everyone should read this. even if you don't buy the JFK angle,
the history of American pseudo Christian worship of wealth
and Biblical condemnations of same are important.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
14 Reasons Why We Should Nationalize the Federal Reserve
read this article, excellent material and suggestions.
http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/1332/540/NL/14_Reasons_Why_We_Should_Nationalize_The_Federal_Reserve.html?currentSplittedPage=0
"Right now, most Americans believe that the Federal Reserve is
actually an agency of the federal government. But that is simply
not the case. The truth is that the Federal Reserve is about as
"federal" as Federal Express is.
http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/1332/540/NL/14_Reasons_Why_We_Should_Nationalize_The_Federal_Reserve.html?currentSplittedPage=0
"Right now, most Americans believe that the Federal Reserve is
actually an agency of the federal government. But that is simply
not the case. The truth is that the Federal Reserve is about as
"federal" as Federal Express is.
The Federal Reserve openly admits as much. For example, in
defending itself againsPublish Postt a Bloomberg request for information
under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Reserve
stated in court that it was "not an agency" of the U.S. government
and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.""
Saturday, November 5, 2011
YHWH is always getting a bad rap.
And I think this is despicable. Especially on the part of people
who have presumably read the entire Bible or large sections
of it, and the New Testament, and especially when they have
fast and efficient (?) minds. I put the question mark there,
because more than IQ is at work in "brains."
This is demonstrated by some studies that showed that high IQ
in children do not always result in success later. It is other factors
playing a role, incl. emotional and social issues.
Among the emotional issues, one that can operate hidden, not
showing as a "feeling" or "emotion" until it is challenged, but
the driver behind decisions and choices of what to accept or
reject, is the sin of pride, and its relative, vainglory.
Sometimes these go with success, IF circumstances are such they
favor the person with this flaw, AND he or she has a lot of skill
or "talent" in whatever is at issue. If any of these don't fit, then
failure or mediocrity may result, with concomitant envy, semi
submerged anger being in denial about one's abilities or whatever,
or just throwing over the traces and being a "rebel" considering
everything is beneath him or her anyway.
Now, I think when you have someone who studied patristics at
Oral Roberts University, and also graduated from Oxford, UK,
and wrote a book on the level of any of the ancient Fathers on
heresy and the driver behind all the Christological heresies
(not the first to identify it, but other great thinkers and writers
always draw on predecessors anyway), which is confusion
between person and nature, and translated and wrote a profound
introduction to St. Photios the Great's Mystagogy of The Holy
Spirit, still (or at least relatively recently available at St. Vladimir's
Seminary book store), and this person decides that YHWH is a
bad guy, something is wrong somewhere.
Now, the usual pattern is, either YHWH is condemned for being
too lenient, or for being too bloodthirsty. Such people can only
like a God Who is kindly and coddling and takes care of us, but
despise His justice and discipline. Some will accept justice only
if viewed as discipline to teach us and improve us, which of
course pending the Last Judgement, all justice is potentially
since it may cause one to stop and think and ask why and
sincerely seek.
This guy was Eastern Orthodox, then, not seeing the obvious
point that being Orthodox by being recognized by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate or some church in communion with them, means
that that person's or church's doctrine has been checked and
approved, ends up going vagante. That means he got a consecration
as a bishop from someone with an Apostolic Succession, but
outside any recognized Orthodox organization. While this is not
entirely outside the pale in terms of legitimacy if you go back to
basics and the earliest days, since "wandering bishops," those
who are not assigned to a specific diocese, were prohibited by
a later council because of disorders they caused, it is reason to
raise an eyebrow, though the succession he was in is one that
goes back as far as primary consecrators are concerned, if the
online information is correct, to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Exactly how that lineage went out of Russian Orthodoxy is
another matter of no importance here, but the lineage though it
includes Vilatte lineages as secondary consecrators, and Villatte
had his consecration from a monophysite source, is not primarily
of that. So if heretical successions from an Apostle are tainted,
this one is clear. (Villatte's ordination to the priesthood,
however, was RC legitimate.)
By this time, he has imbibed ormus which he figured tends to
exaggerate the users characteristics, good and bad. I would
guess this led to his further problems.
the EO is infested with rejection of the idea of God's justice
right now, so it must have been some other reason that he
went vagante. By this time, his bishop is involved in
astrology according to one source, and himself has shown
evidence of more acquaintance with books of demon
conjuring than should be the case, and a deplorable willingness
to publish demon sigils, arguing these reflect some kind of
wierd physics and not spirits. (the two issues might overlap.
that doesn't make the sigils or what they represent any less
evil.)
A major problem I suspect with this genius, is pride. AND
while denouncing the scholastics, he is an overly systematic
thinker, a system builder, like Aquinas.
In God History and the Dialectic, a brilliant book I would
recommend to everyone, and most of it is available at google
books, he not only nails the source of Christological heresies,
he then goes on to tackle the filioque, and blames that for
all tripartite containing wacko ideas from Joachim of Flores
to Hegelian Dialectic and Marxism which derives in main
part from Hegel.
