Today, we are told again and again by "experts" that Islam is the “religion of peace and tolerance,” and that the vast majority of Muslims wish to live in such a manner. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is also irrelevant. It is a meaningless diversion meant to diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. But it is the fanatics who dominate Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march and it is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christians and tribal groups throughout Africa, and are gradually taking over that entire continent in an Islamic wave. Likewise, it is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder and “honor kill.” It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque and use them as military bases. It is the fanatics who zealously preach the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard fact is that the "peaceful majority" is also the "silent majority" and therefore cowed and useless. The Soviet Union was peopled by Russians who wanted to live in peace, yet the Communists in that nation were responsible for the murder of around 56 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant and thus became victims. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 60 million of their own “peaceful” people. The average citizen of Japan prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan tortured and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians, most of whom were killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery with Rwandans murdering one million of each other using primitive weapons and tools. But could it not be correctly said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving?” History lessons are often both simple and blunt, yet we often miss the most basic of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence and their weakness. Furthermore, even peace-loving Muslims will be our enemy eventually, because they will find that the fanatics own them. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, Israelis and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up -– much less rise up -- until it was too late or even then! And as for those of us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: The fanatics who threaten our way of life. Now we must look at what is going on in America today. Most rational people believe that only “the crazies” want communism, perversion, censorship and all the rest of the current WOKE insanity, but their world, the CRAZY world, is becoming our reality even as we reject that possibility. Why? Because we have become “the useless, peaceful majority.”
Everyone is familiar with “before and after” pictures. Some show a positive difference – “before and after” diet photos – and some a more negative result – usually pictures of celebrities “then” and “now.” But whether they flatter or expose, they make a point that cannot be ignored. These images are designed to inform the viewer of something that they might not otherwise see or understand; that is, the changes that have taken place to the individual involved – over time. But it isn’t just people who become manifestations of the treatment, or mistreatment of time! We see similar photos of things both natural such as landscapes or man-made objects such as buildings or cities. The passage of time affects all things but often terrible things occur that had we been aware, we might have stepped in and prevented or at least alleviated to some extent the damage those things created. The problem with such issues is that there is a point in time at which it is almost impossible to prevent the inevitable. But there is no doubt that the passage of time does much to hide the decay that is taking place, a reason why these “before and after” images are so uniquely informative! When you see the difference between what was and what is, sometimes even the most brain-dead wake up at least a little bit but usually when it is decades too late to do anything! Alas, often the result of knowing is painful when you realize that you did or accomplished nothing to prevent what you now lament. Now I did have a “Eureka!” moment when I recently watched that famous “Christmas” movie, It’s a Wonderful Lifedirected by Frank Capra. The story arose from a “Christmas card” created by its author. It’s an interesting look at how the matter went from a sort of pamphlet that the author couldn’t sell to a publisher and so ran off himself and mailed as a Christmas greeting, to the film itself. It wasn’t all that popular at its release but over time has been recognized as the great “story” that it is. In short, the narrative deals with one George Bailey, who, at the climax of the film is facing ruin for an accident in which he had no part but that his good nature will not allow to be blamed on his good natured if none-too-bright Uncle Willy. George, in despair, decides to take his own life, but is prevented by his guardian angel. In turn, Clarence – his guardian angel – is permitted to fulfill George’s desire to “never have been born” and thus be spared disgrace and ruin. Now, most people never realize the influence that their lives have on those around them, but George’s life was particularly powerful. For instance, as a child, he saves his brother from drowning and deliberately fails to deliver a prescription into which the local pharmacist for whom he works, put in the wrong drug when the man is overcome upon learning of his son’s death from influenza. During the war, George’s brother saves the lives of a group of soldiers and is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism. When he grows older, George takes over his dead father’s business and by so doing allows decent, ordinary people to buy houses and live good lives, something that he later learns would not have been the case otherwise. The owner of the local bank, a man named Potter, is a real villain to the point at which he keeps the money that George’s sweet but rather inept uncle accidentally leaves at Potter’s bank on Christmas eve, the absence of which now finds George in danger of criminal prosecution and imprisonment. This is the point in the film at which he goes to the river to commit suicide and is interrupted by guardian angel Clarence who grants him his wish never to have been born. My “E” moment came when George, now never having lived, returns to Bedford Falls – the name of his home town – and discovers the consequences of his life – or rather the consequences of his never having lived. The first thing we learn is that the town is now named “Pottersville” proof that evil old Mr. Potter accomplished all of his aims because George wasn’t there to prevent. The town is filled with bars and strip joints and George sees a young woman friend whom he had helped to a better life being put into a paddy wagon after she was taken from a “place of ill-repute.” All during his time in Pottersville, George learns such things as the fact that the druggist had been imprisoned for twenty years after poisoning the patient whom George had saved, that his mother had become a worn out, unhappy woman running a boarding house, that the housing development his company had financed was still a vacant lot and eventually, he finds his brother’s grave in the cemetery. George tells Clarence that his brother could not have died because he had saved all of those men. Clarence then responds, “All those men died George, because your brother was not there to save them because you were not there to save him!” George also meets his wife, who has become a lonely and unhappy spinster. It is then that Clarence points out to George, whatever would happen to him as a result of the lost money, his life was worth living, that it truly was “. . . a wonderful life.” At this point, George takes back his wish and his life is restored. Neither does he care what his own fate will be. It is enough that what was will be restored! The film then shows him running through the streets of Bedford Falls in the snow and blessing his business that had done so much for so many as well as all the beloved, ordinary, decent stores and homes on the Main Street. He passes the movie theater and the film being shown is “The Bells of St. Mary’s” a wonderful uplifting film of the mid 40s. Incidentally, the actor who played Clarence also appeared in that film! In other words, Bedford Falls is the decent, godly blessed home that it had been though, of course, nothing has changed as far as George’s circumstances are concerned. He still faces possible prosecution and imprisonment but it doesn’t matter! His own fate is insignificant compared to the lives of so many other people whom he has helped during the course of his life. Of course, he goes home and finds that word has gotten out that he was in need and everybody in town comes and brings him money from small amounts to large so that the missing $8,000 is rapidly replaced. In other words, God has stepped in and answered his true prayer when he stopped trying to force his will upon God! But the most important thing is that George now understands that no good man’s life is without value and that the “before” is worth fighting for lest it become the “after.” Ah, but what was my “Eureka!” moment? That moment was when I could see the difference between Bedford Falls run by and peopled with decent men and women and that same town in the hands of evil, godless people. “Welcome to Pottersville” is the “after” in a “before” (Bedford Falls) and “after” period of moral decline. We have left the Bedford Falls of my youth – and that was probably not all that innocent even then! – and are now full-time residents of Pottersville, and it’s not a pretty picture at all. Neither do I believe that it is possible for us to undo what has been done. Why? Because the people in Pottersville were the same people who had lived in Bedford Falls with the exception of George Bailey, but they had succumbed to Potter and those who served him. We see a hint of this at one point in the movie after George’s father dies. George wants to go away. He’s bored with Bedford Falls and the Building and Loan and has accumulated a little money to go on his adventures but the board members tell him that they want him to lead his father’s company. George says no, that his Uncle Billy should do it. But they know Uncle Billy isn’t able and they tell George that if he doesn’t stay, the board will “vote with Potter” who will close the Building and Loan down as he had been trying to do for years! And so George stays. In other words, the moral decay was always there, but George’s presence prevented Potter from turning Bedford Falls into Pottersville. Alas, no person or even group of people were there to stop our downward moral path from our “Bedford Falls” to our present “Pottersville.” Oh, there were good people from time to time but soon the whole milieu became too corrupt for any one person or group of people to influence the direction in which we were going. Even our churches became defenders of the indefensible whether it was abortion or sexual perversion or the Spirit of the Age. As I write this in the third decade of the 21st century I realize that all our signposts now say “Welcome to Pottersville” but, alas, there is no George Bailey or Clarence to return this world to a time of wholesomeness and decency. We are condemned to reside where evil has triumphed and it’s our own damned fault.
This writing is a
continuation of my posting called “Thoughts on the Guilt Industry”
where I commented on a movie which was a bit of an expose on DEI. I
have worked in corporate environments, so I had some fleeting
familiarity with the precepts of this movement. However, I decided
to gather a bit more first hand data on the topic just to satisfy my
insatiable curiosity. I have listened to dozens of presentations and
also reviewed what consultants in the space are offering. I believe
I have come to some understanding of the DEI industry and through
this developed some opinions. Allow me to walk with you through some
of this information. I want to start
this by sharing my starting place in this case. There is a concept
put forward by Stafford Beer that says that the purpose of a system
is what it does (POSIWID). He was implying that all of the talk
about what a system is intended to do is irrelevant if it fails to
accomplish those goals. I am going to take this perspective as I
think about DEI. What does the DEI
industry state as the problems that it is meant to addresses? Based
on my reading on the topic, the purpose is as follows.
Address
historical and systemic barriers to under represented groups
Promote
opportunities equally to people regardless of their background to
help them contribute their skills and perspectives to organizations
and society in general
Build
inclusive cultures by addressing and preventing workplace bias,
promote inclusivity, recognition, respect, and appreciation for
diverse individuals
Help and
encourage people to participate in the correction of these problems
rather than wait for others to do so
If we take a DEI
consultant’s more pragmatic perspective, we come to a slightly
different understanding of the problems, purpose and the services
they provide.The lack of
representation of marginalized groups in leadership and
decision-making positions
Unconscious
biases and microaggressions in hiring, promotion, and performance
evaluations
Inequitable
access to resources, training, and opportunities
Exclusionary
practices and cultures that silence or marginalize certain groups
The DEI industry
then ensures that everyone understands how biased we are and helps us
and our businesses remediate the negative impact of those biases.
