Friday, December 26, 2014

Call to a Caliphate issued in AD 2006 at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem

In the following article, notice the mention of "The Guiding Helper Foundation," which definitely
has a New Age sound to it. Notice its statement about giving "direction to the educated Muslim populace in its increasing interest in the establishment of Islam as a practical system of rule."
"I received this email from a friend who has contacts in Israel." Though this phrasing could
come from someone inside the community addressed, the moslem community, especially its
"educated" part, this phrasing could also be from someone outside that community. I originally
got this information from a post at one of the best research sites 
about the New Age, especially its social and political side. This claims to be supporting the Maliki school of shariah, 
and it is primarily north african in location of most followers now. mentions it. A lookup shows
it is registered to an organization out of Egypt called FatimaMohammed and contact info incl.
email which seems rather interesting in itself. 

Whether this has any play in ISIS is unclear, but while its rules don't allow rape of captives
until designated as slaves at which point a man is free to have sex with his slaves, this does
go far to encourage people to join any violent movement to install a Caliphate. 
Feb. 26, AD 2006 is the date on the article:

" "Sheikh Ismail Nawahda, preaching to Moslem masses on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on Friday, has brought it out into the open: the call to restore the Moslem Khalifate, or, "Genuine Islamic Rule."
A plan for the "Return of the Khalifate" was published secretly in 2002 by a group called "The Guiding Helper Foundation." The group explained that it wished to "give direction to the educated Muslim populace in its increasing interest in the establishment of Islam as a practical system of rule."

This past Friday, Feb. 24, however, the plan went public. Sheikh Nawahda called publicly for the renewal of the Islamic Khalifate, which would "unite all the Moslems in the world against the infidels."

The Khalifate system features a leader, known as a Khalif, who heads worldwide Islam. Assisted by a ten-man council, his decisions are totally binding on all Moslems.

According to the Foundation's vision of the Khalifate, significant punishment can only be meted out for 14 crimes, including "accusing a chaste person of fornication," "not performing the formal prayer," and "not fasting during Ramadan."

The Foundation recommends working to restore the Moslem dictatorship using a system of small groups around the world. The purpose is so that the "enemies of Islam" who "will definitely try to stop us" will have a "much harder task, if not impossible, if they are faced with a myriad of small groups of differing locations, ethnicities," etc. This method also "ensures that if one group... is found and cut off, other similar groups will remain undetected."

Sheikh Nawahda reminded his Temple Mount audience that the first step taken by Muhammed in stabilizing his rule was to form the nucleus of the first Islamic country in the city of Medina. Nawahda also said that the status of Moslems around the world has dropped drastically ever since the collapse of the last Khalifate in 1924, after Turkey became a democratic republic.

Nawahda called upon the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority to rise above their personal and party interests, and said that Moslems must return to Islam and join forces in the struggle against the West. He praised the worldwide protests against the anti-Muhammed cartoons, and encouraged the Moslem public to continue such activities. He implied that those who insulted Muhammed are liable for death. The Sheikh designated the Moslem masses as a strong point that can be utilized in the fight against the West." "

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Weaponized Terms of Jihad

Daniel 7:21, 22 proves post tribulation rapture


"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; UNTIL THE ANCIENT OF DAYS CAME,..."

the church will go through the tribulation. We are not appointed to the wrath of God, but since when is the persecution by the devil and his agents the wrath of God?

We get lifted out of the way of the wrath of God poured out on the antichrist and his followers, we are with Jesus, Who is in the sky, visible to all, and we stay with Jesus Who goes....where? to earth, to rule and fulfill the political messianic prophecies.

Women in Combat among the Kurds

The Rojava Kurdish forces have a women's combat unit called
YPJ, and the Peshmerga ("those who face death") of the sometimes
at odds political parties of South Kurdistan in northern Iraq have
women in combat also.

According to my twitter sources, who are close to people in the
situation, some of these women warriors are Christians. I assume
they are Kurds and not Christian Arabs caught up in the situation.

Friday, December 19, 2014

ancient alliens, etc

The big problem with the Ancient Aliens meme, is that they are
unnecessary. Humans are perfectly capable of inventing stuff, and
that would incl. oddball physics discoveries, the alternative physics
and energy, zero point energy, and electrogravitics, that don't
require modern high tech stuff to work on.

I suspect that these things mostly are good as force multipliers,
rather than the main deal. Thus, any evidence of pyramids built
by work gangs does not rule out alternative physics. This would
have functioned not so much to levitate blocks into place, but
to lighten the load.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Architecture and Gnosticism

Constance Cumbey posted the link to the pdf, at

the comments section of her excellent blog, and
I find the article fascinating, Architecture and Theosophy: An Introduction. This
blog post is going to be my reactions to it.

