May 23, 2009

The Prodigal Son - A Fresh Look

If there's one parable of Jesus that gets a lot of retelling by preachers, it has to be the story of the 'prodigal son.' It has been analyzed and interpreted through the ages, and books have been written based on it. Yet, there always seems to be something new and fresh to learn from the tale. Here is still another look at this story--one with perhaps a genuinely new lesson to absorb.

The word 'prodigal' has the meaning of 'wasteful,' 'reckless,' and other rather pejorative terms.
Jesus crafted this amazingly multi-layered lesson masterfully, as the ultimate illustrated guide to salvation.
It is obviously an allegory for the story of God's dealings with mankind. The 'father' represents God. He's a kindly, tolerant, long-suffering, generous person, who allows his son to go his own way, but then waits patiently, longingly, even expectantly, for him to return home. The elder son is a typical 'first-born'--responsible, obedient, and maybe too ready to resent. He has 'high standards' of behavior, and expects it of others. On the outside, he's your average Christian, you could say.

The famous prodigal is adventurous, and curious; he wants to 'experience life.' Perhaps he represents Adam and Eve, wanting to fly on his own, without Dad around to supervise. But he is no less loved of the father. Even when he demands his inheritance before the usual obituary, his father takes no offense, and hands over the portion to his inexperienced hands. Number two son goes out, and sure enough, he blows his fortune and falls on hard times. He's the kind Christians want to 'convert.'

That's a lot like most of us. We want to get away from the restrictions of external authority and live life freely, able to do what we want. We squander the blessings of health and youth that were our inheritance, and sometime in middle age, we come to our senses. So too, the prodigal comes to his senses, and realizes he's got to go back to the ancestral home. But he also realizes he's 'blown it,' and feels pretty guilty and ashamed. He figures he'll earn his way back to his father's good books by working as a servant. It sounds quite sensible to most human listeners: acknowledge your failure and go to work to pay your way, earn your keep, merit a place in the father's house. Doesn't that have an intuitive appeal to our sense of self-worth, our sense of pride and right behavior? Of course-that's what we humans would expect!

But, is that what the father wants? Not at all! First of all, he ignores the smell--the shame and guilt--of the prodigal, and runs (not walks, not waits with hands on hips). The father runs to the returning child, and before the kid can blurt out his rehearsed confession, he hugs him close, with tears in his eyes. God wants nothing to do with a 'works' repentance; He just wants us to return in love, and be part of his family again. Then the older son gets indignant about the treatment his brother is getting, reminding Dad about how well he's performed over the years. The father gently reminds him that everything in the estate belongs equally to him; there was never any question of judging his achievements.

You can see that in Jesus' own sketch of salvation, there is no mention of 'standards,' of measuring one's behavior either before or after 'conversion,' by means of external criteria, i.e. by reference to laws. The father is a figure of grace personified. All he wants is for his children to turn to him, and love him in return for the never-turning love he bears them. He doesn't want servants; he wants family. Jesus told his disciples that servants don't know the master's affairs; but he told his followers everything he knew, and called them 'friends.'

My conclusion is that this key parable, illustrative of God's plan of salvation, shows clearly that in the New Covenant, the everlasting covenant, there is no reference to, no need for, the Ten Commandment Law. The only law Jesus was interested in was the Golden Rule: love one another as you love yourself. And importantly, this is not the only place where he makes this idea clear. In another classic, eschatological parable of 'The Sheep and the Goats,' Jesus again separates those two classes of people without reference to the commandments, but simply on the basis of what we call 'charity,' or love. It's another lesson to glean from the well-studied parables; something very provocative to think about.

The High-jacking of Christianity

Mention the topic of the Christian Church among a random group today, and you will likely get a cluster of comments that portray the Church as a conservative institution, a virtual anachronism in a modern, 'progressive' world. In fact, it is surprising to see the contempt many 'outsiders' express when talking about the Christian Church. Indeed, there are many good reasons for those impressions to prevail, since they were developed over the past several decades, even centuries. Spokesmen (and they're mostly males) for Christianity in the USA have aligned themselves firmly on the far right of the political spectrum, and have even made forays into the worldly realm of politics. (While the religious scene in Canada is quite different from that in the US, Canadians are subject to heavy influence via the TV broadcasts and media stories coming from the south. By such cultural osmosis, the popular impression of 'Christianity' is much the same there as in the USA.)

And so, it has come about that in America, Christianity is virtually synonymous with the 'religious right.' Most observers probably assume that this is quite natural, that it has always been thus, that all Christians are rampant red-necks. But, is that correct?
Have Christians always been conservatives? And is that how it's supposed to be? Not at all, is my response! Quite the contrary, in fact. The primordial Christian Church, as it arose in Jerusalem from the first Pentecost after Jesus' death, was far from conservative. It was a very outward-looking, radical organization, attracting those who were not satisfied with the ages-old traditions of a dead expression of religion. Only people of courage dared to join this new sect, and they endured much hardship for the right to be followers of Christ.