Much of the focus is on ensuring that people of color and women are
getting more representation in all levels of the company. So, what about
results? Honestly, it’s hard to tell. Everything I read regarding
results ends up just addressing the items that they are attempting to
ameliorate. For example, in an article in Forbes i,
they indicate that potential employees are actively looking for
diverse workplaces and as such, if you want to hire the best and
brightest, you will need a DEI program. This vague language is part
and parcel of any request to show actual benefit from these programs.
The few demonstrable areas where ‘progress’ can be shown is in
the color and sex demographics of the businesses. However, the
correlation information between these programs and business
performance are sorely lacking. In fact, other than a few anecdotal
incidences of bringing outside individuals onto a development team to
inject some new ideas, I am not finding much in the way of concrete
improvements in things like margin, sales, growth or any of the
criteria we use to determine business success that can be linked to
the DEI concept. I was encouraged
when I found a Forbes article called “11 ways DEI In the Workplace
Can Boost A Company’s Bottom Line” ii.
Of the items on the list we have “It Creates Leader Credibility”
and “It Creates Empathy”. While some of the elements on the list
may be desirable in a company, it hardly counts as boosting the
bottom line (aka profit). Ok, so maybe I
don’t understand the long term view of DEI and how over time it
will benefit us in ways that my feeble mind can’t understand right
now. I looked back in our history to find another crisis that
required immediate and expensive action, poverty. Poverty records
were not kept officially prior to 1947. However, there are those who
made credible estimates such as Gordon M. Fisher iii.
Prior to 1900, the poverty rate is estimated at around 70%. By
1900, the poverty rate had dropped to around 40% and is estimated to
have held steady through the 1930s at around 35%. By 1947, the first
official measure by the Census bureau came in at 22.4% and continued
to drop to 17.6% by 1960. The US Government put their anti-poverty
system into place iv
via the “Economic Opportunity Act” starting in 1964. From then
until now, the poverty rate has hovered between 11% and 16% and was
approximately 12% in 2023. In January, 2024, the House Budget
Committee v
stated that we operate “nearly 100 interrelated welfare programs,
spread across 14 government departments and agencies, and nine budget
functions” at an annual cost above one trillion dollars. I ask
you, what is the purpose of that system? The obvious answer would be
to maintain just enough poverty to justify re-directing one trillion
dollars of tax to the purpose of developing welfare programs,
structures, jobs and grift that support it. Certainly, it was not
designed to win the “war on poverty”. I see
similarities with the focus of the DEI industry on racism and sexism
during it’s most recent adaptation starting in 2019. Many of the
metrics that are measured to gauge diversity have been continuing to
improve naturally through the culture since the end of slavery and
the rapid inclusion of women in the workforce encouraged during WWII.
Then, somewhere along the way, the federal government began to model
what they wanted society to implement. They began to change pay
rates, hiring rates and representation based on skin color and sex.vi
This naturally led to similar requirements to be specified through
the federal government’s procurement processesvii
with regard to vendors and suppliers. Now, businesses that wish to
participate in downstream government contracts must hire their own
DEI consultants to implement and prove their compliance. Most of
which is unnecessary because our culture continues to progress
naturally toward wider integration. What are the long
term affects of this series of programs? We don’t exactly know yet
because it hasn’t really been a long time. However, if it follows
with most of these types of programs yearning to ‘fix’ American
society, it will maintain just enough racism and sexism to justify
building a trillion dollar tax program to steal from the most
productive in our society to benefit lazy moralists. In conclusion,
instances of sexism and racism are increasingly rare in our normal
society. America’s diversity actually is a strength and a virtue.
In fact, our country is unique in the world due to how we grew
through immigration. We absorb all different types of people into
our society successfully. However, DEI zealots are attacking our
virtue and we are too concerned about our morality to reject their
claims of inherent racism and sexism. I have realized that the
entire concept is a misleading, manipulative sabotage grown from a
few accurate but highly selective facts about how different people
get different results from the world. i Tynes,
B. (2024, August 12). Council post: The importance of diversity and
inclusion for today’s companies. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescommunicationscouncil/2022/03/03/the-importance-of-diversity-and-inclusion-for-todays-companies/
ii Expert
Panel (2024, August 12). Council post: 11 ways dei in the workplace
can boost a company’s Bottom Line. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinessdevelopmentcouncil/2021/12/15/11-ways-dei-in-the-workplace-can-boost-a-companys-bottom-line/
iii Fisher,
G. (1997). Poverty Lines and measures of income inadequacy in the
United States since 1870: Collecting and using a little-known body
of historical material. ASPE.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-lines-measures-income-inadequacy-united-states-1870
iv Public
Law. (1964). Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Govinfo.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg508.pdf
v 60-year
anniversary of the War on Poverty - are we winning or losing?. The
U.S. House Committee on the Budget - House Budget Committee. (2024,
January 24).
https://budget.house.gov/press-release/60-year-anniversary-of-the-war-on-poverty_-are-we-winning-or-losing
vi Executive
Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the
Federal Workforce. (2021). Wikisource.org. Retrieved October 14,
2024, from
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_on_Diversity,_Equity,_Inclusion,_and_Accessibility_in_the_Federal_Workforce vii U.S.
General Services Administration: Equity Action Plan. (2023). In
https://www.gsa.gov/. U.S. General Services Administration.
Retrieved October 14, 2024, from
https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/EO-14091-GSA-Equity-Action-Plan-2023final_0.pdf
Recently, a commentator on a conservative talk show made an observation worthy of dissemination; that is, that the current murderous climate in this country – and the world! – is no longer a matter of Left vs. Right, but of “in” vs. “out” – that is, insiders vs. outsiders. The Left vs. Right battlefield is long gone as so many “conservatives” have become, for all intents and purposes, little different from their “leftist-liberal” colleagues. Indeed, they have become so different from their fellow conservatives that the very term “conservative” has been split into two definitions: traditional conservatives or paleo-cons and the present big government types now known as neo-cons. Former President (supposedly conservative) Richard Nixon once told a newly elected Republican Congressional Representative that, “. . .we’re all big government conservatives here.” Of course, the very definition of a “conservative” involves the rejection of “big government” so it is obvious that over the years, those who were against socialism but still believed in what Mussolini called “corporatism” – the merging of government and big business, also known as fascism – could not retain the label of conservative but neither could they be regarded as liberals who wanted everything run by government (that is, themselves). Hence the “neo-con” was born and all that that label entails with regard to the fight against the growing power of the government and its merger with Big Business – presently defined as the “Deep State.” This situation has resulted in lots of people on the “outside” and far fewer people on the “inside.” Previously, power tended to flow to groups that had the largest numbers but in the present circumstance, the distribution of “heads” is diametric to the distribution of “power.” For the insiders have all – and I do mean all! – the power today! Even ordinary political disputes are not between those on the inside versus those on the outside, but only among those on the inside as that group has become so diverse as well as powerful as to be the only place where such disputes can – and do! – take place. Of course, this situation means whatever power is being exercised has nothing to do with those of us on the outside looking in. We have been reduced to spectators in our own world absent the power to cause or prevent whatever agenda is eventually determined by the “insiders.” Nowhere was this reality made better known – perhaps known at all! – than in the candidacy and election of Donald Trump in 2016. The creeping power of our various government and its agencies were becoming known to Americans at large, but it was so well camouflaged that it wasn’t until an outsider was introduced into the “Deep State” that the totality of our enslavement became obvious to even the apathetic and the naïve. It became even more obvious when, after four years of the Deep State’s ongoing war against the People’s duly elected President, the matter was finally “decided” by a fraudulent election whose illegality could be neither hidden nor at least successfully denied. Many people believed – because they were told by supposedly knowledgeable sources! – that the military would overcome the crime, but few knew that Communist change-agent, former fake “President” Barak Obama had already destroyed America’s military by removing so many of its faithful leaders. A list of those removed as of March 17th, 2014, was compiled by General Paul Vallely. The General made this comment at the end of his very extensive list: “Absolutely every communist regime on the planet did this as soon as they got in power. I am surprised this communist traitor with his feet up on our furniture in the White House hasn't done this until now!” Of course, Obama remained in office for an additional 1,016 days after General Vallely’s list was published and it can be assumed that he continued to gut the US military to the point at which we are left with what we have today. It is no wonder that neither Donald Trump nor his supporters could take any comfort in the belief that America’s military would prevent his being illegally removed from office! There is an old saying that especially and specifically applies to our present crisis, to wit: “Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?” The response? “I don’t know and I don’t care.” Still, it is true that while ignorance may not lead to apathy, the reverse is very much the case. Ignorant people, knowing that they are ignorant, may want to learn and thus not remain ignorant. But apathetic people seldom care about anything and so make no efforts to overcome ignorance even where it is known to exist. And God knows! we Americans have been apathetic about our nation’s condition for a long, long time. Sated by entertainment – bread and circuses! – we have chosen to ignore or, perhaps, not see things that should have forced our attention on matters suggesting that our “leaders” were leading us down the primrose path to tyranny – and death. And so, because we in the West (and not just Americans!) played our personal fiddles while our civilization was being burned by its enemies, we now find ourselves locked out of the very processes by which we believed we could overcome what was happening – has happened! – and reclaim our birthright. Wrong! You cannot play the game if you are no longer recognized as a legitimate player – and we “Deplorables” as we were defined by a woman whose wickedness makes Jezebel of old look like Mother Theresa! – allowed that woman and her miserable and equally wicked “husband” together with their whole “congregation of evil” to slowly, quietly and with malice aforethought remove us from the very culture and civilization our ancestors had created. Having burned Notre Dame in Paris, they are “building it back” as a shrine to something far different from Our Lord’s Holy Mother! Having removed and/or destroyed the monuments to American heroes, replacing them with horrible works dedicated to horrible people and things, we now have learned that those of us on the “outside” have lost all control over what we believed to be our culture, our country and our future – and the fault is ours. We chose to look away when they began to remove our God from the cultural and governmental structures including our schools. We chose to ignore the sexualization and degradation of that same culture. We chose to allow “the government” to take charge of our children because it gave us, the parents, more time to earn money and follow our own interests. We chose to adopt technologies that promised ease but delivered addiction – and worse! We chose to avoid confrontation with liars either through cowardice or the desire to appear “tolerant,” “benign” and “public-spirited” when what we actually did was to surrender our culture and our humanity to their malignancy. The only question remaining is, can we come back? Can we move the “insiders” out of command of humanity and put back God and His people to run this world? Alas, that is a question that I cannot answer – at least not from my place on the outside.