" the danger of van Doesburg’s excessive devotion to modernity; to interpreting every technological
dvance as a spiritual leap forward."
that jumped off the page at the top before I got to reading anything else. the idea that technological 
advance means spiritual advance, well, what kind of spiritual "advance" in what direction are we 
talking about?

war has always jump started technology.

As someone put it, the most technologically advanced country on earth in the 1930s-1940s was 
Nazi Germany.

"they sought to elevate their architectural philosophies beyond rank functionalism"

yeah, if its functional and helps man or animal it is lowwww. right? wrong. but that's how they think. 
Even the Holy Temple of YHWH was functional - it provided varying degrees of access and 
functions relating to that. 

but functional is so.....materialistic. Remember the core concept of all the gnostic heresies? the 
unworthiness and evil of mere physical matter and that God couldn't have created THAT stuff. 

push this far enough and you have radical depopulation, only keep enough alive to serve the 
interests of the gnostic or neo gnostic elite till they can figure out how to live without normal 
human functionality, and they can kill even those remaining off. Transhumanism, anyone?

" it [supposedly recapturing ancient Egyptian and Chaldean read Babylonian architecture] 
renewed an ideal of beauty vested in forces beyond the mundane, in a sacred ideal of Nature."

the irony of this, is that Nature in reality is very functional, and all the designs in nature 
even down to fractals, are very functional. The typical Beaver dam and lodge and muskrat
lodge is very functional and no transcendent philosophical nonsense, just the best design
for what works, the tendency to do this encoded into their genetics by YHWH.

one of the architechts designed this thing, one
of those odd cantilevered things probably a huge floor plan with inadequate number of 
actual rooms inside, and altogether too much glass - wouldn't survive a hurricane well and
would be a nightmare to keep properly warm in winter.

This book No Place For God: The Denial of the Transcendent in Modern Church
Architecture discusses this.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