Yes, they were radicals when seen in the light of their Jewish background. In proclaiming the gospel of Christ, they were overturning all the sacred cows of the traditional, Old Testament or Mosaic faith. If you doubt this, just read Acts, especially chapter 15, where the disciples decide what to require of gentile converts. Rather than dump the whole Law of Moses on these new believers, they simply required abstinence from food offered to idols, and from sexual immorality. That's it; period! Even today, most pastors of any given denomination would cringe to deliver that message to their flocks. They'd be appalled with any suggestion against the thought that there's got to be a whole bunch of rules added to the membership certificate to keep these innocent believers from going 'hog wild' in their freedom in Christ. When you contrast the early church with the hide-bound society from which it emerged, you start to get a feeling for how radical it was.

Somewhere along its track of history, though, the mainstream Christian Church (make that 'Churches,' following the Reformation) lost the radical flavor that characterized the beginning. They got high-jacked by conservative thinking men whose primary interest was in preserving the status quo. It's too hazy and protracted a process to try to pin an exact moment on when the Church swung 'right,' but it probably started after the time of persecution by the Romans. After Constantine made Christianity the national religion, the Church could relax. Without the threat of external persecution, membership became a lot more attractive to a much wider population. With the blessing of the emperor, it was a smart political move to adopt this new religion... even if one wasn't fully 'heart-converted.' Under these two factors, the inevitable happened. The Church came to adopt the hierarchical, paternalistic, bureaucratic structure characteristic of the Roman government and most human, secular organizations. Once that happened, it was not long before the bureaucrats behaved as all such officials behave. They adopted the mindset that the prime objective was to preserve the existing organization at all costs. In other words, the Church fell into the hands of conservatives. In the main thrust of its history, it has never recovered from this phase.

So today, we have arrived at the point where some Christians think that going radical means accepting the profligate ways of secular society, embracing all manner of 'progressive' ideas, until the essence of their faith is dispersed into a faint hint of vague theism. Meanwhile, the mainstream, monolithic Churches are largely populated by adherents with little Biblical knowledge, led by company men, working towards retirement on company pensions. Not much room there for radical Christianity of the first Century type. In the USA, canny 'evangelists' with a flair for theatrics have found their niche. In a country hungry for some true substance, for spiritual nourishment, these men know how to use the media, especially TV, to advance their right-wing, fear-based agenda. In a country of unparalleled wealth, there's much to conserve, and these leaders know their audience and its insecurities. Not content with getting rich, they want to gain control of the levers of power, occupy political offices in order to extend their legalistic mania over the whole population of the US.

The Christian churches themselves have long forgotten what the radical, early church looked like... and worse, they don't want to remember. They've set up a pseudo-church system that seems to work well for their purposes. Many dubious practices have been embedded as part of the machine; for eg. "we need more money to '----------' (you fill in the blanks, and oh yes, send them a cheque.) The idea that the church itself needs to be 'born again' (to use the now-tired and tarnished phrase) doesn't seem to be part of any prominent leader's agenda. But that's what's necessary. If the Christian church is to have any relevance in the modern world, any appeal to a desperate world, any credibility, it must be wrested from the sleazy hands of the conservatives who now control it, and reclaimed by souls who are radical for Christ!

As Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their dead!" The prescription above may sound altogether too drastic, but if you read the gospels with a 'free mind' rather than one conditioned by years of the traditional blandishments, you will see just how radical Jesus was, and why he was so hated by the establishment. He associated with all the 'wrong' people-- tax collectors (considered traitors by Jews), uneducated workers, foreigners, and women including prostitutes. He exposed the hypocrisy of the ultra-legalistic Pharisees, and even had the gall to attack the abomination that they had made of the Temple of God. He broke their laws, and talked about setting people free... yet he made no effort whatever to speak against the Roman occupiers. Instead of preaching 'fire and brimstone' sermons about God's wrath and severe judgement, Jesus assured people of God's love and His mercy. So you should understand, that Jesus was no conservative, fearful defender of 'traditional values.' Far from it! He was a force for change, a force majeur sweeping through the stale, decrepit, rigid structure that was contemporary Israel. His message was radical. It's no wonder that he had to be eliminated by the conservative forces of the status quo. What is a wonder is how the movement he founded has fallen in the hands of opportunists and aparachiks who want nothing to do with institutional repentance and rebirth.