It appears that when the Deep State is in need of a “diversion” to distract the American people from its egregious misgovernance, a “mass shooting” takes place – usually at a school. Dead kids are great distractions! A good number of books have been written on this phenomenon, but like all “false flag” ops by Uncle Sam, these “events” have common threads running through them. Actually the first acknowledged modern “mass shooting” took place on August 1st, 1966 when after murdering his mother and wife the previous night, Charles Whitman, a Marine veteran, took weapons to the observation deck of the tower at the University of Texas at Austin, and proceeded to open fire on people on the streets below. Over the next 96 minutes Whitman shot and killed 14 people and injured 31 others. The incident ended when two policemen and a civilian managed to reach Whitman in his aerie and kill him. At the time, the attack was the deadliest mass shooting by a lone gunman in U.S. history. It is believed that Whitman's violent impulses, with which he had been struggling for several years, were caused by a brain tumor found upon autopsy. But that the matter caused such a stir with the public was not lost on the government and though the next “single gunman” massacre did not occur for another 18 years – The San Ysidro McDonald’s shooting by 41 year old James Huberty that killed twenty-one and wounded another nineteen – there can be no doubt that Uncle Sam put the matter into his files to be brought out against such time that further efforts at “gun control” were being considered. Since that time, every one of these unfortunate incidents has been immediately followed by heartrending demands to “disarm” all but those who, according to the “experts,” should be armed like the police and the military! That this is totally contrary to the thinking of the Founders and to the Bill of Rights never derails the narrative. But there have been other “incidents” in virtually all of these matters that bear close scrutiny as they tend to debunk the idea that things are what they appear to be – at least according to the media. For instance, let’s look at the fairly recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas on May 24th, 2022 that left, we are told, nineteen dead students and teachers. The shooter was identified as Salvador Ramos, an 18 year old former student of the district with a great many mental issues that would have precluded him from obtaining a sling shot much less the armaments he brought with him in his attack [see below]. But as is the case in most of these issues, we know – and learn – very little until the matter disappears from the front page and the internet becomes just one more bulletin board for us to be told about the deadly affect that guns (presumably all by themselves!) have on the culture (yeah!). Yet, what has disappeared from public view is of the utmost importance as it tends to put the lie to the ongoing “gun control” narrative that somehow these loonies manage to get a few guns (because it is so easy!) and then go and murder all those innocents. Of course, the offshoot of this narrative is that if all guns were removed from the culture, well, the innocents wouldn’t be “gunned down” – or at least if they were, it would be done by the proper authorities. To show how very wrong this whole scenario is and why this information must, perforce, “disappear” lest it interfere with the desired narrative, below are some oddities regarding the Texas School Shooter, for your consideration, especially when you’re told that “gun control” will prevent such crimes: Salvador Ramos was an 18-year-old who lived with his grandmother. He had just quit a part-time job at McDonald's (8 hours a week) at minimum wage. Ramos dropped out of school because he was obsessed with video games. And here is where things began to get very, very strange. Oddly enough for someone in his financial condition, Ramos owned a brand new expensive game console! He also owned a brand new F250 “fully loaded” pickup! Somewhere, there is a huge gap between the young man’s income and the monetary value of his possessions. It might be easily believed that he obtained those belongings through the “generosity” of others. They couldn’t be stolen because even if he could have hidden a game console in his basement apartment, a fully loaded pickup would soon have been reported stolen by somebody! And then we have his arsenal of weapons. These included two brand new Daniel Defense (brand) AR15/M4 rifles, with military-grade optics. If I understand it properly – and perhaps I don’t – such “accessories” are not available at the local gun shop! Each rifle runs between $3,000 and $4,000! One of these would have been prohibitive for a man in Ramos’ financial situation, but TWO?? He also had thousands of rounds of expensive military-grade ammunition and as a kicker, a thousand-dollar bulletproof vest! So, let’s put this rather astonishing non-lethal possessions and cache of weapons together to see what Mr. Ramos would have required monetarily to obtain what it is admitted he owned and used in his assault: Ford F250 Platinum $71,000.00 Game Console $500.00 Rifles $6000.00–$8,000.00 Military Grade Optics $1000.00 Ammo $900.00 Body Armor $1000.00 TOTAL - $80,400.00 And we are to believe that he obtained all of the above working part-time at McDonald's at minimum wage??!! REALLY??? Actually, it seems far more likely that someone was both funding and training not just Ramos, but many if not all these young men! Then, of course, the question is, WHY? I will not insult your intelligence by making suggestions. For anyone with half a brain, the answer to that is very simple indeed! And there is another and further oddity here! It has been “discovered” that Mr. Ramos just happened to have known Payton Gendron who on May 14, 2022, orchestrated a mass shooting at a Tops Friendly Markets supermarket in Buffalo, New York. Ten people, all of whom were African Americans, were murdered and three were injured. Gendron was white. Seriously?! And where did they meet, one wonders given that one lived in Texas and the other in northern New York? Possibly at some training facility? Something is very, very wrong with all of these “mass shootings.” The timing is always “spot-on” for the government’s crusade against an armed citizenry even where there is proof galore that one armed “good guy” can bring such catastrophes to an end poste haste! Another interesting “tie in” here is the fact that Ramos’ rifles are identical to the rifles used and owned by the Las Vegas "shooter” Stephen Paddock who, On October 1st, 2017, opened fire on a crowd attending a music festival, killing sixty people and wounding at least 413, the deadliest mass shooting in American history! Ramos and Paddock’s guns were identical right down to the optics and the vertical fore-grip, a particular configuration that is legally available only to "Military and Law Enforcement!” Of course, Paddock was found dead having committed suicide – or so they say. Certainly one – perhaps the only one! – conclusion that makes any sense is that our government is finding and then training these misfits as a means of ending our Second amendment rights, leaving us helpless before the military might of the Deep State. Most of them want their fifteen minutes of fame and have no problem if such is followed by death as they have no respect for human life – including their own. And finally, the Texas shooting took place just before the NRA Convention! How timely for the anti-gun lobby . . .
Americans who support beleaguered (former) President Donald Trump should give very careful consideration to the following historical utterances, old and new, and what they mean for us in America today: From Ulysses S. Grant's Report on Conditions in the South - 18 December 1865: “I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good faith. The questions which have heretofore divided the sentiment of the people of the two sections— slavery and state's rights, or the right of a state to secede from the Union—they regard as having been settled forever by the highest tribunal—arms – that man can resort to. I was pleased to learn from the leading men whom I met that they not only accepted the decision arrived at as final but, now that the smoke of battle has cleared away and time has been given for reflection, that this decision has been a fortunate one for the whole country, they receiving like benefits from it with those who opposed them in the field and in council.” Thus wrote Ulysses S. Grant in 1865. But if Grant was, in fact, correct, then everything decent Christian people believe is a lie! For when Grant speaks of “the highest tribunal” being arms and that the South was proven wrong because their “arms” were insufficient to protect them against the “arms” of Grant and the rest of the Union military, we hear spoken aloud and without shame—albeit in different words—that old philosophy: “might makes right!” In more modern times, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said as much; that is, that the cause of the Confederacy—the constitutionally guaranteed secession of sovereign states from the old compact—was defeated and thereby rendered unconstitutional, not by law, but by force of arms! But consider what that actually means! If that is true, then Hitler was not wrong, but bested in war. Had he prevailed, his actions would have been legitimate. The Nazis were subject to trial and execution not because of their actions, but because they could not validate those actions by force of arms! Do we really believe that? Do we really agree with former ambassador John Bolton, when he said that the American government robbed, raped and killed Southern civilians during the Civil War without due process but it was the right thing to do? It is one thing to “accept the arbitrament of the sword” as did Robert E. Lee and other Southerners after the war—for by that concept they simply meant that they had been defeated and there was nothing to do but make the best of it. No other choice lay before them other than acceptance and continuing with their lives or, in the alternative, sullen resentment and ultimate oblivion. But, that is not the same thing as acknowledging that issues of law, divine or secular, had—or could be—be legitimately settled by military might. For, if force is the final arbiter, then there is no such thing as law! It is an illusion that can be swept away by whichever contending party wields the greatest force! And if that is so, then the Constitution was never the law of the land for true authority rested and continues to rest solely with that faction that has the most fire-power!