While there is a lot to be said for this, one main problem
remains. Filioque or no filioque, if you are going to start
trying to draw tripartite conclusions in the physical world
from The Holy Trinity's existence, other than noticing that
threes may be a hint from The Trinity about Themself, or
a case of the artist putting something about himself in his
art, or both, you are going to get some strange results.
The system building mentality builds houses of cards,
complex houses. Or domino houses. these houses are not
entirely dependent in all cases on their components so that
if you pull one or even two out the whole thing falls, but
it will certainly, ah, restructure. Perhaps that restructured
form is like what it should have been, or perhaps it will
be a whole new error.
Systems Analysis, by the way, is NOT the same thing as
system building type thinking, mechanical, rigid, building
logically one thing on another.
There are two ways a syllogism can fail, an unexamined
wrong premise, and an unexamined non sequitur ("it does
not follow"). A flaw in either place will ruin the whole,
or most of it.
Farrell has both. Now, he is onto something with the wierd
physics. but he assumes that all the pagan pantheons,
especially those of people connected with megalith etc.
building like the Egyptians, were disguised mathematical
relationships. This may to some extent be true, but that
doesn't make them any less pagan demons and believed in
bullshit etc.
At some point he noticed that often there was some connection
between economics and priesthoods, and has drawn conclusions
and stated generalities that I don't have the time or resources to
check on.
But he points out that there is a correllation between a closed
system physics and money as monetized debt, and an open
system physics and real money (dismissed as funny money by
proponents of gold standard and central banks alike) which is
much more flexible, is based on the actual production of the
people and so forth. Adjust this a tad more, and add barter and
agreed acceptance of something easy for anyone to get ahold
of like beads and cowrie shells as mediums of exchange, and
you would solve the world's financial problems in general, and
the USA and Europe's financial problems in particular.
but now he argues that all sacrificial religious systems (blood
sacrifice, human or animal) and that of the Atonement by
Christ, is the same, which is to pay a debt. And further you
never get it paid off.
This is patently false for two reasons.
(1) all the sacrificial systems are looking to FEED A
VAMPIRE. a false god may be appeased by the pleasure
of being fed, but it is not a justice stand in for the offender.
(2) a. YHWHism almost alone makes it clear, that the God
being worshipped, the true God, does not need anything,
does not need to feed, and that the issue is substitution
of the animal for the offender who is then to lead an
exemplary life, and that also there is the matter of showing
gratitude by giving to God of what God has given to you,
not being selfish and prideful and thinking you did it all
yourself, or "mother nature" did it or whatever. God made
and directs "mother nature."
b. Whenever did a "bankster" (banker as gangster, and
yes that is a legitimate concept) pay off the debt of the
debtor for him and extend infinite credit on top of that as
St. John Chrysostom described it? YHWH does not act
like a bankster in the Atonement.
The debt to God in part is based on our very existence, but
that is God's pleasure as well as ours. He loves His creatures.
He supports us and give us, human and animal alike, all we
need to live, though it is up to us to make do and work on it.
human sin has marred all this. It is not really DEBT in a sense
we borrowed and can pay back, but rather, all we have and all
good we are, we owe to God.
Pride of course doesn't like this. Lucifer fell in love with his
own beauty, prized himself above God and decided to place
his throne above YHWH's but was cast down instead.
but the debt of sin, is another matter. That was incurred. God
tried to prevent it but we didn't listen. HOWEVER, it is not
as simple as debt of sin or appease the honor of an agrieved
overlord.
St. Athanasius made it clear in The Divine Dilemma in
On The Incarnation, that God had the following choices. Either
let His creation go on dithering off into destruction, which would
be unfitting and better He had not created anything almost, OR
He could violate His own integrity and take back His word that
rebellion would result in death.
OR, He could take on human flesh, suffer the condemnation He
laid on us, and have His cake and eat it too as a result. This is
what He did.
(He also pulled off the greatest chess move in history. Being king
as well as God of Israel, but knowing they would eventually want
a human king, He allowed Himself to be kicked upstairs so to speak,
being God but not king anymore.
After the first king selected was a failure, He made a covenant with
the second and better king, David, and even before this, had said
through prophets that the kingship would always reside in Judah
UNTIL Shiloh, He Who Shall Rule or something like that, shall
come. In Jesus' time alone was Judah under a non Judaean king.
An Idumaean in stead. Herod and his successors.
Now, God (the Second Person of God The Trinity) Incarnates in
the royal lineage. The covenant with David had David's descendants
not just any Judaean on the throne forever.
So now, God in the Person of Jesus Christ, is King again as well
as God, and will be so forever, the Second Coming being to fulfill
the kingly role of the Messiah (Christ is Greek for Messiah, both
mean "anointed").
Now, the Atonement is the greatest act of love ever. Somehow
the devil and his all too eager workers among men, see it as an
act of hate and evil.
Remember that ALL the Trinity not just The Father was upset.
And Christ received the sacrifice of Himself just as much as did
The Father, as the AD 1156 Blachernae Constantinople Council
made clear, often MISQUOTED by EO who oppose atonement.