For those with the spiritual eyes to see behind the human dynamics, one can see how Satan infiltrated the organized church and immediately began leading it astray. God countered with successive reformations to ensure the survival of the essential message ensconced in the scriptures so that any sincere seeker can find the Way, the Truth, and the Life, in spite of the fog of confusion and error dispersed by most churches thru their spokesmen and literature. But it takes a bit of effort, not just occupying a pew on a periodic basis. Jesus said "Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and the door shall be opened; ask, and it shall be given." So, dear reader, don't be satisfied to listen to sermons, but open your Bible, ask for guidance, and seek the truth.

May 22, 2009

Final Stand for Truth

"Truth exists. Only falsehood must be fabricated."
It's a curious thing-- for me, at least-- that when I started writing about the idea of truth, I got rather negative reactions from various people. This reaction puzzled me at first, but as time went on, I came to realize that that's what truth does-- it creates controversy. And that's a story in itself... an important one.
Consider the name I chose for my web-blog (Truthquest): it seems to elicit annoyance or sarcasm from people who may be acquaintances or strangers. Why? Well, many persons are of the conviction that there's no such thing as truth, or that it's completely relative or personal, or that it's just an abstraction with no reality. These views all strike me as incredibly naive and lacking substance. It is baffling to me to have to defend the notion of something as obvious as truth. But then, I exist in a kind of transcendent sphere, where ideals and ethical concepts have genuine reality.

The controversy over something as fundamental to our lives as truth underscores for me the crux of the looming crisis poised to strike humanity and our tenure on Earth. Along with very many traditions and predictions, I also believe that mankind is very close to the cataclysmic end of this age that will be the most tumultuous crisis in our history. However, while the coming crisis will be characterized by physical upheavals of the planet, and social and political upheavals of unparalleled ferocity, I think the underlying conflict will be the final, colossal struggle between truth and untruth.

If anything is the endemic trait of our zeitgeist, it is capsulized in one word-- deception. Maybe I'm just too hyper-sensitive to 'BS,' but to me it's the grating tenor of the times that almost everything that reaches my consciousness from 'official sources' of any kind-- be they government, corporate, religious, academic-- has the stench of self-serving deceit about it. If it's not outright lies, it is usually a noxious mix of lies and selected truth. It's everywhere; all pervasive; in every aspect of our daily lives. And the worst thing is that most people either don't even notice it... or are so inured to 'relative truth' that they accept it as normal. The current generation have grown up in an 'age of persuasion,' with ‘commercial messages' bombarding us incessantly in every corner of urban life, so that distortion and hyperbole are taken as commonplace, and an inevitable part of modern existence.

You've got to understand that this inoculation to distorted reality, packaged as advertising and promotion for every kind of cause (good or otherwise), is a purposeful strategy, one designed to devalue truth in the mind of humankind. And it has succeeded quite well. In place of truth, we have pluralism-- in a global bazaar of cultures and ideologies, your 'truths' (ie. cuisine, music, political system, religion, etc.) are no better nor less valuable than mine. Everybody's truth is equally worthy-- so say the proponents of pluralism... as long as it suits their purposes.

Why do people get so offended by mention of truth, though? It would seem innocuous enough; but no, the reaction can be quite visceral. One reason may be because many skeptics associate truth with religion; and of course, religion is a big no-no with the chic, educated, liberal-minded middle-class. There is some justification for their wariness, because if you do an Internet search on the words 'truth quest,' you will certainly turn up many sites related to churches and religion. However, why should that link to Christianity (in particular) stir such animosity? Could it be due to disgust that anyone in today's pluralistic world would dare to pretend that they possess 'the truth?' The problem is that in rejecting the idea that any creed could corner the market on truth, these opponents then throw out the notion that there is such a thing as truth, altogether. It's a fool's line of reasoning that disempowers its supporter, while playing right into the hands of those hidden powers who want to strip humanity of any hope in a transcendent order of reality above the mundane. Brilliant, on the part of the forces of darkness; and ultimately deadly for the innocent who fall into the trap. As for me, I don’t profess to possess ‘the whole truth.’ What I do know is that I am on a quest for truth; and that is more than most can say.

Note that incomplete truth is not necessarily evil, but can be hazardous. After all, in this world we will not achieve 100% absolute truth in most areas, although it is possible in a limited sense, as in some branches of mathematics, or some purely observational matters (e.g. Is it raining here or not? What color is the object? etc.). We can and do function on incomplete knowledge, because it's all we have, generally. We have to recognize, tho, when we are operating on incomplete information, otherwise we run a real risk of making mistakes when our decisions are taken on the premise that we have full knowledge. For example, an airline pilot once discovered the truth that his aircraft's fuel tanks were empty while he'd been flying under the assumption they held ample fuel. In fact, the tanks had been refueled, but the ground techs were reading the gauges in metric units and assuming they displayed 'imperial' units (ie. liters for gallons). This is a good illustration of where partial truth can get us when we fail to grasp it for what it is.