myth of the tenth amendment

The Right’s Tenth Amendment Myth

Exclusive: Millions of Americans have been deceived into a false understanding of what the Constitution’s Framers intended because of a right-wing lie about the significance of the insignificant Tenth Amendment, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
A central part of the American Right’s false Founding Narrative is that the Tenth Amendment trumps the Constitution’s creation of a powerful central government that possesses a mandate to do what’s necessary to provide for the country’s “general Welfare.” In Right-Wing World, the Tenth Amendment gives nearly all powers to the states.
Yet, the reality is that the Tenth Amendment is one of the most meaningless of all the amendments to the U.S. Constitution, except maybe the Eighteenth, which prohibited the sale of liquor and was subsequently repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment.
President George Washington, who detested the concept of states' rights because of the harm it did to the Continental Army and to prospect of building a strong nation.
President George Washington, who detested the concept of states’ rights because of the harm it did to the Continental Army and to prospect of building a strong nation.
Indeed, the Tenth Amendment – read in the context of the broad powers that the Federalist authors of the Constitution gave to the central government – carries almost no weight at all. It says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”
But the relevant point is that the Constitution granted nearly unlimited power to the U.S. Congress to enact legislation on behalf of “the general Welfare” – within the context of republican governance, with the approval of the U.S. president, and with the sign-off of the U.S. Supreme Court.
This concept — embraced by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and other Framers — was to rely on the Constitution’s intricate checks and balances to prevent government overreach, not to hamstring the people’s elected representatives from doing what was necessary to build the nation both then and in the future.
This reality of what was done in Philadelphia in 1787 was not lost on either supporters or opponents of the Constitution. The so-called Anti-Federalists were shocked that the Federalists had, in effect, hijacked the Constitutional Convention away from its original goal of amending the Articles of Confederation, which made the states “sovereign” and “independent” and left the central government as merely a “firm league of friendship.”
But General George Washington, in particular, despised the concept of states’ rights, since he had seen his Continental Army go without pay and supplies – to nearly starve – during the Revolutionary War. He was joined in this sentiment by his bright protégé Madison and his old wartime aide-de-camp Hamilton.
So, the Constitutional Convention tossed out the Articles of Confederation and proposed a new structure making “We the People of the United States” the nation’s new sovereign and relegating the states to an inferior status, what Madison called “subordinately useful.”
Angry People
I realize that this reality – or my pointing it out – makes some people angry. They want to believe that their hatred of the federal government matched what the Framers felt. And the Right has done a remarkable job in propagandizing a large segment of the U.S. population into believing this invented narrative.
Some right-wing believers even insist that any action by the U.S. government to provide for “the general Welfare” is “unconstitutional,” such as the Affordable Care Act which addressed what was an undeniable threat to “the general Welfare,” the fact that tens of millions of Americans were forced to live in fear of premature death because they could not afford health insurance.
But the Framers’ mandate to provide for “the general Welfare” was not some mistake or afterthought. It is included both in the famous Preamble and in Article One, Section Eight, which delineates the so-called “enumerated powers.” There, the Constitution states “That Congress shall have Power To … provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States,” with the only stated restriction that “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Article One, Section Eight further grants Congress the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Put together, as Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists noted, the Constitution empowered Congress to do what was needed to protect and build the new nation. As historian Jada Thackerwrote, “these clauses – restated in the vernacular – flatly announce that ‘Congress can make any law it feels is necessary to provide for whatever it considers the general welfare of the country.’”
And that was not just the view of the Federalists back then or some historian today. It was why the enemies of the Constitution fought so hard to block its ratification in 1788. For instance, New Yorker Robert Yates, who walked out of the convention in protest, wrote a month after the Constitution had been completed:
“This government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends. … The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one. … It has the authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and the property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or the laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given.”
Madison, then a staunch Federalist, had favored giving even more power to Congress and making the states even more subordinate. “Madison wanted the federal assembly to have a veto over the state assemblies,” wrote David Wootton, author of The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. But Madison’s veto idea was jettisoned in favor of giving the federal courts the power to judge whether state laws violated the Constitution.
Fighting the Constitution
Despite these few concessions, the Constitution emerged from the secret meetings in Philadelphia as a stunning assertion of federal power. Anti-Federalists immediately recognized what had happened and rallied strong opposition to the new governing framework.
As dissidents from the Pennsylvania delegation wrote: “We dissent … because the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government.” [See’s “The Right’s Inside-Out Constitution.”]
The Constitution’s broad powers were particularly alarming to southern slaveholders because of the prospect that the North would eventually gain economic and political supremacy and push through anti-slavery legislation that would wipe out the South’s vast investment in human chattel and thus destroy the region’s plantation aristocracy.
Virginia’s Patrick Henry and George Mason made this argument most aggressively to Virginia’s ratifying convention, with Henry warning the Commonwealth’s slave owners that if they approved the new governing structure, “they’ll free your niggers!”
Faced with these alarms about federal powers, Madison agreed to propose some limiting amendments though he felt that a Bill of Rights was superfluous. Nevertheless, some of the first ten amendments did specifically restrict Congress’s power.
For instance, the First Amendment begins with the phrase “Congress shall make no law…” while other amendments assert specific rights of citizens. The Tenth Amendment, however, simply states that powers not granted to the national government by the Constitution remain with the people and states.
Thus, the scope of the Tenth Amendment is entirely dependent on what preceded it, i.e., the nearly unlimited powers that the Constitution granted to the national government. In other words, if the Framers declared – as they did – that Congress could enact any law that it deemed necessary to promote “the general Welfare” and that federal law would be supreme, then the Tenth Amendment meant almost nothing since there were few powers left over for the states. It was a sop to the Anti-Federalists.
Still, the Constitution’s opponents – especially slave owners in Virginia – did not just surrender after ratification. Instead, they devised a clever strategy for preventing the possibility that Congress would wipe out their massive capital investment in slavery.
Behind the charismatic Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris in 1787 and thus did not participate in the Constitutional Convention, the plantation aristocracy simply pretended that the Constitution didn’t mean what it said.
Jefferson’s Wordsmithing
Jefferson, one of Virginia’s biggest slaveholders and a masterful wordsmith, promulgated the absurd notion of “strict construction,” which meant that only specific powers mentioned in Article One, Section Eight could be exercised by Congress. Regarding domestic policy, that meant such relatively narrow powers as coining money, setting up post offices, establishing rules for nationalization, regulating interstate commerce, etc.
Jefferson’s “strict construction” was absurd because it ignored the obvious intent of the Framers and the need for the United States to act in ways that could not be specifically anticipated in 1787, a reality that confronted Jefferson himself after he was elected president in 1800.
Three years later, President Jefferson had the opportunity to buy the Louisiana Territories from France but there was no wording in Article One, Section Eight about expanding the size of the United States. Clearly, the Framers had enacted elastic phrasing for just such an eventuality but Jefferson had insisted on his crazy “strict construction” argument.
So, what did Jefferson do? He simply ignored his previous “principle” and implicitly accepted the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution, which they had principally authored. Congress approved the purchase of the Louisiana Territories doubling the size of the United States and giving Jefferson what is regarded as his greatest accomplishment as president.
Though even Jefferson – the inventor of “strict construction” – chose to repudiate his own argument, this insidious notion has survived the past two centuries in the fetid swamps of Right-Wing World.
It was a factor in the South’s resistance to anti-slavery restrictions that preceded the Civil War and it has been touted in modern times by such right-wing luminaries as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as part of his self-serving “originalism,” i.e., whatever Scalia wants done must have been what the Framers wanted done.
The real history of the Constitution has little impact on these ideologues. They have simply found it useful to wrap themselves in the cloaks of the Framers even when that requires distorting what the actual Framers intended.
While there can be legitimate arguments about the proper size and scope of the federal government (or for that matter any government), the facts should be the facts and the history should be the history. The Right, however, has deceived millions of Americans into believing a false narrative about the U.S. Constitution and the nation’s Founding – for the purpose of distorting the debate.
[For more on this history, see’s “The Right’s Dubious Claim to Madison” and “Thomas Jefferson: America’s Founding Sociopath.”]
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Face Book post about pride and judgement