What it said was, that you must not only say that Christ made
the Sacrifice to The Father but to Himself also, that BOTH He
and The Father received His sacrifice for us.
It is from The Wrath of The Lamb as well as from that of The
Father that we are saved, and there was never any ransom PAID
to the devil. Redemption as one linguist pointed out, in Hebrew
conception can mean not only buying a slave's freedom, paying
a ransom to a conqueror or a kidnapper, but also can mean just
barging in and taking the captive back. The latter is what is
indicated by Christ's redemption of us, it is payment to Himself
and The Father to free us from the Wrath, and it is barging in
and taking us from the devil who Christ crippled.
EO and RC argue that the devil is bound now. That is patently
false or there would be no office of exorcist, sure the devil is
crippled, BUT Revelation speaks of him being bound for 1,000
years unable to tempt the nations. Even now, though weakened
severely, he misleads the unbelievers, "the nations," and the
believers when he can.
So the Atonement is an act of love not hate.
c. YHWH inveighed against human sacrifice, especially of infants,
and against usury meaning ANY DEGREE OF INTEREST
WHATSOEVER. It was the Venetians and Calvin who got
the RC and the Prots to decide that usury was "excessive"
interest, instead of ANY interest.
In the good old days, the way you got gain from making a loan,
was to use the land it was loaned against, or animals or machines
or tools until the debt, interest free, was paid off, or to become
a part owner in the business, and getting some of its profits, until
the debt, interest free, was paid off.
(this is still the way with Arab lenders, which makes their
money so attractive.)
SO, how exactly does YHWH pan out as a bankster?
On a Byte Show, the Aztec legends that blame the institution
of human sacrifice on one Yaotl was hawked. I got a copy of
the book that is their legends. Sure, Yaotl was the name of the
sorceror who, with Tezcatlipoca, started this evil. BUT HE
WASN'T THE ONLY PERSON WITH A YAO BEGINNING
NAME.
that writer just jumped on the Yao part of the name as
showing this was YHWH disguised or an emissary thereof.
Which is patent nonsense.
who have presumably read the entire Bible or large sections
of it, and the New Testament, and especially when they have
fast and efficient (?) minds. I put the question mark there,
because more than IQ is at work in "brains."
This is demonstrated by some studies that showed that high IQ
in children do not always result in success later. It is other factors
playing a role, incl. emotional and social issues.
Among the emotional issues, one that can operate hidden, not
showing as a "feeling" or "emotion" until it is challenged, but
the driver behind decisions and choices of what to accept or
reject, is the sin of pride, and its relative, vainglory.
Sometimes these go with success, IF circumstances are such they
favor the person with this flaw, AND he or she has a lot of skill
or "talent" in whatever is at issue. If any of these don't fit, then
failure or mediocrity may result, with concomitant envy, semi
submerged anger being in denial about one's abilities or whatever,
or just throwing over the traces and being a "rebel" considering
everything is beneath him or her anyway.
Now, I think when you have someone who studied patristics at
Oral Roberts University, and also graduated from Oxford, UK,
and wrote a book on the level of any of the ancient Fathers on
heresy and the driver behind all the Christological heresies
(not the first to identify it, but other great thinkers and writers
always draw on predecessors anyway), which is confusion
between person and nature, and translated and wrote a profound
introduction to St. Photios the Great's Mystagogy of The Holy
Spirit, still (or at least relatively recently available at St. Vladimir's
Seminary book store), and this person decides that YHWH is a
bad guy, something is wrong somewhere.
Now, the usual pattern is, either YHWH is condemned for being
too lenient, or for being too bloodthirsty. Such people can only
like a God Who is kindly and coddling and takes care of us, but
despise His justice and discipline. Some will accept justice only
if viewed as discipline to teach us and improve us, which of
course pending the Last Judgement, all justice is potentially
since it may cause one to stop and think and ask why and
sincerely seek.
This guy was Eastern Orthodox, then, not seeing the obvious
point that being Orthodox by being recognized by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate or some church in communion with them, means
that that person's or church's doctrine has been checked and
approved, ends up going vagante. That means he got a consecration
as a bishop from someone with an Apostolic Succession, but
outside any recognized Orthodox organization. While this is not
entirely outside the pale in terms of legitimacy if you go back to
basics and the earliest days, since "wandering bishops," those
who are not assigned to a specific diocese, were prohibited by
a later council because of disorders they caused, it is reason to
raise an eyebrow, though the succession he was in is one that
goes back as far as primary consecrators are concerned, if the
online information is correct, to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Exactly how that lineage went out of Russian Orthodoxy is
another matter of no importance here, but the lineage though it
includes Vilatte lineages as secondary consecrators, and Villatte
had his consecration from a monophysite source, is not primarily
of that. So if heretical successions from an Apostle are tainted,
this one is clear. (Villatte's ordination to the priesthood,
however, was RC legitimate.)