What the nay-sayers apparently are so inclined against is the intimation that there must exist 'ultimate truth.' They can concede that there exists 'relative truth,' or 'constrained truth' in the laws that govern the physical universe... but they vehemently resist any attempt to extend the phenomenon to its logical conclusion-- that there must, perforce, exist ultimate truth. What are they afraid of? It's not obvious, but appears to be the tacit assumption in this logic that recognizing Ultimate Truth is tantamount to believing in God... and that, of course, is another materialist no-no. No, we must never return to the 'primitive dogma' of believing in God, lest we... what? What would believing in God do to mankind that isn't already being done, this time in the name of godless, unfettered, capitalistic avarice? Can't people wake up and see that what was once done under the guise of religion hasn't stopped; it is now being done in the name of 'democratic capitalism?' In times past, nations were conquered, peoples were murdered and 'ethnically cleansed' in the interests of saving them from heathenism and Christianizing them. Today, nations are conquered, and peoples murdered and ethnically cleansed in the interests of big business seeking new sources of petroleum. And the atheists smugly support commercial interests over religious... because they can't even see a religion if it wears a worldly disguise! And make no mistake; you may think that, oh no, you are a socialist; you don't support big corporations and their predatory practices. Well, how do you think the capitalists justify their predatory exploitation, if not by reference to your patron saint, Charles Darwin, and his godless theory of evolution? For in the purely material, humanist paradise, there is no ethic except the ethic of evolution, which is based on mere survival. In other words, might makes right in the mechanistic universe of Darwin's theory.

A world without ultimate truth is a world without God. And such a society is a hopeless, Orwellian nightmare, not worth living, neither for the trampled masses nor for their soulless overlords. The only way to survive in such a world is to shut one's eyes to the reality of its bleakness, and live life in a constant frenzy of activity, pretending that everything is fine and dandy. That is how the 20th century was lived by a growing majority in the Western nations. While we were madly accumulating material goods, and scrambling for success, we didn't have time to think about the omnipresent question of truth. The hidden manipulators used this materialistic smokescreen to advance many of their objectives, all the while completely unnoticed by a populace drunk on the perverted, fermented fruits of science and technology, the neo-religions of the modern age. Among those objectives were the following:

- ridicule and devaluation of Christianity, making Christians look antiquated and irrelevant to the contemporary world;
- deadening of belief in a 'higher power,' a divine designer, a cosmic creator;
- belief in the triumph of materialistic science to describe reality and explain existence;
- acceptance of ultimate relativism-- since all views are valid, virtually anything goes;
- breakdown of public morality-- we make our own rules, and they are constrained only by 'common consensus;'
- disintegration of the family unit-- since all 'sexual expression' is valid, marriage is outdated, and a family is whatever you want it to be, including homosexual 'parents;'
- breakdown of social cohesion-- under Darwinian morality, it's everyone for himself, and let nature prevail with the weak; capitalism isn't sentimental, we are told;
- Hollywood and the mainstream media now define reality for the masses, and they assure us that we don't know anything-- we must be told by experts, whom they supply.

All of these goals have been largely achieved, and they have succeeded by means of deception. The proponents behind these aims have been using lies, half-truths, and psychological manipulation for over a century to mold society in the desired direction. Their most important weapon is artful lying, which is telling untruths using carefully chosen vocabulary, so that an unpalatable statement can be stick-handled past the normal mental defense mechanisms. It's brilliant, in a way; and yet it has been a favorite ploy since the invention of speech. The difference today is that we now have individuals who specialize in the art of selling lies. They are called 'public relations' specialists, and have attained indispensable status for corporations and governments around the world. Sure, you sigh, you know that; and therefore, you are on guard for such games. If so, you are truly rare, because we are all being constantly set up to fall into these word traps, without being aware of it. Yes, we all figured out pretty fast what they mean by 'collateral damage,' and a few other notable examples. But, have you stopped to consider the pedigree of such words as 'homophobic,' and 'anti-semitism,' for example? You won't find them in an older Oxford dictionary because they were coined in more recent times for very specific, political purposes. By having the media use these terms repeatedly over years, the listeners eventually assimilate not only the word, but the concept behind the word, so that it becomes part of one's background, presumptive knowledge. From the repeated context clues, one comes to 'understand' that it is unacceptable to be called either homophobic or anti-semitic; therefore, one must avoid speaking or behaving in a way that might provoke such labels from others. The original and ostensible intent of these words may have been quite legitimate-- we should, indeed, refrain from attacking people because of their differences from the mainstream. Where this 'political correctness' has led, however, is to a state wherein it is impossible to criticize any aspect of, in these examples, homosexuality or Jews, because these terms have been enshrined into 'anti-hate laws,' and protect these groups from basic freedom of speech.