I enjoy a good disaster film. Movies such as San Andreas, Independence Day, Godzilla (in all its many manifestations!) and other such “block busters” are good fun on a rainy afternoon. This is especially true these days when the industry’s present “special effects” give great reality to situations that in earlier days were simply never attempted or if attempted, poorly achieved! Of course, while we watch the ongoing havoc in the film, we are naturally concentrating on the main characters. I remember two particular scenes in San Andreas, the earthquake taking place in a restaurant in a skyscraper and a tsunami entering San Francisco. Both show the deaths of many people in those two settings as well as the escape of some of the main characters from the mayhem! Of course, one focuses on the main characters, the others – the “extras” – are simply consigned to their part of the narrative, usually death in great numbers! Occasionally, however, there are characters one meets earlier in the film that are then reintroduced before they die. For instance, in one of the tsunami scenes we meet an elderly couple who had earlier met the main characters being crushed by the liner, Queen Elizabeth that has been flipped over on top them by the wave! But aside from those infrequent “other people of interest,” for which the audience is expected to display at least a few moments of interest and remorse, the rest of the “deceased” are nothing more than “background” and those who play them in the film are even called “extras” because they have no lines to speak other than the occasional scream or expletive. There is an old Indian belief that one’s conscience is a three sided figure whose points are sharp. When the conscience is “offended,” it spins – and because of those sharp points, it hurts! But if it spins often enough, the “points” wear down so that it hurts less and less as time goes on. I believe we can see this today, especially if we look back a generation or two. Things that would have aroused our horror and anger in, say, 1950, now seem not only commonplace and unremarkable but sometimes even possibly worthwhile in some bizarre way; that is, much of what is so very wrong in our culture is at present, not worthy to be remarked upon much less condemned. And as the death count rises from wars and crime and drugs and all the rest, those who perish appear to us as nothing more than extras in the film of life. British poet Alexander Pope once opined upon the results of exposure to wickedness and its resultant apathetic acceptance: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.” Another cause of our apparent inability to see the extent of our present human casualties is the fact that people no longer view reality directly – at least a good majority of the time. We have become spectators in and of our own world. Like movie and theater audiences, we sit and watch reality – or, often more precisely unreality – play out before us. Soon, the violence in films – violence we know to be fictional – influences those images that actually involve reality. The dead in seen documentaries are little different from the dead appearing in disaster movies when we are no more than spectators; that is, they do not move us even to pity, never mind concern and a desire to intervene on their behalf in order to bring them some semblance of justice. Indeed, we have come so far from reality that quite often when we ourselves become “extras” in the “film of life,” we are astonished at this turn of events! That’s not how it was supposed to happen after all, for we are the main characters in our particular “film!” But when it does happen that way, we rush to place the blame on those whom we believe should have protected us, often from our own stupidity! It is no wonder that the Deep State and the rest of the New World Order were able to use the threat of COVID to turn us into obedient – and stupid! – sheep! Another consequence of this “spectatorship of life” is the loss of our ability to respond quickly and with sufficient strength to situations that arise detrimental to the well-being of ourselves and our fellow man. This is further complicated by our failure to keep ourselves sufficiently informed to prevent the use by our rulers of fear as a means of ensuring our compliance with their often totally unreasonable, unrealistic and frequently dangerous mandates to situations many of which they themselves have created! After some great disaster occurs and many lives are lost, we learn that in most cases there were sufficient warnings to either prevent or address that disaster prior to its occurrence! How many books and films have dealt with historical “what might have beens” from the sinking of the Titanic to the attack on Pearl Harbor. People knew the risks and shortcomings. They were aware of those same “might come to pass” situations but they chose to ignore rather than respond in a timely fashion. One thing about both movies and reality is that the “extras” can never be revived and brought back to life. Death is as eternal in fiction as it is in reality. More importantly, we also usually learn that most of the casualties arising from these disasters were frequently the result of ineffective or intentionally dangerous responses by our “leaders” that have been put into place in the name of protecting the public! Indeed, we have recently learned that most if not all government “response” to the so-called “pandemic” of 2020 were specifically designed to do more damage to the population than was ever threatened by the “pandemic” itself! This was not a “response” to a public danger but an agenda, a strategy to bring about what is, in fact, now happening: genocide of the world’s “excess population” – that is, the world’s “extras.” Nowhere is this more obvious and more egregious than in what has been presented to the world as a means by which this mythic “pandemic” has been, will be and is being “overcome,” the creation of “vaccines” by a number of Big Pharma corporations acting in concert with the United Nations and the governments of the world together with the medical and public health establishments. These “medicines” have been “made available” to the public beginning in 2021 and ongoing to date. Indeed, they have not only been “made available” but in many governments and their agencies, they have been mandated even for those people who admittedly run little risk from the COVID virus itself – children, healthy adults and those who have already had the disease and (easily) recovered. On the other hand, the vaccinated “extras” who have either been severely injured or who have died – or will die in the foreseeable future – number in the millions! Some of the deaths that have resulted from this “campaign” have been doctors and scientists attempting to make the danger known to the public. Those who have not been killed outright (and, yes, that HAS happened!) have been censored and marginalized to the point at which none of their warnings are begin taken seriously except by those relative few who are intelligent enough to give no credence to the “sworn word” of their government and its minions in the establishment who continue to claim that these poisons are both “safe and effective!” The numbers are astronomical, even those admitted to by the various governments and this does not take into account the known fact that only a small percentage of the injured and dead have actually been counted! The interesting thing here is that the media – social and otherwise – have provided firsthand witness to this plague. We’ve seen people being struck down with horrible seizures and even with death itself everywhere from television broadcasts to athletic events and more mundane settings such as nail salons and restaurants! One would think that a pretty young chef dying during a broadcast of her cooking show would have caused outrage together with real (and understandable!) hysteria in the viewing public, but like those who died in San Andreas, her fate merely caused mild regret and even more mild interest. It wasn’t “real” though for the young woman, it was fatally real. It would seem that our present condition of spectators to our own extinction will make that much easier than might otherwise have been the case! On the other hand, the strategists who were banking upon our lack of response to an actual catastrophe because they were busily covering the facts of the matter failed to take into account something as mundane as the insurance industry and especially the life insurance industry! No society can ignore matters involving large amounts of money and when those companies began to report huge increases in the percentages of deaths among healthy people from ages 16 to 64 many in the world’s “viewing audience” began to take notice! A Dutch life insurance company, Aegon, reported that its 2021 payments skyrocketed an amazing 258% from its 2020 payments! Reuters reported via Yahoo Finance: “Dutch insurer Aegon, which does two-thirds of its business in the United States, said its claims in the Americas in the third quarter were $111 million, up from $31 million a year earlier. U.S. insurers MetLife and Prudential Financial also said life insurance claims rose. South Africa’s Old Mutual used up more of its pandemic provisions to pay claims and reinsurer Munich Re raised its 2021 estimate of COVID-19 life and health claims to 600 million euros from 400 million.” All insurance companies and not just life insurance providers are slowly coming to realize the truth about COVID vaccines despite the efforts of a murderous mainstream media and our complicit “governments” and “hi-tech” sector to cover up the accelerating death rate. The signals now emerging in the financial books of insurance companies can’t simply be ignored for these don’t involve the ordinary “viewing audience,” but a large part of our nation’s (and the world’s) economy. Financial companies are always interested in the “trends” of finance and that trend is monstrous! For far too long, far too many people have sat and watched history happening the way they watch sports or films. For some reason, they do not equate what’s happening with themselves personally or if they do, they cannot believe that they will suffer anything worse than financial and/or physical inconvenience. Very few members of the viewing audience put themselves in the place of the people dying in San Andreas or the "extras" dying in any other disaster film; they don’t say what used to be said back in the good old days, “There but for the Grace of God go I!” And believe me, that’s how our “government” wants it to stay! But let us pray (earnestly!) that our elite rulers finally have to say what it is claimed was said by Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” For, my friends, if we are not awakened from our present moral sleep, our next sleep will be eternal.