By this time, he has imbibed ormus which he figured tends to
exaggerate the users characteristics, good and bad. I would
guess this led to his further problems.
the EO is infested with rejection of the idea of God's justice
right now, so it must have been some other reason that he
went vagante. By this time, his bishop is involved in
astrology according to one source, and himself has shown
evidence of more acquaintance with books of demon
conjuring than should be the case, and a deplorable willingness
to publish demon sigils, arguing these reflect some kind of
wierd physics and not spirits. (the two issues might overlap.
that doesn't make the sigils or what they represent any less
evil.)
A major problem I suspect with this genius, is pride. AND
while denouncing the scholastics, he is an overly systematic
thinker, a system builder, like Aquinas.
In God History and the Dialectic, a brilliant book I would
recommend to everyone, and most of it is available at google
books, he not only nails the source of Christological heresies,
he then goes on to tackle the filioque, and blames that for
all tripartite containing wacko ideas from Joachim of Flores
to Hegelian Dialectic and Marxism which derives in main
part from Hegel.
While there is a lot to be said for this, one main problem
remains. Filioque or no filioque, if you are going to start
trying to draw tripartite conclusions in the physical world
from The Holy Trinity's existence, other than noticing that
threes may be a hint from The Trinity about Themself, or
a case of the artist putting something about himself in his
art, or both, you are going to get some strange results.
The system building mentality builds houses of cards,
complex houses. Or domino houses. these houses are not
entirely dependent in all cases on their components so that
if you pull one or even two out the whole thing falls, but
it will certainly, ah, restructure. Perhaps that restructured
form is like what it should have been, or perhaps it will
be a whole new error.
Systems Analysis, by the way, is NOT the same thing as
system building type thinking, mechanical, rigid, building
logically one thing on another.
There are two ways a syllogism can fail, an unexamined
wrong premise, and an unexamined non sequitur ("it does
not follow"). A flaw in either place will ruin the whole,
or most of it.
Farrell has both. Now, he is onto something with the wierd
physics. but he assumes that all the pagan pantheons,
especially those of people connected with megalith etc.
building like the Egyptians, were disguised mathematical
relationships. This may to some extent be true, but that
doesn't make them any less pagan demons and believed in
bullshit etc.
At some point he noticed that often there was some connection
between economics and priesthoods, and has drawn conclusions
and stated generalities that I don't have the time or resources to
check on.
But he points out that there is a correllation between a closed
system physics and money as monetized debt, and an open
system physics and real money (dismissed as funny money by
proponents of gold standard and central banks alike) which is
much more flexible, is based on the actual production of the
people and so forth. Adjust this a tad more, and add barter and
agreed acceptance of something easy for anyone to get ahold
of like beads and cowrie shells as mediums of exchange, and
you would solve the world's financial problems in general, and
the USA and Europe's financial problems in particular.
but now he argues that all sacrificial religious systems (blood
sacrifice, human or animal) and that of the Atonement by
Christ, is the same, which is to pay a debt. And further you
never get it paid off.
This is patently false for two reasons.
(1) all the sacrificial systems are looking to FEED A
VAMPIRE. a false god may be appeased by the pleasure
of being fed, but it is not a justice stand in for the offender.
(2) a. YHWHism almost alone makes it clear, that the God
being worshipped, the true God, does not need anything,
does not need to feed, and that the issue is substitution
of the animal for the offender who is then to lead an
exemplary life, and that also there is the matter of showing
gratitude by giving to God of what God has given to you,
not being selfish and prideful and thinking you did it all
yourself, or "mother nature" did it or whatever. God made
and directs "mother nature."
b. Whenever did a "bankster" (banker as gangster, and
yes that is a legitimate concept) pay off the debt of the
debtor for him and extend infinite credit on top of that as
St. John Chrysostom described it? YHWH does not act
like a bankster in the Atonement.
The debt to God in part is based on our very existence, but
that is God's pleasure as well as ours. He loves His creatures.
He supports us and give us, human and animal alike, all we
need to live, though it is up to us to make do and work on it.
human sin has marred all this. It is not really DEBT in a sense
we borrowed and can pay back, but rather, all we have and all
good we are, we owe to God.
Pride of course doesn't like this. Lucifer fell in love with his
own beauty, prized himself above God and decided to place
his throne above YHWH's but was cast down instead.
but the debt of sin, is another matter. That was incurred. God
tried to prevent it but we didn't listen. HOWEVER, it is not
as simple as debt of sin or appease the honor of an agrieved
overlord.
St. Athanasius made it clear in The Divine Dilemma in
On The Incarnation, that God had the following choices. Either
let His creation go on dithering off into destruction, which would
be unfitting and better He had not created anything almost, OR
He could violate His own integrity and take back His word that
rebellion would result in death.
OR, He could take on human flesh, suffer the condemnation He
laid on us, and have His cake and eat it too as a result. This is
what He did.
(He also pulled off the greatest chess move in history. Being king
as well as God of Israel, but knowing they would eventually want
a human king, He allowed Himself to be kicked upstairs so to speak,
being God but not king anymore.