The mind-conditioning that has been implemented in the Western world over the past century is astounding, and space prevents me from analyzing it further, here. (The reader can find voluminous studies to corroborate my assertions). My point is that 'untruth' (which includes all that does not aim to be 'congruent with demonstrable fact') is now endemic in our society; so much so, that we are no longer even aware of the appalling extent to which this is true. In place of truth, we now have corporate 'brands,' icons and symbols, and national myths. By the time one reaches adulthood, he or she has understood and assimilated the notion that image is everything; that illusion is more powerful than reality. Thus, when someone complains that a certain advertisement is false, or a product isn't as described, or a political party reneged on a promise, etc., the response is that you should understand that you're buying a fantasy, you're electing a perception, you can't expect correspondence with facts or statements. In other words, deceit is a 'legitimate' part of modern life... it has been normalized, just as has various sexual perversions.

The problem is that you simply cannot run a world for any length of time on rampant and institutionalized deceit. That paradigm was tried in the last century in the late, great Soviet Union, and we saw where that experiment ended. More perceptive readers may argue that 'our' society, too, has lied to itself for centuries, and I agree, but also point out that in bygone years, there was enough freedom of speech, and persons of conscience in influential positions that there were restraints on the spread of deceit. In the 21st century, those checks are being rapidly hog-tied and neutralized by the introduction of draconian limits to freedoms once taken for granted, particularly in the USA. Those retractions of hard-won civil rights are almost always based on fears whipped up on events contrived for that purpose. To quote Goethe: 'There are none so enslaved as those who believe they are free when they are not.' From a 'spiritual' perspective (however you want to interpret that notion) this age is characterized by a definitive, titanic struggle between truth and untruth, between The Truth and Deception. The battle lines are being strongly delineated so that everyone who bothers to consider it can become aware of the division. And everyone should be conscious of the split between truth and deception because we will all have to make a final choice, choosing which side we want to follow... to the end.

My purpose in this essay is to pull together the not-obviously-related strands of thought from numerous other essays into a synthesis that portrays the essence of the final battle for planet Earth. Okay, it sounds grandiose, but many commentators are seeing the same thing-- or at least parts of it. I'm trying to put all the pieces on one puzzle board. We are witnessing before our eyes the following currents:

- clear movements towards a one-world 'system' as the inevitable outcome of...
regional, political integration (eg. EU, NAFTA, ASEAN); global trade agreements (WTO); an ever-expanding NATO; reaction to exogenous threats like 'climate change,' terrorism, pandemic, etc.

- attacks on traditional stabilizing institutions such as the family, religion, common mores, all resulting in a disintegration of the social fabric (via alienation, substance abuse, mental health issues, job mobility, etc.) which engenders a state of constant disequilibrium and stress among all citizens;

- attacks and restrictions on civil liberties and free speech under the guise of 'protection of minority rights,' or 'security from terrorism;'

- the calculated transfer of the wealth of the middle classes to the banker elite, under the pretext of bailouts of sinking institutions and stimulating a moribund economy;

- the mysterious appearance or resurgence of viral diseases thought to be conquered a generation ago, among both animal populations and the human populace;

- ever-greater use of deception by governments and corporations to achieve desired aims, and in particular, the use of 'agents provocateurs' to create ersatz terrorist plots, either apprehended or accomplished.

All of these phenomena exist by design, not by mere chance, and their end goal is global domination by a small clique over the masses. Let me state this bluntly: if you can't see these 'big picture' signs of the times, you are in sad shape, and will be completely overwhelmed when the pretences are all dropped, and 'their dream' becomes our nightmare. These major indicators are all out in the open, and if you can't see the connections among them, you have been taken in by the master con-job of the satanic forces behind them.

Another open secret is that the evil cabal is obviously waging a titanic war against two groups of people in particular. Those are specifically, Christians and Muslims. The strategies employed are different. Since Christians are mainly found in the 'Western' nations, they are already in the 'belly of the beast,' exposed to all the egregious degeneration of the modern, atheist, materialist society, and very largely absorbed into that system, often quite cluelessly. Thru the use of the media and the Hollywood propaganda machine, the influence of the Christian faith has been largely neutralized. In fact, a significant sect, recently branded as 'Christian-Zionists' or 'Judeo-Christians,' has proven to be quite useful to the shadow governors, by their zealous support of any who pretend to agree with their aberrant theology and their bellicose leanings.

As for Islam, the crypto-rulers have waged all-out, shock-and-awe warfare against them, deploying all the latest expensive, grisly gadgets of destruction against poorly equipped militias, often composed of warriors who were once under the employ of Uncle Sam's covert agencies abroad. The Muslims (mostly Arabs and mostly civilians) have been subject to merciless carnage-- despite all shedding of 'crocodile tears' by Western leaders. The wars have been based on pure lies, the pretexts fabricated on 'false-flag' operations and blatant poppycock (ie. lies) about spreading democracy and freedom.