There’s a song in the film/play Finnian’s Rainbow explaining the consequences of “(W)hen the idle poor become the idle rich.” At this point, according to the lyricist, “. . .you’ll never know just who is who or which is which.” Much the same can be said of today’s villains of every size and stripe. It used to be fairly easy to determine the “good guys” and the “bad guys” back when I was a child – a long, long time ago! – for the culture was filled with markers that easily identified this phenomenon. For instance, that chronicler of the culture, Hollywood, before it became engaged in “realism,” and especially in their “westerns” identified who was who by the color of the character’s hats. Good guys wore white hats while the villains wore black. The rest of the cast usually wore nondescript toppers that identified them as often outside of the main moral thread if not the plot of the film involved. This mode of “ID” was ideal for black and white films, but it held over well enough when Technicolor entered the picture, so to speak. It is interesting to note that back in 1967 during former actor Ronald Reagan’s first run for the governorship of California, his Democrat rival, Pat Brown, tried to make a villain out of Reagan, saying such things to California school children as, “Did you know, an actor assassinated Lincoln?” But Brown was warned by his own people that Reagan had always “worn a white hat” in his movies (he only played a villain once and not very successfully!) and that it would be difficult to “recast” him in a black one. But today, many things have changed that have clearly affected our viewpoint regarding just “who is who and which is which.” For instance, when one sees headlines about the present “war” in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas, most Americans see an easily definable “white vs. black hat” scenario – but is that really the case? I tend to doubt it. Oh, Israel is believed to be America’s staunch ally and friend in the Middle East, but the dead and wounded sailors of the U.S.S. Liberty would have taken issue with that finding. According to (left leaning) Wikipedia: The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research (a/k/a spy) ship, USS Liberty by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats on June 8, 1967 during the Six Day War. The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two marines and one civilian NSA employee) wounded 171 crew members and severely damaged the ship. At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula about 25-1/2 miles northwest of the Egyptian city of Arish. Despite claims that the ship was mistaken for an Egyptian vessel, eventually Israel “apologized” and paid millions of dollars (with interest) to the US in compensation for the dead and wounded and the damage sustained by the ship. Of course, most of that money – if not all! – probably originated in this country anyway, but at least we got some of it back! However, it later became known that President Lyndon Johnson was aware of the attack even as it was taking place and did nothing to stop it or, in the alternative, warn the Liberty of its danger, neither did he ever make known that our government was cognizant of the assault even before it happened. So, in the end you have all the entities involved in that act of war wearing black hats including our own government. Of course, Israel has been a stalking horse since World War I when the Balfour Declaration was made public. This political statement issued by the British Government in 1917 announced its support for “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine” an area located within the then boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. As the Turks fought with the Germans in World War I they became “enemies” of Great Britain and therefore subject to whatever claims might be made upon their territory by the victors in that war. But the establishment of Israel in the oil rich Middle East was not uniformly embraced by many “important” people of the day. In fact, two highly public men – British Colonel T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and American statesman James Forrestal – were very much against the idea of creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. Fortunately for the Jews and their fellow Zionists, however, both men just happened to die violently and mysteriously before their viewpoints could “muddy the waters” of public discourse. But black hats aren’t limited to the Middle East. At the present, an almost bankrupt United States is throwing money and material into a war in the Ukraine that is – frankly! – none of our business. Indeed, about the only connection between the US and the Ukraine is the Biden family’s political involvement in the former and criminal monetary shenanigans in the latter. And while Vladimir Putin may also wear a black hat, at least he is not claiming to be acting in the best interests of the people of America as are both Biden and Ukrainian President Zelensky! And then we have the various warring factions such as the Muslims and the Jews. Many of our ignorant (and frequently stupid) fellow countrymen have chosen sides. Jews and those “evangelical Christians” who still believe in the Old Testament promise to Abraham choose Israel while the rest of the left embrace the dear, kind, sweet, peaceful Muslims while unfortunately – and conveniently – forgetting videos showing Muslims setting fire to enemy captives held in cages as well as killing every Christian that these “peaceful people” have been able to seize! In other words, instead of white and black hats, we are in a scenario wherein all the hats are black while most Americans seeking a side worth supporting do not understand that there is, in fact, no such side! Of course, we must also remember that to back the Palestinians or even question acts done by Israel immediately invokes the indefensible and unforgivable crime of antisemitism! Now, of course, there is such a thing as antisemitism just as there is such a thing as bigotry against any group whether based upon religion or race or ethnic origins! But in the case of the Jews, to even look into issues that might – just might – produce embarrassing information detrimental to them as a group is now considered a “hate crime” and can lead, in some countries, to arrest, trial and, if convicted, incarceration. When truth itself becomes a criminal act because of what it reveals, this is no longer a matter of bigotry but of control and, therefore, tyranny. But this gross lack of “white hats” is found throughout society. In the name of “tolerance,” Blacks have been excused for any type and kind of behavior and any fault found with them by virtue of their acts is another “hate crime” fully as evil as antisemitism. Our entertainment industry has been dipped in the tar of overcompensation to the point at which one’s television experience would lead those unfamiliar with our culture to believe that we are 87% Black and 13% White. Only in the re-runs of our classic TV shows do you see a preponderance of Whites leading many to wonder how long it will be before such timeless treasures are removed from the programming. Meanwhile, commercials are even worse! And Whites, believing in tolerance even to their own extinction, find no fault in seeing themselves continue to disappear from their own culture to be replaced by minorities who no longer even pretend to practice America’s former – that is White – cultural values! In the beginning, shows like the Cosby Show, The Jeffersons, Good Times and other Black sitcoms retained ordinary American values; that is, the race of the characters were of less importance than the good social message the program provided. But that is going by the boards and we see today programs that illustrate Black “culture,” a "culture" that completely changes American society. Of course, as happens whenever a cultural icon is installed, those who followed the former culture embrace the new system and you have White kids with their pants around their knees, their hats on backwards and their morals and intellect at the level of da boyz in da hood! Remember, a culture can be lost long before population numbers indicate that the minority is now the majority and vice versa. And, of course, all of this again indicates that not only white hats are disappearing, but White people as well. Another area in which white hats are becoming invisible is our economic environment. There have always been black hats in commerce – and I don’t just mean the fellows robbing banks and passing bad checks! Crooked “businessmen” are nothing new, especially when they join forces with the next group spoken of in the paragraph below. Still, on the whole most American businessmen whatever their size, have been reasonably honest over the years. Whether that was because they wanted to be honest or because the laws were written in such a way as to permit them to appear so, I don’t know. But, of course, it is reasonable to believe that as the culture declines into “black-hatism,” American commerce will follow if not lead in that direction. It has something to do with the effect bad apples have on the rest of the barrel. And then we have the final area in which white hats should be expected to appear in great numbers. Why? Because these are the people who are supposed to protect the innocent citizen from those black hats that prey upon them. Here we’re talking about our various governments, their military and those systems of justice and other institutions designed to shield Americans from our enemies – foreign and domestic. If white hats are needed anywhere, they are needed here. But, alas, there appear to be fewer here than anywhere else in the culture and they are getting less every day – and that is proving disastrous to our freedoms and to our very survival! The ancient board game chess uses white and black figures in the game. As each side plays, pieces are taken until one side takes the King of the other. Now, no moral attributes are bestowed upon the sides though white does go first in every game. So, when the game is over, it doesn’t matter (except to the players, of course!) whether there are more white than black pieces left on the board or vice versa. The preponderance of the number of either color’s pieces usually determines the winner whether they be white or black and that’s fine – for chess! In the “hat” game, however, it very much matters whether we are left with more black hats than white or even if there are any white hats remaining. For what is being “played” here is the game of life and that concerns all of us.
Message: communication; exchange of information Messenger: someone carrying a message Two Means of Conveyance: Consider the “art” of cheerleading. At its most basic, cheerleaders are involved in the effort to bolster support for some athletic group. There is nothing subtle about cheerleading and no one is confused as to which “side” those involved support. There is no attempt by cheerleaders to change the opinions of supporters of the other team or to win for their side the loyalty of any uncommitted spectators, supposing, of course, that such do exist. In other words, “cheerleading” is nothing more than a [loud] statement of commitment to one side or the other in a contest. That is certainly one way of conveying a message. However, it is a very limited method that, at best, can only convey a very limited message—that is: “Support our side!” But there comes a time when a much more complex message must be conveyed and therefore, a much more nuanced method of conveyance is required. This used to be accomplished by means of “the debate.” A debate assumes that there will be uncommitted or objective people among the hearers not dedicated to one side or the other of the issue being debated. Unlike cheerleading, a debater—or messenger—must move his listeners with logic, reason and facts, a circumstance that takes a great deal longer than a five minute “cheer.” There was a time when fundamental matters of society were brought before the public in this forum as, for example, in the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 1850s. And while we still have debates during elections today, often, for one side at least, they constitute more of an ambush than a rational discussion. The Present Difficulty: Sadly, any attempt to bring an important message to the public at large these days is seriously compromised by three factors. The first is the diminished attention span of that public; the second is a woeful lack of knowledge about and interest in the matters involved; and the third is an all-encompassing apathy regarding any subject other than sports, spectacle or sex. As a result, messengers find themselves unable to convey a subject of any complexity before their listeners’ eyes glaze over and the opportunity is lost. As a result, they are forced to resort to short but powerful messages in which is usually manifested the “all-or-nothing” style of rhetoric—that is, “all [of this group] do, say and/or believe “a” or “none [of that group] do, say and/or believe “b”! But as soon as