After the first king selected was a failure, He made a covenant with
the second and better king, David, and even before this, had said
through prophets that the kingship would always reside in Judah
UNTIL Shiloh, He Who Shall Rule or something like that, shall
come. In Jesus' time alone was Judah under a non Judaean king.
An Idumaean in stead. Herod and his successors.
Now, God (the Second Person of God The Trinity) Incarnates in
the royal lineage. The covenant with David had David's descendants
not just any Judaean on the throne forever.
So now, God in the Person of Jesus Christ, is King again as well
as God, and will be so forever, the Second Coming being to fulfill
the kingly role of the Messiah (Christ is Greek for Messiah, both
mean "anointed").
Now, the Atonement is the greatest act of love ever. Somehow
the devil and his all too eager workers among men, see it as an
act of hate and evil.
Remember that ALL the Trinity not just The Father was upset.
And Christ received the sacrifice of Himself just as much as did
The Father, as the AD 1156 Blachernae Constantinople Council
made clear, often MISQUOTED by EO who oppose atonement.
What it said was, that you must not only say that Christ made
the Sacrifice to The Father but to Himself also, that BOTH He
and The Father received His sacrifice for us.
It is from The Wrath of The Lamb as well as from that of The
Father that we are saved, and there was never any ransom PAID
to the devil. Redemption as one linguist pointed out, in Hebrew
conception can mean not only buying a slave's freedom, paying
a ransom to a conqueror or a kidnapper, but also can mean just
barging in and taking the captive back. The latter is what is
indicated by Christ's redemption of us, it is payment to Himself
and The Father to free us from the Wrath, and it is barging in
and taking us from the devil who Christ crippled.
EO and RC argue that the devil is bound now. That is patently
false or there would be no office of exorcist, sure the devil is
crippled, BUT Revelation speaks of him being bound for 1,000
years unable to tempt the nations. Even now, though weakened
severely, he misleads the unbelievers, "the nations," and the
believers when he can.
So the Atonement is an act of love not hate.
c. YHWH inveighed against human sacrifice, especially of infants,
and against usury meaning ANY DEGREE OF INTEREST
WHATSOEVER. It was the Venetians and Calvin who got
the RC and the Prots to decide that usury was "excessive"
interest, instead of ANY interest.
In the good old days, the way you got gain from making a loan,
was to use the land it was loaned against, or animals or machines
or tools until the debt, interest free, was paid off, or to become
a part owner in the business, and getting some of its profits, until
the debt, interest free, was paid off.
(this is still the way with Arab lenders, which makes their
money so attractive.)
SO, how exactly does YHWH pan out as a bankster?
On a Byte Show, the Aztec legends that blame the institution
of human sacrifice on one Yaotl was hawked. I got a copy of
the book that is their legends. Sure, Yaotl was the name of the
sorceror who, with Tezcatlipoca, started this evil. BUT HE
WASN'T THE ONLY PERSON WITH A YAO BEGINNING
NAME.
that writer just jumped on the Yao part of the name as
showing this was YHWH disguised or an emissary thereof.
Which is patent nonsense.
OWS
This movement Occupy Wall Street has potential to do good,
but it has stirred a lot of New Age Movement hype in their
favor and claiming they are part of the global consciousness
whatnot. Big money, supposedly the enemy camp, is back of
them as it is back of supposed enemy Tea Party.
This movement is a bit like the Arab Spring, which brought
no good to Christians, or to muslims who prefer life under
moderate regimes, because radical islam gains ground in
such chaos. Perhaps something not so good is in danger of
coming about because of all this.
It certainly would be the kind of thing, combined with any
natural disasters in the works, that could be the excuse for
martial law.
Not that martial law is all that bad in itself sometimes. But
it is a good context in which to pull some not good stuff.
it is irritating when you have curfews and so forth. it is great
when the oppressors who have made your life not worth living
and no justice can be had against them are dead in the street
because caught out under circumstances where they fit a
shoot to kill order.
but there can be a lot of really bad stuff happen also. And
the suppression of free speech and radical changes in the
Constitution and so forth are not good, when the controlling
majority or even controlling minority with guns are in favor
of policies that are evil.like the pro gay and pro abortion
agenda and pro immorality in general and the entrenchment
of corruption in a way involving adjusting laws so whatever
that is left that can be used against it is removed.
So I would be careful of the OWS. Maybe some sane
elements can gain control since it is amorphous, maybe
something more Christian specifically. And definitely not
the kind of anarchism and so forth that would give an excuse
for a crackdown.
but it has stirred a lot of New Age Movement hype in their
favor and claiming they are part of the global consciousness
whatnot. Big money, supposedly the enemy camp, is back of
them as it is back of supposed enemy Tea Party.
This movement is a bit like the Arab Spring, which brought
no good to Christians, or to muslims who prefer life under
moderate regimes, because radical islam gains ground in
such chaos. Perhaps something not so good is in danger of
coming about because of all this.
It certainly would be the kind of thing, combined with any
natural disasters in the works, that could be the excuse for
martial law.