Why have the hidden 'powers that be' selected Christianity and Islam as the special objects of their wrath? The reason is simple; so simple that most 'modern' readers will reject it out of hand (ie. without serious reflection). It's because both religions are monotheistic, believing in a supreme creator who rules over the universe and will, one day, call all humanity into account. All other religions (the pagans) can be distilled into the essential belief that man is 'god,' and therefore, he can 'call his own shots.' The conspirators must defeat all belief in ultimate truth, the supreme God, because that belief will resist their real, so far unannounced agenda, which is to present their own leader as the deity, the one who functions as 'chief god,' and as the legitimate ruler of the planet. He will be portrayed as a unifier, bringing squabbling humanity into one, harmonious race, paying homage to his benevolent dictatorship. It will be Orwell's world, with a bizarre, religious twist-- 'Big Brother' will be presented as our god, and our total worship will be demanded. Yes, this will be the Antichrist, the antithesis of Christ Jesus. And his modus operandi is untruth, the antithesis of truth.

While Judaism also professes belief in one God, it appears that the PTB are not too concerned with this faith. I can only speculate on why they devote scant enmity toward Judaism, and one might suppose that it's due to the relatively small number of seriously religious Jews (compared to two billion or so nominal Christians, and another billion Muslims, worldwide). More than that, the Jews are, significantly, still awaiting the arrival of their Messiah. That belief could be quite effectively exploited by the Satanists when they reveal their hero as the 'promised one' of various traditions. In fact, the obsession that the hidden powers have towards Israel gives extra credence to the theory that they intend to install their antichrist in Jerusalem, claiming it to be the seat of their new world government.

The liberal atheists may read this article and say 'This is outrageous speculation.' Their powers of discernment are so deadened by those who put them exactly in that condition, that they can't see the menace that is lurking everywhere in this modern world that they think is marvelous because it has 'freed us from the chains of religion!' And, see-- the humanist/atheists STILL DON'T GET IT! They still think I'm trying to defend religion and sell it thru some covert, philosophical semantics. I'M NOT! The truth is that I don't believe in religion as a pre-packaged paradigm for viewing the world. What I've been trying to tell all of you in reader-land, both believers in God, and atheists, alike, is that ALL systems of viewing the universe, whether packaged as creeds or as any other paradigm, are de-facto 'religions.' How could 'science' have assured us for years that there was no link between tobacco and a panoply of diseases? Or that all kinds of chemical products are perfectly safe for human consumption, when people are dying daily from exposure to them? Ah, you retort, 'It's not the fault of science, but of the people who practice science under false motives.' No kidding? Isn't that exactly what has happened with religion over the centuries? Jesus and other spiritual leaders NEVER advocated violence in any form (indeed, Jesus stated that hatred was akin to murder); yet misguided followers have resorted to violence down thru the ages. ALL belief systems are interpreted by their believers to accommodate self-serving ends. You've got to understand that simple 'truth' if you ever want to understand reality!

So my advice to believers and atheists is to wake up, recognize that pure science and pure religion both purport to explain reality, define truth, but by different methods. Taken to the ultimate, they overlap. They should cooperate, not compete. Instead, they are engaged in a historic struggle because they are both errant, human ideologies run by human masters for purposes of enslaving the minds of their adherents. In fact, they can be seen as yet another prong of the ‘thesis-vs-antithesis’ paradigm so frequently used by the hidden manipulators. Their coming Antichrist will be offered as the solution to this Hegelian dialectic.

Numerous astute observers of the times have noticed many of the things I've described in this paper; few of them want to assemble all the pieces presented here. Especially, many would object to the final religious angle I ascribe to the anticipated ruling cabal. It seems crazy, and presently, there doesn't appear to be a lot of evidence of a 'spiritual angle' to the push towards world governance. That opacity is because many viewers do not comprehend the spirit behind those who frequent the gatherings of the elite movers and shakers at such enclaves as ‘Bohemian Grove,’ where they engage in ‘weird’ practices that can only be viewed as satanic. Freemasonry, one of the ‘fronts’ of the puppeteers, is, in its upper echelons (‘degrees’) based loosely on Gnosticism, and is definitely ‘religious’ in its cosmic outlook. To those who are dubious about the demonic nature of the evil conspirators, I say that their homage to Satan explains how they have been able to sustain their cover up and their momentum over the centuries. Without supernatural assistance, any purely human conspiracy inevitably collapses due to in-fighting, traitors, spies, exhaustion, mistakes, and so on. But the Illuminati (the general term covering all the many tentacles of this monster) have been able to survive and thrive long enough to achieve their critical objectives (back in the late 19th century), and then build on those to attain the position they presently occupy.