By Nicolas Begley
The most judgmental people I know are those who condemn others for being "judgmental."

The most hateful people I know are those who condemn others for being "hateful."

The most prideful people I know are those who condemn others for being "prideful."

The most immature people I know are those who condemn others for being "immature."

The most condemning people I know are those who condemn others for being "condemning."

This list can go and on. One of my former youth pastors once told me over a decade ago that such people (mentioned above) do so because it reaffirms their self-hatred for their own sins. I believe him to be correct on this matter. Sometimes, such people will imagine their own sins in other people in order to superimpose accusations and condemnations upon them. In case you are wondering, I do admit to having fallen into these traps many a time myself.

some marching or appreciation song about kurdish women

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

textual history of the koran


I have a lot of Muslims telling me that the Qur'an is the unaltered word of God.

Hadith(Al Bukhari, Tabari, Sahih Muslim, et al) record Aisha narrating how surahs, written by scribes, from the dictated words of Muhammad ibn Abdullah Muttalib, having been stored beneath her bed, were destroyed by an invading wild goat[or sheep] were eaten. Muhammad was unable to reproduce them, claiming it was "allah's will".

The Qur'an was only compiled in written form during the rule or the third Caliph Uthman. He ordered all previous copies destroyed and had them burnt.
This written record was in response to the memorisers, or 'hafiz' having been all but killed in wars of Islamic conquest.
Yesterday, over 50 Qurans were discovered in a sewer in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia.[Source: Arab News].
Over 300 ancient Quranic codiciles were uncovered during renovations of a mosque in Saana, Yemen. They are the oldest extant Qur'anic texts ever found. Each dated from the 8th century, lacked diacritic dots[indicating vowel sounds], and contained loan-words from Hebrew-Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, Farsi/Persian, amongst others.
99 'names' or 'attributes' are afforded to the Islamic Allah.
Most surah begin "in the name of allah, the compassionate, the merciful".
Yet the Qur'an contains un-translatable words.
"Alif. Lem. Mim" is un-translatable. Islamic scholars are unable to agree, despite some suggesting it is the name of allah. The question remains, why is it not thence translated as such? If it is an alleged 'holy name' this is shirk and fitnah/ blashemy and sin as no name must be given to "the nameless god" save 'al ilah/allah' or 'the god'.

The Qur'an mentions Jesus as "Nabi 'Isa".
It says He was born of a virgin. (Yet Allah can have NO son).
He is called:
Al Misiah, the Messiah, the Christ.
Al Kallam'allah, the Word of God.
Ru'h-'allah, the Spirit of God.

Israel is mentioned whilst not once is there a reference to Philistinia/Palestine.

David is revered as a Prophet.
Yet the Israelites and Jews are detested above all.

Allah is described as a 'Deceiver':

"And they[the disbelievers; Jews, Christians et al] schemed[deceived],
and Allah schemed (against them);
And Allah is the best of schemers [deceivers]".
The Qur'an 3:54 (see also: 8:30; 10:21).

The Arabic used is 'makr' or 'makar', meaning 'deceiver, liar, plotter, schemer'.

Al Makkah or Mecca is home to the Kaaba and the Haram Masjid or 'Forbidden Mosque', Islam's holiest site.

Judaeo-Christian Scripture in contrast calls God Truth.
Satan is "the father of lies".

Below is a table describing Qur'anic transmission.
The current Quran dates from a standardised version issued first in 1924, then again in a revised format in 1936-8.

It is a plagiarised, man-made writing based on late Hellenistic Jewish writings, falsely understood Torah, parts of the Gospels and other early non-canonical early Christian writings(such as the Protovangelium of James) which date from the 4th century or later and were rejected by the majority of Christians.