Not that martial law is all that bad in itself sometimes. But
it is a good context in which to pull some not good stuff.
it is irritating when you have curfews and so forth. it is great
when the oppressors who have made your life not worth living
and no justice can be had against them are dead in the street
because caught out under circumstances where they fit a
shoot to kill order.
but there can be a lot of really bad stuff happen also. And
the suppression of free speech and radical changes in the
Constitution and so forth are not good, when the controlling
majority or even controlling minority with guns are in favor
of policies that are evil.like the pro gay and pro abortion
agenda and pro immorality in general and the entrenchment
of corruption in a way involving adjusting laws so whatever
that is left that can be used against it is removed.
So I would be careful of the OWS. Maybe some sane
elements can gain control since it is amorphous, maybe
something more Christian specifically. And definitely not
the kind of anarchism and so forth that would give an excuse
for a crackdown.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
joys - NOT - of muslim women
Joys of Muslim Women
by Nonie DarwishTo prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses. Often, after a woman has been raped, the family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and the man does not have to say why he has beaten her.
The husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
The Sharia Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the Western World (America) Muslim men are starting to demand Sharia Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending US and Canadian Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Sharia law.
By passing this on, enlightened US and Canadian women may avoid becoming a slave under Sharia Law. Ripping the West in Two. Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Sharia law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.
She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.
Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to the US in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza.
When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping Sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.
For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose Sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.
Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.
While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.
While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.
It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.
While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. and Canada to elect the President or Prime Minister by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA and Canada, Dearborn Mich. is one, Brampton, Ontario is another and there are others...
I think everyone in the U.S. and Canada should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized.
It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be, but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam using the peaceful support, the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion. While the US and Canada are getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on the US and Canada...
Saturday, October 29, 2011
The New Situation Developing
It has been pointed out by someone of brilliant mind, who
has unfortunately missed a key truth, that right now we
are in the same situation as the beginning of the Renaissance
and the Reformation. A new technology of information (in
those days the Gutenberg press, in our days the Internet)
is involved in the questioning and destabilization of an
entrenched elite. in those days it was the slightly heretical
and worldly fleshly solutions power oriented Roman
church, in our days the "banksters" or gangsters in banker
respectable format, though frankly I am not sure that the
parallel is exact. A kind of entrenched open and secret
power structure that is supranational and has its own kind
of dogma and purges does exist. A sort of challenge is
going out, though whether all such popular uprisings as
the Arab spring and the Occupy Everywhere crowd are
really comparable is another matter. Crazed fundamentalisms
willing to kill and die for their causes are hardly alien to
the Arab spring, and some others have shown up in the
OWS scene.
Supposedly according to this analysis, the closed system
anti hermetic ideas of physics are partly to blame for the
closed system monetized debt that chains all in more and
more debt and interest.
Ignored by this brilliant mind is that in the days of the
power of the medieval church, all degrees of interest were
illegal, and it was the Venetians to some extent, and Calvin's
arguments more so, that got usury changed from meaning
ANY degree of interest to meaning excessive interest.
The Reformation, Calvin's part of it, made the banksters
possible. Before, to gain on a loan, you had to have a
part ownership given you in whatever until the debt was
paid off, no interest. Or, you kept and used land or
equipment until the debt was paid off, no interest. The
same procedure is what the Arab lenders follow, because
of Islamic laws against all usury, which are still in force,
making their economic gains here and elsewhere, aside
from oil, easier.
Supposedly we now stand at a three pronged crossroads,
Reformation, Renaissance or Revolution. I am not sure
of this analysis, the whole uprising might fizzle or be
coopted, and there is strong evidence of bankster and
elite financing of not only the Tea Party but the OWS
as well. This might of course, in the latter case,
represent a bid for power by a segment of the elite that
looks to unseat its rival segments, by gaining the love
of the masses, or might even represent some actual
humanitarian concern regarding the masses. I don't
remember all that much about the Reformation or the
Renaissance politically, but I think some of this went
on then also.
The Renaissance may have brought hermeticism to the
fore, and these were indeed inspiration for some great
minds as he points out, hermeticism being a mixed
bag of tricks indeed, but it was also the height of
corruption and evil of every kind the in Roman church.
One of the drivers indeed towards the success of the
Reformation, was the horror of the average church
person, who found holy Rome to be a moral and often
spiritual sewer on visiting on pilgrimage.
Savonarola saw this too, and was doing good work
at reforming the unholy people with the church's
blessing, and would have been on the catalog of saints
with other moral reformers and religious revivers, like
St. Francis of Asissi and St. Catherine of Siena, and
many others later, but for one thing, he challenged
the papacy's immoral and corrupt ways. And that got
him shot down.
This brilliant man I am referring to, once wrote an
excellent analysis of the core of christological heresy
and the problem of the filioque. The former lies in
a confusion between person and nature, the latter
creates a general mess out of which Hegelian dialectic
came, partly inspired by Joachim of Fiore, (sp?) and
in turn gave rise to Marx and Hitler.
But another core problem, is the failure to see the love
of God in the atonement. Supposedly the whole sin
as debt and sacrifice as payoff system is the theological
side of banksterism and gives the underpinning idea
that validates debt slavery systems.
