the millions of unvetted migrants, there doesn't need to be any established chain of command, the NWO just needs to invite the starving lion into the arena and let it do what it does naturally.
We in the West have one chance left to prevent our own enslavement and the destruction of the brightest light humanity has ever seen. If we don't elect Donald Trump in November then the destruction of the West will be complete. It's a gamble, to be sure. Trump might be assassinated, or overpowered by a criminal Congress, or a criminal Supreme Court, or he might just turn feckless upon taking office. But he's the one and only chance we have left. However big a gamble, he's our only hope, and we have to elect him this November.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
Judging Judgment
Twice this past week I've read, in two different books, that judgment gives you power over people, or at least it gives you the illusion of power, and that's why you should never do it. I don't believe either of those statements.
First off, Jesus commands us to judge. Idiots, or lazy people, or narcissists, or sybarites read "Judge not..." and then black out the rest of the chapter because they satisfied their craven desire to avoid judgment. But if you actually read it, and you're not using one of the modern pussy "translations", what Jesus is telling us is not to judge others by a different standard than the one we use to judge ourselves. He flat out says "Don't be a hypocrite" (a Greek word that only a Greek-speaking audience would understand, indicating that Greek was Jesus' native language, which makes perfect sense since it was the official language of the whole eastern Mediterranean for the previous three hundred years and the language spoken in all the big cities where Jesus worked), not "Don't judge anyone under any circumstances ever".
Later in Matthew Jesus says if you see your brother trespass against you tell him so he can correct his action.
Then we have in John where Jesus says to "Judge righteously".
And Paul continues reasserting the need for right judgment by rebuking the Corinthians for not judging one of their own who had sinned.
It becomes a matter of who am I going to believe, Jesus or some pop culture writer? Not that difficult a choice.
The whole idea of not judging comes from the perverted anything goes "If it feels good do it" mentality that poisoned a generation in the 60s and has been used to brainwash children in the schools for the past 30 years. And the people who say not to judge almost always do so ironically, because they are judging while they admonish judging! The statement is self-defeating, like the assertion that Absolute Truth does not exist. If you judge people for judging then you are the very thing you allege (it's a lie) to despise, which is itself a judgment and is itself what Jesus rebuked in the part of the verse you blacked out!
And second, I don't think judging others puts you in a position of power, at least perceived, over that person. Not if you're using right judgment as you are commanded to. If you're judging everyone, including yourself, by the same standard then how does that put you in a position of power? You are also among the group being judged, and the standard of judgment is not based on your own caprice but on what is True.
I know I fall short of the standards by which I judge. Does that mean I'm placing myself in a position of power over myself? Does that even make sense? How can I have power over myself other than through willed action? In order to exert power there must be a self and an other, but if there is just a self then there can be no exertion of power, and no relationship of any kind.
If you see someone with an untied shoe and you say "Your shoe's untied," you don't have power over that person, you just have a different perspective, and you're using that perspective to help that person. That's compassion, not power. You would want the other person to do the same for you. That's right judgment. If you're doing something stupid and self-destructive you would want, at least subconsciously, someone to tell you, just as you would tell someone who you see doing something self-destructive, out of compassion, not power.
People today have the wrong view of sin. Sin is not about angering God or about anyone holding power over anyone else, it's natural law. If you do this, you will get this. If you try to unbalance the universe the universe will take steps to rebalance itself. And you can never win. Sin should be thought of like causality. If you smoke heroin you destroy your body and have to face the physical consequences regardless of whether you're a good person or not (unless you're Keith Richards, then your body is indestructible); if you rape children you destroy your soul and you face the metaphysical consequences. I picked a particularly obvious example, but it gets subtler than that. Sin says that actions (and thoughts) have consequences because the mind works in a certain way and garbage accumulates over a lifetime and there's no way to escape that no matter how good we are at ignoring it or rationalising it away. At death we are exposed to the clear light of Absolute Reality, and it becomes impossible to lie to ourselves. Beliefs go out the window and then the shadow has free reign to torment you mercilessly.
It's true from an Absolute perspective to say not to judge, but that's because 1. from the perspective of the Absolute NOTHING is happening, there is no manifestation, so there is literally nothing to judge, and 2. the people who say not to judge aren't speaking about the Absolute, they're sybarites who don't want to feel bad about smoking crack and having lots of anonymous sex. 1 out of 1,000 people who say not to judge even believe in the Absolute. The other 999 are materialists who believe that when you die you rot, in which case judging still wouldn't be wrong because there would be no truth at all. Not only would judging not be wrong, if you took the view of the materialists to its logical conclusion, but absolutely nothing would be wrong, including raping and murdering the person who told you not to judge just for the lulz, and furthermore there would be no free will so it wouldn't even make sense to speak of right and wrong anyway.
There's a reason why the noble eightfold path begins with right views and moves on to right speech, right action, and right livelihood. If we just take a purely Absolute view when looking at spiritual practice (like the Course, which is 100% Absolute and ignores the relative completely), then we can say not to judge. It can be done, just as it's possible to climb a sheer cliff, but taking the steepest possible path isn't very useful if your aim is to get as many people to Absolute realisation as possible. That's why great teachers throughout history have given us morality, which is relative bodhicitta, because our minds have been trapped in the relative world for so long that we need relative practices to break down our barriers. We need to exhaust the relative mind so the clear light of Absolute awareness can shine through. Morality does not get us enlightenment, because nothing can. Nothing can take us to where we always already are. Morality serves as a means of making us more likely to see that we already are enlightened. Morality reduces the obstacles within our relative minds and the relative world.