By seizing control of the Western world’s banking system, the cabal wields enormous power over the lives of the majority of the global population. We are seeing the early signs of that power in the current ‘economic crisis.’ Then, by gaining effective control over the communications media, the Illuminati have been able to filter and distort the information that reaches the masses, and equally important, have used the media to corrupt and disintegrate society. To those still under the spell of their cradle-to-grave propaganda, these revelations sound incredible. Yet even a little time spent investigating these claims will unveil cracks in the foundations of the illusion. But all of this-- the allegations, the denials, the doubts-- are all part of the cosmic drama that is unfolding before our contemporary eyes. It is the last battle on planet Earth, the battle for truth. As the expression goes, the truth shall prevail... but not before a period of unparalleled havoc, and it must be stated, bloodshed. To the skeptics, hold your derision for a while; keep your senses attuned to the times and their signs. And pledge allegiance only to the quest for Truth.

May 8, 2009

What's with those Web-wolverines?

Here's another of life's little mysteries (as if we need more!). Why is it that the people who leave comments in reaction to serious articles posted on the web, or who are the most prolific participants in on-line discussion forums, all seem to have the following characteristics in common:
  • they are barely literate; incapable of putting together a coherent sentence in the English language... which they presumably speak, since they just read something written in English;
  • the only words they can, however, express very fluently are all foul, four-letter expletives that would be 'bleeped out' of any half-respectable TV/radio interview;
  • they are incapable of even the most basic reasoning, but simply react to certain words that trigger a short-circuit somewhere in the neural pathways of their primitive brains;
  • since they lack reason, their only reaction is to attack the writer of the offending article, and hurl loathsome insults of the most puerile and vicious type at someone they have never seen, met, or heard of;
  • besides being illiterate, they are also clueless in using computers or the web, since their diatribes are full of completely obvious spelling errors, and often are posted several times in a row, indicating their confusion over how to press the 'submit' button;
  • they are surcharged with self-absorbed hubris, confident in hiding behind the anonymity provided by their chosen pseudonym.

For some reason (help me understand) the worst offenders in this ignominious category seem to lurk all over YouTube, like an infestation of the vilest form of parasites. No matter how serious or valuable a posted video may be to any objective viewer, these responders feel motivated to spew their spurious verbal spittle for whatever fleeting gratification it may bring them.

Perhaps their intent is to deliberately cast slurs on anything that doesn't agree with their weird world-view, as if their meaningless meanderings held any kind of logical value. Or maybe, as some speculate, some of them are really 'disinfo agents,' paid by hidden organizations to disseminate this kind of nonsense. It may be nothing more than another indicator of the pandemic mental disintegration that is a hallmark of this decadent age.

Some of you seasoned web surfers can, no doubt, think of a few additional traits of these web vermin who pollute cyberspace with their utterly useless and inane drivel. But, those appear to be the main features. If you'd like to respond to this brief entry-- well, by all means, please do! 'Er, however, you will, of course, try to avoid the ugly trademarks of the 'web-wolverines'... won't you? ;-)

May 2, 2009

The Lure and Allure of War

War-- everyone claims to abhor it, yet we go marching off to the next one with monotonous regularity. Is it an unavoidable part of being human?
The history of the world seems to be a litany of wars; one King against another; one nation against another; one sect against another; it started before we remember, and goes on and on. If we don’t like it, why does it never end? In other essays, I’ve argued that war has been a part of our society for ages, despite our abhorrence, because the rich and powerful movers behind the scenes profit greatly from wars. They profit in wealth terms because they finance both sides of conflicts, and they own the armament manufacturing companies, and so on. But they also profit in terms of furthering their maneuvers towards the ultimate goal of world domination. Every major war has reset the global chess-board in a way that has set the stage for the next step; and each step has brought the world closer to that goal.

In this essay, though, I don’t want to go over that same line of logic. This time, I want to consider the other side of the coin-- the response of the masses. Why do the majority of people so readily fall for the war-drum beat of the puppet masters? How do they stifle their revulsion for mass murder and, mostly, go along with the clarion call to put their lives on the line for the next war to be fought? The answers are not as irrelevant or obvious as they might seem. After all, the idea of dying for some rather abstract cause, as usually happens to justify war, would seem like a hard sell. And it’s usually the flower of manhood-- young men, barely adult-- who are sent off to sacrifice themselves for the purported glory. Yet, there’s rarely a problem finding plenty of recruits who step up ‘into the breach,’ to feed the insatiable war machine. The answer, I propose, rests on several pillars.