But what bankster ever paid off his debtors' debt to
himself, willingly discharged a debt and ate the loss?
The analogy fails.
Part of the problem is having too systematic a mind, you
build complex houses of cards depending on each other.
pull one out and the whole thing, or most of it, collapses.
the unexamined premise and the unrecognized nonsequitur.
Whether we are indeed at such a crossroads in history,
comparable to what happened in the 1500s is another
matter. There are parallels. And like the press, the Internet
can be and is monitored and used by the opposition to
reform or revolution or renaissance, whatever.
Hopefully the mess will sort out without bloodshed or
violent revolution and government overthrow and
assassinations. Such things aside from being illegal,
and bringing bad press on any movement or idea
associated with it and playing thereby into the hands
of its enemies, tend to produce new tyrannies anyway.
Another problem, with this great thinker, is that he
fails to consider that the Roman church was not
behaving consistently to the teaching or example of
Christ or the Fathers. To adopt hermeticism whole
hog heresies incl. is not a solution.
and "a man convinced against his will is of the
same opinion still." teaching and evangelism among
the heresy threatened population is far better than
crusade, because that way the wrong ideas and
practices are eradicated, instead of kept as an
underground stream of pollution. Exactly the
same problem is created when one's spiritual life
is trusted to parents and godparents and popular
art and public events in village church life and
elsewhere, instead of catechism being a requirement
from early days on, at the direction of priests, not
nuns who may be themselves in error
A good example of the latter is the problem, should
one wear a rosary as a necklace? the person researching
this recalled that the nuns who taught her said NO,
but the actual canon law only says that flippant and
secular use of holy things as jewelry is not allowed,
though no one says do not wear a cross openly around
your neck now do they? The attitude is what counts,
and it is pretty hard to treat crucifixes, crosses and
rosaries as mere jewelry to show off the gold or
silver content and not send a religious message as
well. (though some pretty nasty people do wear
crosses, gangsters and whores. probably think they
can do as they please, maybe get good luck from
them, and escape hell by playing a game on God.)
The early Fathers were not strangers to pagan
philosophy and knowledge, and probably knew
some of the material that became the hermetica.
But as I think it was St. Basil said, the Christian
should be like the bee, who goes from flower to
flower, taking what is useful and spurning the rest.
Precisely this approach is NOT what is done by
hermeticists in general or New Agers in particular.
Meanwhile, as Constance Cumbey's blog shows,
all sorts of people are putting all kinds of spin
on the Occupy Wall Street movement, welcoming
it as representing their varied and sometimes
conflicting goals coming to pass.
has unfortunately missed a key truth, that right now we
are in the same situation as the beginning of the Renaissance
and the Reformation. A new technology of information (in
those days the Gutenberg press, in our days the Internet)
is involved in the questioning and destabilization of an
entrenched elite. in those days it was the slightly heretical
and worldly fleshly solutions power oriented Roman
church, in our days the "banksters" or gangsters in banker
respectable format, though frankly I am not sure that the
parallel is exact. A kind of entrenched open and secret
power structure that is supranational and has its own kind
of dogma and purges does exist. A sort of challenge is
going out, though whether all such popular uprisings as
the Arab spring and the Occupy Everywhere crowd are
really comparable is another matter. Crazed fundamentalisms
willing to kill and die for their causes are hardly alien to
the Arab spring, and some others have shown up in the
OWS scene.
Supposedly according to this analysis, the closed system
anti hermetic ideas of physics are partly to blame for the
closed system monetized debt that chains all in more and
more debt and interest.
Ignored by this brilliant mind is that in the days of the
power of the medieval church, all degrees of interest were
illegal, and it was the Venetians to some extent, and Calvin's
arguments more so, that got usury changed from meaning
ANY degree of interest to meaning excessive interest.
The Reformation, Calvin's part of it, made the banksters
possible. Before, to gain on a loan, you had to have a
part ownership given you in whatever until the debt was
paid off, no interest. Or, you kept and used land or
equipment until the debt was paid off, no interest. The
same procedure is what the Arab lenders follow, because
of Islamic laws against all usury, which are still in force,
making their economic gains here and elsewhere, aside
from oil, easier.
Supposedly we now stand at a three pronged crossroads,
Reformation, Renaissance or Revolution. I am not sure
of this analysis, the whole uprising might fizzle or be
coopted, and there is strong evidence of bankster and
elite financing of not only the Tea Party but the OWS
as well. This might of course, in the latter case,
represent a bid for power by a segment of the elite that
looks to unseat its rival segments, by gaining the love
of the masses, or might even represent some actual
humanitarian concern regarding the masses. I don't
remember all that much about the Reformation or the
Renaissance politically, but I think some of this went
on then also.
The Renaissance may have brought hermeticism to the
fore, and these were indeed inspiration for some great
minds as he points out, hermeticism being a mixed
bag of tricks indeed, but it was also the height of
corruption and evil of every kind the in Roman church.
One of the drivers indeed towards the success of the
Reformation, was the horror of the average church
person, who found holy Rome to be a moral and often
spiritual sewer on visiting on pilgrimage.