You can say that judgment makes no sense from the Absolute perspective, but you can't build a society in the relative world based on the Absolute. Talk of judgment, sin, and morality have meaning in the relative world. They are relative practices for the relative world, because the alternative is close to impossible. We can take the Absolute view all we want, but until we are fully enlightened we are still at the mercy of our relative mind, and we will still have to deal with fear, doubt, regret, shame, etc. And until we are enlightened we still need judgment in order to overcome the relative mind.
First off, Jesus commands us to judge. Idiots, or lazy people, or narcissists, or sybarites read "Judge not..." and then black out the rest of the chapter because they satisfied their craven desire to avoid judgment. But if you actually read it, and you're not using one of the modern pussy "translations", what Jesus is telling us is not to judge others by a different standard than the one we use to judge ourselves. He flat out says "Don't be a hypocrite" (a Greek word that only a Greek-speaking audience would understand, indicating that Greek was Jesus' native language, which makes perfect sense since it was the official language of the whole eastern Mediterranean for the previous three hundred years and the language spoken in all the big cities where Jesus worked), not "Don't judge anyone under any circumstances ever".
Later in Matthew Jesus says if you see your brother trespass against you tell him so he can correct his action.
Then we have in John where Jesus says to "Judge righteously".
And Paul continues reasserting the need for right judgment by rebuking the Corinthians for not judging one of their own who had sinned.
It becomes a matter of who am I going to believe, Jesus or some pop culture writer? Not that difficult a choice.
The whole idea of not judging comes from the perverted anything goes "If it feels good do it" mentality that poisoned a generation in the 60s and has been used to brainwash children in the schools for the past 30 years. And the people who say not to judge almost always do so ironically, because they are judging while they admonish judging! The statement is self-defeating, like the assertion that Absolute Truth does not exist. If you judge people for judging then you are the very thing you allege (it's a lie) to despise, which is itself a judgment and is itself what Jesus rebuked in the part of the verse you blacked out!
And second, I don't think judging others puts you in a position of power, at least perceived, over that person. Not if you're using right judgment as you are commanded to. If you're judging everyone, including yourself, by the same standard then how does that put you in a position of power? You are also among the group being judged, and the standard of judgment is not based on your own caprice but on what is True.
I know I fall short of the standards by which I judge. Does that mean I'm placing myself in a position of power over myself? Does that even make sense? How can I have power over myself other than through willed action? In order to exert power there must be a self and an other, but if there is just a self then there can be no exertion of power, and no relationship of any kind.
If you see someone with an untied shoe and you say "Your shoe's untied," you don't have power over that person, you just have a different perspective, and you're using that perspective to help that person. That's compassion, not power. You would want the other person to do the same for you. That's right judgment. If you're doing something stupid and self-destructive you would want, at least subconsciously, someone to tell you, just as you would tell someone who you see doing something self-destructive, out of compassion, not power.
People today have the wrong view of sin. Sin is not about angering God or about anyone holding power over anyone else, it's natural law. If you do this, you will get this. If you try to unbalance the universe the universe will take steps to rebalance itself. And you can never win. Sin should be thought of like causality. If you smoke heroin you destroy your body and have to face the physical consequences regardless of whether you're a good person or not (unless you're Keith Richards, then your body is indestructible); if you rape children you destroy your soul and you face the metaphysical consequences. I picked a particularly obvious example, but it gets subtler than that. Sin says that actions (and thoughts) have consequences because the mind works in a certain way and garbage accumulates over a lifetime and there's no way to escape that no matter how good we are at ignoring it or rationalising it away. At death we are exposed to the clear light of Absolute Reality, and it becomes impossible to lie to ourselves. Beliefs go out the window and then the shadow has free reign to torment you mercilessly.
It's true from an Absolute perspective to say not to judge, but that's because 1. from the perspective of the Absolute NOTHING is happening, there is no manifestation, so there is literally nothing to judge, and 2. the people who say not to judge aren't speaking about the Absolute, they're sybarites who don't want to feel bad about smoking crack and having lots of anonymous sex. 1 out of 1,000 people who say not to judge even believe in the Absolute. The other 999 are materialists who believe that when you die you rot, in which case judging still wouldn't be wrong because there would be no truth at all. Not only would judging not be wrong, if you took the view of the materialists to its logical conclusion, but absolutely nothing would be wrong, including raping and murdering the person who told you not to judge just for the lulz, and furthermore there would be no free will so it wouldn't even make sense to speak of right and wrong anyway.
There's a reason why the noble eightfold path begins with right views and moves on to right speech, right action, and right livelihood. If we just take a purely Absolute view when looking at spiritual practice (like the Course, which is 100% Absolute and ignores the relative completely), then we can say not to judge. It can be done, just as it's possible to climb a sheer cliff, but taking the steepest possible path isn't very useful if your aim is to get as many people to Absolute realisation as possible. That's why great teachers throughout history have given us morality, which is relative bodhicitta, because our minds have been trapped in the relative world for so long that we need relative practices to break down our barriers. We need to exhaust the relative mind so the clear light of Absolute awareness can shine through. Morality does not get us enlightenment, because nothing can. Nothing can take us to where we always already are. Morality serves as a means of making us more likely to see that we already are enlightened. Morality reduces the obstacles within our relative minds and the relative world.
You can say that judgment makes no sense from the Absolute perspective, but you can't build a society in the relative world based on the Absolute. Talk of judgment, sin, and morality have meaning in the relative world. They are relative practices for the relative world, because the alternative is close to impossible. We can take the Absolute view all we want, but until we are fully enlightened we are still at the mercy of our relative mind, and we will still have to deal with fear, doubt, regret, shame, etc. And until we are enlightened we still need judgment in order to overcome the relative mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