the words “all” or “none” appear in any message, you may be sure that the person using such terms is a “cheerleader” and not a messenger! The Conundrum of “All” and “None” The problem with “all” or “none” rhetoric is that it is extremely limited and to pursue it beyond its stringent limitations causes the matter to lose all credibility. One may only use such terms as “all” or “none” in the dissemination of factual information. For instance: “The plane crashed and all aboard died,” or “In the fire, none were burned.” These very specific instances involve situations that are limited and definite enough for such contentions to be valid and verifiable. But when circumstances are more complex, the problem with the “all or none” contention becomes ever more acute. For example, consider a study in which the contention is made that in a particular school, all the students are right-handed. While one might be willing to accept that conclusion if the school were sufficiently small—as right-handed people greatly outnumber their left- handed counterparts—few indeed would accept such a claim if the school were, say, the University of California as it is statistically inconceivable that there would not be a certain percentage of left-handed people within such a large population. So, while the claim of “all” (or “none”) might be at least possible within a limited context, as soon as it is applied outside of such restrictions it becomes nonsense and a message that contains “nonsense” is self-defeating. Now, if the messenger wishes to preach only to the converted, such rhetoric may be used because the hearer is already an advocate and in agreement with the messenger’s contention. But if the message is itself important, such a limited conveyance is ineffective at best and self-defeating at worst. In the public forum, there are people who are not committed to the particular “side” of any issue; indeed, they may not even understand the issue itself! Obviously, these “uncommitted” are the people whom the messenger wishes to win over to his side of the debate! That is the whole point, really, of the communication of messages. One wishes to convert the uncommitted and this cannot be achieved by mindless repetition of claims and contentions through the use of, among other things, “all or none” oratory, especially when it involves the condemnation of groups of people. Such rhetoric tends to discredit the messenger and, hence, the message. Engagement in the blanket condemnation of any group often causes all but the converted to reject the messenger and as a result, the message. The “Blanket Condemnation:” The primary target of the “all or none” message is usually groups of people, and, as that engages the concept of group guilt—something most rational people reject out of hand—the message is usually rejected as well. Yet the question may be asked, is there ever a legitimate target for the very concept of a “blanket condemnation” and the answer is “yes.” But it is a decidedly circumscribed “yes!” involving not groups of people, per se, but groups created by people. For such groups almost always have a “creed” which defines them, while those who belong to them do so voluntarily and, it is assumed, subscribe to that creed. Ergo, if a group’s raison d’etre is condemnatory, then it is not unreasonable to believe its members are also worthy of condemnation—yes, even as a group. And while the all-encompassing condemnation of groups of people will probably result in a negative response from the objective and rational, the narrow condemnation of certain voluntary associations of people is perfectly legitimate when the groups’ agendas are revealed. Placing Blame: Today, Western civilization totters on the brink of collapse. Third World peoples who have no history of—or love for—the West, pour into Europe and the United States while the West’s “native”—that is, white—population apparently has lost the will to survive, either aborting and contracepting itself into extinction or choosing perverted and sterile relationships that cannot create offspring, never mind the stable family, which is, of course, the foundation of civilization itself. During this chaotic and dangerous period there are decent, concerned and knowledgeable people trying to warn their fellows of the situation extant, but many of their messages contain open hostility to certain groups of people whom they believe responsible for our current (and past) woes. However, because this message focuses upon a group, it is overwhelmingly rejected by the “uncommitted” for whom it is intended. Indeed, often such “messages” appear to leave the plane of rationality and descend into paranoia—and a paranoid message is dead on arrival as Richard Nixon discovered! Most objective people will say, “show me someone who actually did something and I will condemn him. Tell me that a person is one of millions of a certain racial, ethnic and/or religious group and is therefore guilty for that reason alone and I will ask you, at what point does an accident of birth become wrongdoing?” Guilt is an individual and not a group condition and the condemnation of large numbers of people simply because they belong to this or that group, is neither rational nor useful. Worst of all, it leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy communication. Admittedly, group condemnation is much easier than building a case for individual guilt. There is no need to provide credible, validated information, or, in the alternative, one may present such information in individual cases and then extrapolate to include everyone else who fits into the targeted set. In the end, this type of message means that the messengers need only to point and shout, something rather like cheerleading, if with the opposite intention! Invoking The Negative Response: When I hear or read people who talk about “groups”—whether they are Jews or blacks or whites or whatever—my immediate response is to discount what is being said. Now, when someone references individual instances, even within a larger context—that is something else. Here is information that includes names and dates and credible, verifiable facts. But even in that instance, the temptation to extrapolate what is proved into a claim that “all” of this or that group is/was responsible, is false and, worse, foolish because it weakens the rational conclusions based upon those facts that are known and cannot be disputed. Now, many people communicate these overarching concepts in an effort to reach an under-educated and apathetic public with an all- important message, and therefore use the condemnation of a high-profile group to gain attention. But in doing so the message is often lost because the uncommitted and ignorant hearer confuses it with mindless prejudice. For Want of a Nail . . .: There is an old saying: “For want of a nail, a kingdom was lost.” This is an allusion to the laming of King Richard III’s war horse, White Surrey who threw a shoe on the battlefield at Bosworth. This, supposedly, led to Richard’s death and the loss of his kingdom to his adversary, Henry Tudor. Of course, the saying has a much larger meaning—that is, for the lack of care in small matters, large matters may be adversely – even fatally affected. It is not enough to be sincere. I remember Jane Fonda’s incredibly foolish assertion about her politics in the 1960s, “I must be right because I am so sincere!” People can be sincerely wrong! Sincerity proves nothing regarding whether something one believes is in fact, true or false. If I board a plane in the belief I am going to Miami, but the plane is going to Chicago, I will not arrive in Miami! In the same way, people trying to convince Americans of our danger in the present national—and world—crisis, will not be successful using group condemnations and “all and/or none” rhetoric however sincere they may be. The time has come to realize that it is not enough to “fight hard!” We must also “fight smart.”
There is no doubt that the written word has directed and influenced the affairs of men, especially in times of great events. In the year 1775, the colony of Massachusetts, one of the thirteen Atlantic coast colonies belonging to the Empire of Great Britain, found itself in open conflict with the “Mother Country.” In April of that year, the ongoing strife between the Massachusetts people often represented by the various local militias and British regulars sent to Boston in order to silence dissent in that fractious colony, finally initiated a much greater struggle that directly led to the calling of the Second Continental Congress. The first Congress had been called a year earlier to try to deal with the ongoing – and escalating – situation. By 1775, however, there was no longer a “question” of a possible war, but that war had, in fact, already broken out with the “shot heard round the world” at Lexington and Concord. This was further defined with an actual attack and resistance at Breed’s Hill overlooking the City of Boston. At the new Congress, a representative from Massachusetts – one John Adams –motioned to make of the various New England militias involved in the shooting war now going on in the Boston area, a “continental army” that would represent all thirteen colonies rather than just groups of volunteers who could stay or go at their own determination. Of course, one of Mr. Adam’s hopes was that in designating the existing – and already fighting – force as “Continentals,” he would bring into what was ostensibly a “Northern” fray, armed men from the rest of the colonies and especially the colonies of the South, Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia. Of course, the first colony in America was Virginia, founded even before the Pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock! As well, Virginia was immensely rich and, moreover, had a very clear understanding of that situation! Furthermore, neither were Virginians hesitant about expressing their beliefs regarding their premiere standing among the other colonies! Most important, however, Virginia was also the gateway to the rest of the South in any revolt against the King and his Parliament. Now in the previous Congress, Virginia, as had the rest of the colonies, sent representatives, one of whom was a very wealthy planter, a man who was both physically and by reputation, impressive; that is, one George Washington. Washington at the time was forty three years old and his military reputation was the result of a long history of involvement with Virginia’s military excursions especially in the French and Indian War. Indeed, then youthful Colonel Washington was said to have begun that fracas owing to a misunderstanding between the troops he led and the French troops he had been sent to remove from the Ohio Valley. Washington had also served with British General Edward Braddock in a most unfortunate campaign against the French and their Indian allies that had ended with the slaughter of most of Braddock’s army as well as the Virginia militia sent with him in support. In this matter, the twenty-four year old Washington had acted brilliantly, saving what remained of Braddock’s army although Braddock himself had been killed in the ambush. Unable to obtain a commission with the British regular forces and contemptuously dismissed by them as a mere “colonial,” Washington had left the militia taking up the duties of a member of the planter aristocracy into which he had “almost” been born. (Washington’s antecedents did not grant him by birth a place among the most affluent and influential, but his reputation and eventual wealth along with becoming a Freemason did lead to his inclusion in the aristocratic upper echelon of that colony.) But whatever the man’s social standing, he remained fully aware of Virginia’s military needs! Indeed, knowing what was taking place in the Boston area, Washington had put Virginia on a military footing against the possibility of a British attack in that colony. In consequence, when Washington went as a delegate to the second Continental Congress, he wore his militia uniform as a statement that Virginia would support the Northern colonies in their struggle against what he himself had called British “tyranny.” Thus, when Mr. Adams stepped forth to resolve that a “Continental Army” be created out of those various militia already at war in Boston, he also resolved that “Colonel Washington of Virginia” be made Commander in Chief of that same army! This was a true historical “first” in that an army had been created having but one member, its Commander in Chief! Thus, for a very short time, the “Continental Army” had only one soldier – George Washington! The result of this move by Adams is itself “history,” but, needless to say, when Colonel – now General – George Washington went north to Cambridge to take charge of “his army,” there were huge questions such as whether the “Yankee” militias, used to local discipline and individual expressions of service, would even obey the commands of a Virginian and if Washington, who had never commanded anything larger than a regiment, could create and then command an army that was nothing more