The fact that soldiers, until very recently, have always been predominantly composed of young males, from their late teen years to the twenties, is a prime explanatory factor. The old men who design and incite war know the power of testosterone in young males, and the force of peer pressure typical in that age group. A few vocal proponents of war can whip up excitement among their confreres for participation in the great adventure of carrying weapons and using them in the ultimate team sport-- war. Today, powerful advertisements portray the ‘extreme sport’ aspect of battle training, and the attraction of group solidarity among the brotherhood of the warrior. So, the main source of soldiers-- young males-- is highly amenable to the so-called glamour of uniforms, weapons, and battle... especially when a plausible and glorious-sounding pretext can be promoted. For the promoters of international wars, the recent extension to recruiting soldiers from the ranks of young women has been a boon. Now they can not only decimate the ranks of males, but they can take some females into the death machine as well. The other thing you have to keep in mind is that the great majority of ‘cannon-fodder’ (common soldiers) are drawn from the ranks of the lower economic classes, whether males or females. This has two important implications. First, these are the classes where there’s the highest incidence of high-school dropouts, and unemployed or under-employed persons. Hence, the offer of a respectable job, with training, reliable pay and benefits, and camaraderie, has a strong appeal. Second, this is the class that the Powers that Be are most desirous of eliminating in their eugenics sub-agenda. Moreover, the young are most inclined to have an ‘immortality complex,’ the notion that death may come to the next guy, but not to ‘me.’ In summation, it is pretty clear that on the ‘supply side’-- i.e. the source of the rank-and-file troops who do the actual dirty work on the ground-- there are compelling factors that predispose young males (in particular) to be quite amenable to joining the army and going to war.

What is more curious is how the families of the young men can be so willing to see their offspring participate in such a hazardous occupation as war. This is the more interesting question. For instance, in Canada since the nation’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan, there have been (as of this writing) over 100 soldiers killed in the line of duty in that far-off country. The whole cycle in each death has become sickeningly familiar. First, they conduct a ‘ramp ceremony’ at Kandahar airfield for the valiant fallen one. Then the body is flown back to Canada on an armed forces aircraft, where there’s another ceremony as the casket is transferred to a hearse and driven to a cemetery along a highway that has now come to be called the ‘Highway of Heroes.’ This sorry sequence demonstrates clearly all the clues as to how the PTB manipulate the public into full compliance with the war agenda. The conducting of emotional ceremonies complete with flag-draped coffins and military honor-guards is intended to stir the patriotic juices of all viewers, and especially to impress the families of fallen soldiers how esteemed is the sacrifice of their loved one. The renaming of a stretch of highway to honor the fallen ‘heroes’ of a disputed war fought in an obscure corner of the world is obviously designed to enhance those same feelings of patriotism and purpose. And it’s the purpose of this war that has given so many Canadians pause for questioning. By emphasizing the appreciation of the government and the military for the sacrifice made by soldiers, the decision-makers draw attention away from the proximate reasons for the war (which many contend are flimsy indeed) towards the purported valor and glory of those who serve and die.

You’d think it’s a fools’ game; that after observing this sad spectacle a dozen or a hundred times, that the populace would catch on; they’d see the puppet strings for what they are, and they’d call for a halt to the madness. But no; the leaders are able to exploit a common characteristic of human nature whereby we desire to believe that our loved ones do not die meaningless deaths, but rather that their deaths are imbued with significance and value to our society. In this case, they honor their dead as heroes who died in the cause of ‘preserving freedom,’ installing ‘democracy,’ and rendering ‘nation-building service’ to the Afghanis. This is a self-reinforcing stratagem, for once one soldier has been lauded for his/her death, then every family after that wants to believe that their fallen one also deserves hero status. And so, because no one wants to burst the illusion, to call the scam for what it is, they convince themselves that the war must be justified and even worthwhile. Thus, this desire to deny that their son/daughter died for a fabricated excuse, a useless war, forces family members to participate in the grand illusion. The families of soldiers thereby are like the people in the famous fable of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes,’ who could ‘see’ cloth that didn’t exist, while they allowed their minds to be bamboozled by the power of group-think.

I can still recall a documentary series of programs in the early days of television. It was called ‘The Valiant Years,’ and was a BBC production on the conduct of Britain during WW-2. Even the title telegraphed the desired tone of the videos. The last war was a still-fresh and still traumatic memory; but the manipulators were already hard at work putting a shiny cast on the tragedy of a 6-year war that killed millions of civilians as well as combatants. That’s how the war game is played by the real players. Notice that the soldiers who survive war do not like to talk about it, and even if they do, they cannot fully convey the true horror of what goes on in war. The few combatants who write glowing accounts of war are almost always retired generals who ‘fought’ the battles from the safe distance of a command bunker... or even a remote ‘war office.’ So, before the last war is a memory, the managers are busy sanitizing it, glorifying it, and preparing the way for the next conflict. And the next conflict has already been planned in advance by the bankster elite who pull the levers of power. Hence, there is no hope that war will end anytime soon. ‘Seems that everyone loves a good ceremony, regardless of the bloody cost. Everyone weeps... but they’ll back the next war, because that’s all they know. Pity, that.