This is blended with the deluded self-agrandisement of a man intent on global domination via conquest, and is a hate-filled manifesto expressing the most extreme misogyny yet witnessed, depraved sexual yearnings, sadism, war-mongering and the advocating of rape, torture, kidnap and theft.
It is a declaration of war, and if published today, would certainly be deemed illegal and immoral.

It is the work of Satan.

from Face Book group The Deception of Chrislam

Sunday, October 19, 2014

ebola highlights a problem

Ebola, Capitalism and the Idea of Society

Thomas Duncan didn’t have health insurance when he entered Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital with Ebola. The hospital claims that he was initially turned away because important information about his condition didn’t find its way to the admitting physician. Without specific knowledge that he had Ebola a temperature of 103C didn’t require the hospital to admit him. With the two days it took the hospital to confirm Ebola on his return visit, Mr. Duncan risked hospital bills in the tens of thousands of dollars that he reportedly didn’t have. The hospital ‘risked’ providing expensive treatment to a man who likely couldn’t have paid for it.
Missing from this ‘process’ that now finds Mr. Duncan dead, two nurses who attended him with Ebola themselves, the American health care system revealed as wholly unprepared to deal with what at present seems a moderately communicable disease, is any notion of a public interest.  This can be seen internationally as well with the U.S. sending soldiers to West Africa while Cuba has sent a large contingent ofemergency health care workers. The difference is fundamental: Cuba sees both public purpose and moral imperative to help those stricken with Ebola and the U.S. sees a threat to profits at ‘home’ and a military exercise to ‘contain’ the spread of Ebola abroad.
Chart (1) above: what could have and should have been a quickly contained outbreak of Ebola through response by health care workers from rich countries was instead militarized and ignored. From the CIA using fake tuberculosis screening as a premise to gain intelligence to the history of ‘humanitarian’ interventions that slaughtered thousands to illicit pharmaceutical testing and dumping by Western drug manufacturers the nations of Africa have every reason to mistrust Western intentions there. This written, the only response that the U.S. apparently could muster was to send troops to ‘contain’ the crisis. Anyone with knowledge of Western imperial history in Africa should cringe at what the word ‘contain’ might be a euphemism for.  Source: WHO
At the more fundamental level the far ‘poorer’ Cuba sees health care and education as human rights for its citizens and for those of other countries. Despite claims of capitalist ‘efficiency,’ the U.S. has the worst health care outcomes among ‘developed’ countries at a price of twice or more per person.  Illustrated in the Texas case is the radical inefficiency of a health care system whose public purpose is subverted by the profit motive. With a fever of 103C Mr. Duncan was turned away but shitting and vomiting himself he was admitted. And lest this remain unclear, it isn’t until a clear emergency can be claimed that hospitals in the U.S. are mandated to provide treatment.
Even in capitalist economics the distinction was long ago made between ‘public’ goods that have social value, but that businesses are unwilling to provide, and ‘private’ goods whose production is best left to capitalists. This public / private frame had political leaders in the U.S. supporting public health programs paid for by the federal government, publicly funded schools and the building of the infrastructure that ultimately supported the ‘private’ economy and private profits. Whereas many of the ‘contracts’ for public programs went to private contractors, their historic purpose was public service and this was the measure of their success.
Graph (2) above: in the U.S. ‘private’ railroads were built with land grants (‘free’ land) from the federal government. Setting aside for the moment the goal of genocide against the indigenous population that was part of their motivation, by the end of the nineteenth century the accumulated fortunes of the railroad ‘barons’ were put forward as the bounty produced by capitalism.  Today many of the drugs being sold by ‘private’ health care companies were developed in government labs at public expense. And much of the health care infrastructure being increasingly privatized was developed either wholly or partially at public expense. Source:
Beginning in the 1970s under Democrat Jimmy Carter what had formerly been considered quasi-public goods like transportation infrastructure was privatized under the theory that the capitalist profit motive produced more ‘efficient’ outcomes. With airlines and railroads heavily unionized at the time the major component of this ‘efficiency’ came through breaking organized labor and driving wages down. However, even in capitalist economics shifting wages to capitalists as profits is only ‘efficient’ if the increase in profits is greater than the wages lost.
What was lost in this shift was the sense of a public interest. The idea had always depended on dubious circumscription— class; race and imperial interests had left most of the world and much of the U.S. on the outside. What happened was that the private interest consumed the public interest. The railroads had been built through federal land grants and airlines flew mandatory routes to serve both public and private interests. By the 1970s the private fortunes built on this ‘partnership’ decided they wanted it all for themselves. That a Democrat President (Jimmy Carter) was behind the shift to the private takeover of the public realm ties Mr. Carter to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as effective proponents of the neo-liberal program.
To tie this back to Cuba and the human rights view of health care and education, there was and remains no capitalist class in Cuba to subvert the public interest. The U.S. had public and private interests and the private interest consumed the public interest. Public health care and educational infrastructure were ‘public’ and served public purposes. Through privatization this public purpose has been subverted. As with the railroads and airlines, their public-private conception and the public-private resources that built them were simply taken by capitalists through privatization.
The idea that the profit motive produces ‘efficient’ outcomes in the public realm depends on redefining it. ‘Private’ drug companies didn’t develop an Ebola vaccine because doing so wasn’t estimated to be profitable. What state of the world must exist for such a vaccine to be profitable? An Ebola pandemic would provide the needed ‘customers’ to make it profitable. Stopping an epidemic and preventing it from becoming a pandemic is costly for ‘private’ interests with few profit opportunities from the direct ‘customers.’ But as was understood and inconveniently forgotten decades ago, what is ‘inefficient’ as capitalist enterprise is often astonishingly efficient as public policy.
Ebola has the public imagination because it is deadly and a horrific way to die. However, left out of press reports are the preventable and curable medical conditions that poor people face every day that go untreated. And what ‘Obamacare’ reinforced is the private takeover of the public interest for private gain.
Obamacare proceeds from the premise that health care exists to serve private interests by subsidizing ‘customers’ of private health care providers. Persons with health insurance who contract a communicable disease are forced into the ‘personal’ (‘private’) calculus of whether they can afford the insurance co-pays and deductibles of getting health care. And as ‘businesses’ health care providers calculate how to provide the most profitable health care, not the best. With stopping the spread of communicable diseases in the public interest, the profit ‘motive’ that in theory supports capitalist efficiency is the antithesis of social efficiency in the public realm.
The shift from public to private interests in the West isn’t an accident of history. It comes through bi-partisan support for the crudely ideological capitalism that re-emerged through the conflation of public and private interests. And in fact, this conflation has it perfectly backwards— private interests never served the public interest but private interests owe everything to this public interest from land grants to government research given / sold to ‘private’ corporations to bank bailouts. As Albert Camus had it in his book ‘The Plague,’ perhaps a modern plague will be the road back from the Western nation-states of the ‘self.’ But why should it come to that?
The poor and beleaguered nation of Cuba has maintained the social and moral bearing that places the public interest above private interests. Outside of the implausibility of Western ‘profits’ capitalism is the antithesis of the public interest and must be gotten rid of. Health care profiteers have taken the public interest and put it into their own pockets. And for-profit health care is a plague every day for the people who don’t get health care because they can’t afford it.