Savonarola saw this too, and was doing good work
at reforming the unholy people with the church's
blessing, and would have been on the catalog of saints
with other moral reformers and religious revivers, like
St. Francis of Asissi and St. Catherine of Siena, and
many others later, but for one thing, he challenged
the papacy's immoral and corrupt ways. And that got
him shot down.
This brilliant man I am referring to, once wrote an
excellent analysis of the core of christological heresy
and the problem of the filioque. The former lies in
a confusion between person and nature, the latter
creates a general mess out of which Hegelian dialectic
came, partly inspired by Joachim of Fiore, (sp?) and
in turn gave rise to Marx and Hitler.
But another core problem, is the failure to see the love
of God in the atonement. Supposedly the whole sin
as debt and sacrifice as payoff system is the theological
side of banksterism and gives the underpinning idea
that validates debt slavery systems.
But what bankster ever paid off his debtors' debt to
himself, willingly discharged a debt and ate the loss?
The analogy fails.
Part of the problem is having too systematic a mind, you
build complex houses of cards depending on each other.
pull one out and the whole thing, or most of it, collapses.
the unexamined premise and the unrecognized nonsequitur.
Whether we are indeed at such a crossroads in history,
comparable to what happened in the 1500s is another
matter. There are parallels. And like the press, the Internet
can be and is monitored and used by the opposition to
reform or revolution or renaissance, whatever.
Hopefully the mess will sort out without bloodshed or
violent revolution and government overthrow and
assassinations. Such things aside from being illegal,
and bringing bad press on any movement or idea
associated with it and playing thereby into the hands
of its enemies, tend to produce new tyrannies anyway.
Another problem, with this great thinker, is that he
fails to consider that the Roman church was not
behaving consistently to the teaching or example of
Christ or the Fathers. To adopt hermeticism whole
hog heresies incl. is not a solution.
and "a man convinced against his will is of the
same opinion still." teaching and evangelism among
the heresy threatened population is far better than
crusade, because that way the wrong ideas and
practices are eradicated, instead of kept as an
underground stream of pollution. Exactly the
same problem is created when one's spiritual life
is trusted to parents and godparents and popular
art and public events in village church life and
elsewhere, instead of catechism being a requirement
from early days on, at the direction of priests, not
nuns who may be themselves in error
A good example of the latter is the problem, should
one wear a rosary as a necklace? the person researching
this recalled that the nuns who taught her said NO,
but the actual canon law only says that flippant and
secular use of holy things as jewelry is not allowed,
though no one says do not wear a cross openly around
your neck now do they? The attitude is what counts,
and it is pretty hard to treat crucifixes, crosses and
rosaries as mere jewelry to show off the gold or
silver content and not send a religious message as
well. (though some pretty nasty people do wear
crosses, gangsters and whores. probably think they
can do as they please, maybe get good luck from
them, and escape hell by playing a game on God.)
The early Fathers were not strangers to pagan
philosophy and knowledge, and probably knew
some of the material that became the hermetica.
But as I think it was St. Basil said, the Christian
should be like the bee, who goes from flower to
flower, taking what is useful and spurning the rest.
Precisely this approach is NOT what is done by
hermeticists in general or New Agers in particular.
Meanwhile, as Constance Cumbey's blog shows,
all sorts of people are putting all kinds of spin
on the Occupy Wall Street movement, welcoming
it as representing their varied and sometimes
conflicting goals coming to pass.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Nibiru Orbit on a Swiss Bank Note
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u-tmFtYnrLo#!
this Swiss Bank Note shows nibiru's orbit, though the interpretation from
it varies from this. I would suspect that the orbit shown on the note is
more accurate, and that nibiru is between the orbits of mercury and venus.
as per Marshall Masters' research, it broke the ecliptic at the less dangerous
to us position, but will exit the ecliptic at a more dangerous position if this
and my understanding of its indication of positions relative to earth's orbit,
and earth's positions on the jpl orbit diagrams per dates is correct. To find
earth's position, just cue in any orbiter and look for where earth is now,
and later. If nibiru is essentially behind the sun now, and takes 1 1/2 to
2 years to exit, things will get very bad indeed in 2013.
this Swiss Bank Note shows nibiru's orbit, though the interpretation from
it varies from this. I would suspect that the orbit shown on the note is
more accurate, and that nibiru is between the orbits of mercury and venus.
as per Marshall Masters' research, it broke the ecliptic at the less dangerous
to us position, but will exit the ecliptic at a more dangerous position if this
and my understanding of its indication of positions relative to earth's orbit,
and earth's positions on the jpl orbit diagrams per dates is correct. To find
earth's position, just cue in any orbiter and look for where earth is now,
and later. If nibiru is essentially behind the sun now, and takes 1 1/2 to
2 years to exit, things will get very bad indeed in 2013.
Planet X / Nibiru 2012 Flyby Scenarios - February 2009 Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf3jPtaq9Q4I don't recommend the rest of his stuff, but the Planet X research seems
pretty solid.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)