Paracas Skulls

not mentioned in the article, is that the skull stutures are mostly
inconsistent with human skulls.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Kurdish female warriors in a combat unit from twitter

Islamic State Forced To Fall Back Near .You Won’t Believe Who's Standing In The Way "

Friday, October 10, 2014

For those who think modern feminism is the only kind there ever was

On October 10, 1866, the pro-life founder of the women's movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, declared herself a candidate for Congress from the 8th Congressional District of New York, even though women did not yet have the right to vote. As a mother and a feminist, Stanton reported "four hundred murders annually produced by abortion in [one] county alone," Condemning the "murder of children, either before or after birth," Stanton "pointed to the only remedy, the education and enfranchisement of woman...."

NOTE: Stanton did make the error of focussing on "anti woman" stuff in the Bible and denouncing The Bible therefore whether at the same time or later, these points however taken in the overall picture show that it was an allowing not a demanding and the created order was nothing of the kind,
all male rule came as part of the curse after the Fall, and the mechanism was the default of the woman "your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you." mitigation of curses on Adam was never called a sin (labor saving inventions like the plow and harnessing animals to do work) so why should mitigation of the curse on women be a sin? But it has to include changing her attitude and helping women develop what in Stanton's time was called "a man's mind." Paul warned women can be deceived, and refers to a woman being in subjection "as says the law." Now the Torah never dictated subjection except that one point, the curse, all other subjection was moderating an existing situation that was coming into play noticeably in Laban's time.

Jacob's wives complained of behavior that was normal later on, "he has treated us like strangers," devoured their inheritance and sold them. Clearly this wasn't the way it was in their childhood memory or they would not have thought it bad or strange.

So it would seem Paul is arguing (unless talking about local and Roman law in which case it was a matter of public relations only) that if a woman insists on having Eve's flaws she can keep her curse. The converse is implied of course.

male supremacy hinged on the bride price, and theoretically if a savvy girl were to save or beg money and buy herself from her father, she could start her own lineage, marrying only a man who would abandon his own lineage and adopt hers. bilateral or even revived matrilineal. No indication anyone did that. But shifts in inheritance based on adoption existed, I Chronicles lists a man of Judah who had no sons, so married his daughter to his Egyptian slave and raised the child to his own name, and it was in the rolls of Judah. Because this adoption erased legally the Egyptian blood, the rule in Deuteronomy that required three generations from an Egyptian ancestor before the child could be counted as Israelite did not apply. Effectively, the bride price compensated for loss of the labor of the girl as a field hand, and transferred the produce of her womb from her father's lineage to that of her husband's father.

The neo matriarchist crew argue women are pacifist by nature and men rebelled and slavery developed from first enslaving women, but I think a more credible scenario is this: matrilineal amazonian tribes or extended family groups were short of women because of wars, and bought women from other groups. These were of course in subjection to the matriarch through her sons and nephews, so children grew up seeing their mothers bossed by their fathers, which set a pattern in their minds. Slavery in general started as war captives, and probably predated this, but once YHWH was forgotten, and one did not credit her children as Eve did to YHWH but to themselves, then with this attitude, whether it be father or mother in charge, the child is an object, the produce of your body ergo your property to sell or kill (or abort) at will. This laid the groundwork for other forms of chattel slavery.

oddly enough, the sentimental icky notion of oneness between mother and child, a total falsehood since it begins as free floating non attached conceptus which then implants and feeds off her like a parasite for a while until it is ready to be born, this notion, while it may support the child's survival if the notion motivates care for the child, is also at the root of abortion - that the child is just an extension or part of the mother, and she can therefore do as she please with it, incl. abort. In ancient times, it was usually after birth that the child's life was on the line, if it was sickly or deformed it might likely be killed or abandoned.

A quiver full of children was a collection of future workers and warriors, useful. Of course God prohibited extreme manifestations of this attitude, killing the child for any reason but it being evil and both parents had to agree and get the town elders' permission. In the absence of God's Law however, the utilitarian view of human life incl. that of your children prevailed.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Welfare predates socialism Alfred the Great was possibly continuing what his father started, Aethevulf "provided systems of poor relief."

"In regard to the financial resources of Alfred we know but little. Probably they were great, considering the extent and population of the little kingdom over which he ruled, but inconsiderable in comparison with the revenues of England at the present day. To build fortresses, construct a navy, and keep in pay a considerable military force,--to say nothing of his own private expenditure and the expense of his court, his public improvements, the endowment of churches, the support of schools, THE RELIEF OF THE POOR, and keeping the highways and bridges in repair,--required a large income. This was derived from the public revenues, crown lands, and private property. The public revenue was raised chiefly by customs, tolls, and fines. The crown lands were very extensive, as well as the private property of the sovereign, as he had large estates in every county of his kingdom.

But whatever his income, he set apart ... one-eighth for the poor, besides a considerable sum for foreigners, whom he liberally patronized."

the church support of the poor as well as of itself was from money collected by taxes and given by the king to the Church, normal routine. doesn't go back as far as King Alfred, but it shows also that wage restrictions were in play to prevent exploitation by the few laborers after the plague. Obviously the concept of govt. intervention in the economy predated "socialism."

Though it refers to charity as voluntary, the tax like required support of the church, or church getting a cut of taxes, some of which was used to support the poor, is not mentioned but clearly is not entirely "voluntary." It is an enforcement of Biblical standards of morality, which go beyond sexual issues into economic ones. This included in the medieval times, PROHIBITION OF LENDING AT ANY DEGREE OF INTEREST.

The conniving Venetians persuaded the pope eventually to redefine "usury" from ANY interest to excessive interest. Calvin did the same for the protestant scene, and Venetian influence was involved in creating the Reformation AND the counter reformation! This of course insured wars and so forth that would require borrowing money from the Venetians.... discusses the scene in AD 1601 et seq, notice the interference in families and restriction on travel way predate "socialism" after all the family as basic unit of society is not supreme, but the foundation and producer of society which the govt. is to direct to make sure society runs right so the family can be an object of direction also. 

The Constitution clause about freedom of travel is not about driver's licenses, or toll bridges, but about the old feudal holdover rules that required passports and permits for travel within the king's realm. This was also present in Russia and other lands. you had to explain yourself.

scroll down for King Alfred's efforts at public education, and his writing on the necessity of individuals being in shape to do their duties if the king is to rule the land effectively download pdf. Bear in mind that all royal efforts at anything came from taxes.

references to support efforts for the poor click on each page segment shown for entire page.

plough taxes later became excessive and were opposed, they had to do with other things than the poor, so cost more.

Biblical basis for compulsory charity, in addition to charity done as individuals. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE RITUAL CODE WHICH IS WHAT PAUL SAYS IS SUPERCEDED IN THEREFORE ABROGATED BY CHRIST, but consistent with the rest of the moral code which he reiterates.

Deuteronomy 26:12, 13 third year tithe to go to the levite, the poor, the stranger, the orphan, the widow, and notice a PUBLIC REPORT so A PUBLIC EXAMINATION is made to be sure this was done.

Tithing applied only to people who were producing a lot farmers and so forth, high income earners now maybe, it is not supposed to be required of the underprivileged like churches demand poor members fork over (and support rich ministers), it is a tenth OF YOUR INCREASE, in other words, a capital gains tax.

12"When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. 13"You shall say before the LORD your God, 'I have removed the sacred portion from my house, and also have given it to the Levite and the alien, the orphan and the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me; I have not transgressed or forgotten any of Your commandments.…"

Sunday, September 7, 2014

vengeance is mine saith the Lord gets misapplied a lot

" Do not speak against those who speaks and fight against EVIL.. this is their faith, honor and duty.
 Your heads are on the line for doing so. Advice to Christians." 

comment on this video from someone on Facebook.

Friday, September 5, 2014

Atlantis here and there

People are always looking for Atlantis, all kinds of theories
about its location and so forth exist, usually with some
archaeological or legend from locals information to back it

Every time some new underwater city ruin is found it is
said to be Atlantis (except maybe for those off Japan or in
the Pacific islands).

Maybe none of these are Atlantis, they are just underwater
city ruins.

Monday, August 25, 2014

the papal supremacy thing

Basically, RC has gotten carnal. It is among those who side with one apostle or major teacher over others, Paul mentions those who say "I am of Paul" or "I am of Cephas" guess who that is as typical of the clique forming fleshly tendencies.

all of these are to point to Jesus. None incl. Peter is to be the head of a party.

I Cor. 1:10-13 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

continues this theme 

1 Cor 3:1-23
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;

22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;

23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."

notice vs. 22 which incl. Cephas (Peter) as the things that are ours, not we are theirs, and they are not to be focussed on to make a party or division in the church to be head of a clicque.

note this trend, which became developed in the Roman branch of the church, began not with any of the men treated as special leaders, but with the carnal laity who adopted them as such.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

ISIS run by Turkey, or greatly favored by it.

key excerpts from

Shoebat writes:

Simple Logic Shows Turkey is in Bed with ISIS. When ISIS started a demolition of all shrines and tombs, even those that are attributed to prophets like Jonah and even Muslim religious icons, ISIS blew up these holy places accusing them as magnets to practices considered as sacrilege. Yet, only Turkish shrines were off limits. When it comes to the shrine of the grand father of the Turkish Ottomans “Suleiman Pasha” inside Syria, and in the areas under ISIS, not only did ISIS refrain from destroying these, but facilitated the entry of Turkish troops to such shrines in order to protected them.
When the most extremist Muslim group in the world overlooks what is “sacrilege,” rest assured there is a deal.....
Today the ISIS is estimated at 50,000 fighters 5,000 of which are Turks including 3 million Turkish sympathizers and the Turkish government has not shown any concern. Than we look at the armament sources of arming the ISIS and al-Nusra may come from the Jordanian border, but the bulk amount of weapons, according to reports and investigations and according to Resolution 2170 came from Turkey. This is confirmed when the 27-year-old ISIS commander, identified as Abu Yusef, who traveled to the town of Reyhanlı in the southern province of Hatay explained that they received most of their supplies from across the Turkish border until a recent crackdown against them.
“We used to have some fighters — even high-level members of the Islamic State — getting treated in Turkish hospitals. And also, most of the fighters who joined us in the beginning of the war came via Turkey, and so did our equipment and supplies,” Yusef told the Washington Post....
Perhaps one of the hidden clues that the ISIS baby has Turkish DNA is when the Malaysian police foiled plans this week for a wave of bombings drawn up by pro ISIS terrorists.  “The 19 suspected were formulating plans to bomb pubs, discos and a Malaysian brewery”  said Ayob Khan Mydin, deputy chief of the Malaysian police counter-terrorism division. Ayob Khan told AFP that the group, all Malaysians, had visions of establishing a hard-line Southeast Asian Islamic caliphate spanning Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore, and some of those arrested were apprehended at airports on the way to none other than Turkey to seek training and support from ISIS.