than a conglomerate of free thinking farmers, merchants and ordinary citizens! His Excellency’s* first real contest with the foe was really quite brilliant in that he managed to drive the British out of Boston in March of 1776 with little loss of life or property. (*The Congress diddled over any number of titles to be given to a man occupying a position never before created in the colonies and Washington was relieved when they stopped at “Your Excellency” as he feared they might go to even further exalted titles! He had the same problem when he became America’s first President!) Of course, this short lived success was the result of many of his men along with officers such as General Henry Knox who brought the great guns of Fort Ticonderoga back to Boston in winter along with those who managed to follow the untested Commander’s efforts sufficiently as to prevent the British from overwhelming the new “army” holding up outside of that City, an army virtually without powder or shot! But the rest of that year proved to be horrendous for both the Commander and his infant army, so much so that by December of 1776, the “revolution” was all but over. Twice, Washington found himself at a point in which he could make little or no difference to the existing situation. He could not fight his way out, but only escape, something he did rather well, all told. But retreat is not a winning strategy especially when one’s troops are starving, virtually naked and without weapons. No, George Washington needed another weapon and twice he was fortunate enough to have one given to him. The first instance was in the summer of the year when he realized that his “army” pretty much trapped in New York, needed a legitimate reason to fight! The now seemingly petty squabbles that had brought about the war in Massachusetts did not carry over into the other colonies and there were still far too many people in all the colonies who sought reconciliation with the King and a return to “normalcy.” Men don’t fight to achieve stalemates neither do they die over petty disputes. Washington knew this! Though both a farmer and a soldier, he was also a much deeper man who understood the motives that drive men to respond in times of crises. With that understanding, he pressed the Congress to declare the “united colonies,” or, rather, “The United States” independent of Great Britain, a thoroughly unique situation at that point in history! We find it hard to believe today that the very concept of independence of a former colony or colonies from the nation that had established those same colonies was unthinkable in that time, but it was! Washington, however, knew that independence was the only real motive that would bring colonists out to fight and he desperately needed the Congress to openly declare that condition itself to be the goal of the revolution. It is reported that so desperate was the General for the Congress to act that he had gone before them to repeat his demands. It was also reported that the President of the Congress had reminded its members that the British continued to inform them that as traitors they would be hanged if captured. It was Washington, it is said, who reminded them that mere hanging as a punishment would be a blessing but, rather, that the old medieval punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering would be the fate of any revolutionary leader, and especially himself, “the Sword of the Revolution,” if they were brought to England to suffer such an unspeakable death! But just when it appeared that the Congress could not – or would not – take this all important step and that Washington’s army would, like mist in the morning, dissolve, a man named Thomas Paine stepped forward virtually out of nowhere. Paine was born on January 29th, 1737 in Norfolk, England. The man had a great gift of language and, indeed, his writings were lofty enough to appeal to the elite and clear enough for the “common man” to understand and appreciate. The first of his “tracts” was entitled Commonsense Addressed to the Inhabitants of America (subsequently to be known merely as Commonsense) published in Philadelphia in 1776. In this 47 page pamphlet, Paine pleaded for Americans to renounce the politics of Europe and embark on something entirely different. True, it was in part a scathing polemic against the injustice of rule by any king – and not just George III – but Paine also made an equally eloquent argument that Americans had a unique opportunity to change the course of history by creating a new sort of government in which people were free and possessed the power to rule themselves. In a very real way, Paine’s rather simple but clear explanation of why the King could be replaced and America be an independent nation, made it possible for a confused and disorganized Congress to reach the conclusion demanded by Washington and create the Declaration of Independence, giving the Commander in Chief the means by which to rally his troops to continue the fray. Washington was so wedded to this concept that he widely distributed among his army, Paine’s tract and also had read aloud the Declaration he had received from Philadelphia. And so, the pen prevailed and Washington’s beleaguered army did not melt away, that’s true, but by December of 1776, it was very much weakened and again on the verge of “melting away” as enlistments ended with the New Year or, in the alternative, starving to death or dying of exposure when in the bitter winter of that year, most of his men were without clothing or food or shelter or arms. In the war, Paine served as volunteer aide-de-camp to Gen. Nathanael Greene. His great contribution at this time – also from his pen – were the sixteen “Crisis” papers issued between 1776 and 1783, each one signed Common Sense as a means of catching the interest of the many Americans who had devoured that original offering. “The American Crisis. Number I,” was published on December 19th, 1776, when Washington’s stricken army was on the verge of disintegration – again. The author’s pen so moved Washington that he ordered it read to all his troops in hopes of raising their spirits and to maintain any hope that the Revolution would continue. The tract’s opening is among the most stirring passages in the literature of that time: These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us — that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: It is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right not only to tax but “to bind us in all cases whatsoever,” and if being bound in that manner is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited a power can belong only to God. “Crisis” combined with Washington’s victory in the battles of Trenton launched on Christmas night with its password of “Victory or Death” and quickly followed with the notable victory at Princeton inspired many soldiers, whose term of service would expire on January 1st, to reenlist thus allowing the struggle to continue rather than end in the defeat of American hopes. Would our Revolution have succeeded had Mr. Paine chosen some other vocation or had he died before his gift was made known in a troubled time? No one can say. It doesn’t really matter because what happened did happen! But we must never disregard that most dangerous and decisive weapon of any war, human language. Ask yourself, what do people remember of figures of the past? Today there is photography and earlier, images were rendered in paint, wood and stone, but almost all that we know of our past is ours by virtue of language. We know that Caesar crossed the Rubicon because it was written. We know that King Richard of the Lionsheart fought a crusade because it is written. We know the battle tactics of Sun Tzu because they are written! Language is essential for both history and civilization itself! And yet. . . and yet. . . language is a two-edged sword! It can be a weapon for good or, conversely, for evil. Language itself has no moral determinant. Language is “good” or “evil” as a direct result of the moral ethics of those who use it. Indeed, it is upon such “moral ethics” whether it is in word or deed that all depends. Today, alas, at least intelligent Americans understand that language has been perverted perhaps as never before in history – and as a result we now live in a time when all that our Nation’s blessed birth produced has been degraded into chaos and perverted into darkness. Our present condition has never been better defined than by the man who profited most, perhaps, from the words of Thomas Paine, General, later President, George Washington: “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”
We live in a very wicked world. All the norms of decency and godliness are being driven from Western culture while cultures outside of the West are also decaying into such evil and violence as to make even the strongest people wonder if civilization itself will soon either cease to exist entirely or transform into a version of Orwell’s hell on earth. But while there is still time, most decent people look for those who can bring them hope when every road leads to ruin and to tell them what is true when falsehood has become the foundation of all communications. In other words, decent people seek what in the Days of the Bible were called prophets! Of course, bringing God's prophetic word to the people to whom it is sent has always been a costly business for those so chosen for this task and that will not change in these latter days. Indeed, the conclusion reached by the New Testament writers as they looked back over the Old Testament was that prophets have always been persecuted. Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount refers to this fact when He ends His final beatitude with the words, "In the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:12). As well, Protomartyr, St. Stephen the deacon concluded his speech to the Jewish Sanhedrin with the challenge, "Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?" (Acts 7:52) This is the kind of reception all the prophets have had to face. And, again, looking into the future, Jesus indicated that there is not likely to be any change in the way prophets are received: "I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill, and others they will persecute" (Luke 11:49). None can answer or even understand the question 'What is a prophet?' until the questioner comes to terms with the inevitable persecution that is the fate of all faithful prophets. The Persecutions: Let us begin by looking into how the Prophets were persecuted. Why? Because in doing so, we begin to see how this particular “gameplan” continues into the present day for all who attempt to bring the Truth to mankind. Research into the numerous ways in which prophets were persecuted show that this divides into two responses. The first is the rejection of the men themselves and their message, and second, their persecution involves physical violence to their persons – even to death. For we have: · those who were persecuted through ridicule (2 Kings 2:23, Luke 22:64, Jeremiah 20:7); · those who were told to be silent (Amos 2:12, 7:13); by unpleasant looks (Jeremiah 1:8,17, 5:3); · those whose messages were reported to the authorities (Jeremiah 18:19, 37:13, Amos 7:10, Jeremiah 20:10); · those who were barred from attending God's house (Jeremiah 36:5); · And, finally, those who had their prophetic words, both spoken and written, rejected (Isaiah 30:10, Micah 2:6, Amos 7:12,16, Jeremiah 36:23). In the case of those who suffered physical violence to their persons, this violence took various forms: · They were placed in the stocks (Jeremiah 20:2). · They were kept in chains (Jeremiah 40:1). · They were slapped in the face (1 Kings 22:24). · They were imprisoned in cells, dungeons and cisterns (Jeremiah 37:15-16 & 38:6) in some cases fed only on bread and water (1 Kings 22:27). · They were threatened with death (1 Kings 19:1) and some were actually put to death (2 Chronicles 24:21, Jeremiah 26:20-23). There were also others killed whose names are not recorded. Jesus gives us reason to believe there were many unnamed servants of God who made that ultimate sacrifice (Luke 11:50-51). The Bible does not give extensive biographical details of the prophets we meet in its pages. In fact, we have little information about how they were persecuted or about how they lived and died. For example, with the exception of Amos and Jonah, Scripture says hardly anything about the personal circumstances of the minor prophets. The same is true of Isaiah and Ezekiel, though there is a little more to go on for the latter. It is the prophet Jeremiah that we know most about and it is from his experience that we can perhaps best discover how prophets were persecuted in his day. He goes so far as to refer to himself as 'a gentle lamb led to the slaughter' (Jeremiah 11:19), using the same words that Isaiah used to describe Yahweh's 'suffering servant' (Isaiah 53:7). There are a number of examples of non-writing prophets who were cruelly persecuted.Elijah was threatened by the wicked queen Jezebel after his confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, and ran for his life (1 Kings 19:1-4).Amos was insulted by the chief priest at the sanctuary in Bethel and told never to prophesy there again (Amos 7:10-15).Micah had the courage to contradict the prophetic announcement of four hundred false prophets (1 Kings 22: 5-6) when they declared that Ramoth, Gilead would be defeated by the combined forces of Kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat. He discerned that it was a lying spirit that was deluding these prophets – for this he was slapped in the face by Zedekiah and put in prison under the order of King Ahab (1 Kings 22:23-27).Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, was stoned to death for rebuking the people who turned aside to Asherah poles and idols, and for forsaking the Temple. This was an especially heinous crime, as Zechariah's father had helped King Joash and had been honored at his death for "the good he had done in Israel for God and his Temple" (2 Chron 24:16-22). As this persecuted prophet lay dying, he felt that King Joash had been particularly unkind and exclaimed "May the Lord see this and call you to account" (2 Chron 24:22).Hanani the seer reproved King Asa for relying on the king of Aram, instead of on the Lord, saying that from that time onward he would be at war. The king was so enraged that he put Hanani in prison (2 Chron 16:7-9).Uriah from Kiriath Jearim is described as "another man who prophesied in the name of the Lord, he prophesied the same things . . . as Jeremiah did" (Jeremiah 26:20-23). When King Jehoiakim heard what he said, he sought ways of putting Uriah to death. In fear for his life, the prophet escaped to Egypt. Thereupon the king dispatched a party of men to find and arrest him. When they brought him back to the king, he had Uriah struck down with a sword and his body thrown into the common burial place. New Testament Prophets Were Also Persecuted John the Baptist was referred to by Jesus as "a prophet and more than a prophet" (Matthew 11:9). He was persecuted, especially by King Herod. John the Baptist had the courage to publicly rebuke Herod for marrying Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. For this, Herod had John put in prison (Luke 3:19-20), where he lay bound (Matthew 14:3). On Herod's birthday the celebrations included a sensual dance performed by Herodias' daughter, Salome. When Herod was foolish enough to promise her anything, prompted by her mother, she asked for the head of John the Baptist. The king was distressed but felt he had to keep his promise and had John beheaded. Jesus Christ was greeted with the words of the crowd, "A great prophet has appeared among us" (Luke 7:16). The two disciples walking to Emmaus, bewildered by what had been happening, summed up their conclusions in the words, "He was a prophet powerful in word and deed before God and all the people" (Luke 24:19), and like all true prophets Jesus was persecuted. He was ridiculed, opposed in His teaching, had His miracles attributed to the devil, was handed over to the authorities and suffered at the hands of violent men. Finally, He was crucified and demonstrated (as men thought) by His death on the cross, to be a false Messiah. What Particular Difficulties Do Prophets Face? These problem areas may be divided up into (1) difficulties with other people, (2) difficulties in handling of God's word, and (3) difficulties with their own thoughts. (1) Difficulties with other people: Prophets have to face being despised by priests and other 'professionals', as Amos was by Amaziah (Amos 7:12-13) and Jeremiah by Pashur (Jeremiah 20: 1-2); being opposed by false prophets (Jeremiah 29:1-17); being rejected by familiar friends (Jeremiah 20:10) and by one's own family (Matthew 13:57). (2) Difficulties in handling God's prophetic word: Prophets must speak only what God has really given them to speak (Jeremiah 1:7); they must not water down God's word to make it more acceptable (Isaiah 30:10); they must uphold the authority of the scriptures (Jeremiah 17:19-27); and they must be prepared to bring the same message over and over again because of the lack of faith and the hard hearts of the people to whom they prophesy (Jeremiah 7:25, 29:19, 35:15). (3) Difficulties in their own thoughts. Prophets must (a) be patient and wait confidently for the fulfilment of God's prophetic word (James 5:10-11; Matthew 13:17); (b) they must allow critics to call them 'traitors' to their country or a particular viewpoint, trusting God to vindicate them (Jeremiah 37:11-14) and (c) they must accept the fact that they will be called 'troublemakers' (1 Kings 18:17) continuing to proclaim God's word even though it is a torment to the hearers as well as to the prophet (Rev 11:10). We must follow Paul's teaching to "bless those who persecute us" (Romans 12:14). We know that Christ is with us, for persecution is one of those things which cannot separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:35-39). We can be comforted by the assurance that persecution can only scatter the church, and not destroy it as was the case in the early church (Acts 8:1). But though persecution cannot destroy the Church or separate the Faithful from God, certainly in periods of great trial such as today, the Church can be scattered. Of course, we can be sure that all faithful prophets will have their reward in heaven, and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in God’s Kingdom (Luke 13:28). They will then know that Jesus was right when he said that the prophets who were persecuted were the truly 'blessed' people of God (Matthew 5:11-12). Help for Persecuted Prophets At times God's true prophets have lived in danger of their lives and God has raised up men and women to protect them.Obadiah who was in charge of King Ahab's palace was able to hide a hundred prophets in two caves and supply them with food and water every day (1 Kings 18:13).A wealthy woman in Shunem was able to build a 'prophet-flat' onto her house for Elisha's use whenever he was in that district (the original prophet's chamber!) (2 Kings 4:8-10).Ebedmelech. a black man, took a gang of men with him to pull Jeremiah out of the cistern in which he had been imprisoned (Jeremiah 38:7-13) and Ahikam son of Shaphan intervened to prevent Jeremiah being put to death. Of course, we have Jesus promise that everyone who assisted a prophet in need would receive the same reward as the prophet and that “even a cup of cold water would be rewarded” (Matthew 10:41-42). How Should Prophets React to Persecution? We must look beyond the Old Testament to discover how persecuted prophets ought to react to their persecutors. We must not copy Jeremiah as he asks God to bring down disaster on them and their families and calls down wrath upon them, praying "do not forgive their crimes, or blot out their sins from your sight" (Jeremiah 18:21-23). Rather, we are to "love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us" (Matthew 5:44), as Jesus has taught us. This is, of course, one of the main differences between the Old and the New Testaments! It was Jesus who said, "If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you also" (John 15:20), so today's prophets must expect the same treatment their predecessors have always received. The Lord himself confirms that this will be a continuing experience down to the present day, for "I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute" (Luke 11 :49), and these words still apply. And the Final Question: Why is this matter important today? What the prophets brought to the people – not just “God’s people” but all people – was the truth. No prophet lied. When Jesus is interrogated by Pilate, He states that all who love Truth, listen to Him. To this, Pilate asks a most sanguine question, that is, “What is Truth?” And, indeed, this is the question that all of us must ask these days as our whole world view is filled with lies. Truth is rejected and, as with the prophets of old, those who bring it to light will suffer persecution. Of course, today’s “prophets” do not necessarily speak directly to any Divine utterance or demand. Rather, they speak of that reality that is being so carefully hidden by the minions of evil whose war against the just, the good and the faithful has so poisoned our present world. So then, who are these prophets? 1- They are those who warn about the use of medicine to murder rather than to cure; 2- They are those who point out that “good intentions” never excuse lies and intrigues; 3- They are those who refuse to be intimidated by men whose worldly position gives them power to do harm to those who will not yield and obey; 4- They are those who continue to speak out when they are threatened with consequences that a mere decade ago would have been considered an impossible attack on our God-given liberties; 5- They are those who suffer lies and falsehoods and condemnation even by those with whom they are close because they will not remain silent in the face of wickedness; 6- They are men and women, young and old, who face the condemnation of all those people and institutions that they hold dear when they choose the narrow path of righteousness rather than the wide path of worldly approval and acclaim. Much has been written about those who fail to be the prophets whom God has placed among men to warn of the evils all about us. Poet J. R. Lowell writes: They are slaves who fear to speak For the fallen and the weak; They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing, and abuse, Rather than in silence shrink From the truth they needs must think; They are slaves who dare not be In the right with two or three. The same view is held by J. H. Thom who wrote: “The real corrupters of society may be, not the corrupt, but those who have held back the righteous leaven, the salt that has lost its savor, the innocent who have not even the moral courage to show what they think of the effrontery of impurity – the serious, who yet timidly succumb before some loud-voiced scoffer – the heart trembling all over with religious sensibilities that yet suffers itself through false shame to be beaten down into outward and practical acquiescence by some rude and worldly nature.” In other words, many of those who should be today’s “prophets” are silenced, not by the fear of suffering and death to which the Biblical messengers were subject, but rather, good people today are afraid of being ridiculed and laughed at. We shun the reproach of those whose very actions make of them the very people we are to warn against and not only for the good of others, but for their own good! The prophets came to warn even the wicked that they should foreswear their evil deeds and return to God! Many did so as we can see when Jonah saved the people of Nineveh from the wrath of God by calling them to repentance. How many of the wicked of today would need only a warning from a good man to turn away from evil? We don’t know for the world has become so very evil! But even if there is no hope, we must continue to know God’s will and then make it known to our fellow man. That duty begins by learning all that we can of the evils that have come upon us in these (perhaps) Latter Days! For today all can see the consequences that obtain when good people choose to remain silent in the face of evil! Evil wins!
Appeasement – 1. the political strategy of pacifying a potential enemy in the hope of avoiding conflict—often by granting concessions. 2. an attempt to stop complaints or reduce difficulties by making concessions. Concession – 1. an act or an example of conceding, yielding, or compromising in some way, often grudgingly or unwillingly. Compromise – (n) 1. a settlement of a dispute in which two or more sides agree to accept less than they originally wanted. 2. something that somebody accepts because what was wanted is unattainable. (v) 1. to settle a dispute by agreeing to accept less than what was originally wanted. Ronald Reagan used to tell the story of the man trying to drain a swamp who finding himself surrounded by hungry alligators, starts throwing his fellow workers to the monsters to protect himself. But of course, in the end he will be eaten—just last of all! Reagan was illustrating the futility of appeasement which gains nothing for the user but a little time. Appeasement is often confused with compromise. This is easy if one is inherently honest. In a compromise, after each side gives a little in deliberations and both sides accept what is agreed upon as the final determination of the problem. But when one party considers any agreement as a step towardsa desired end rather than the solution of the problem, this “agreement” is, in reality, an act of “appeasement” by the other side. For far too long, conservatives have believed that each “compromise” we have reached with our liberal foes is the final answer to that particular problem—only to find out that in a day, or a week, or a year, the liberals are back demanding a more and greater “compromise” on an issue that conservatives had considered settled. Now, the first time this happens, no blame obtains to those who have been blindsided by the other group’s maneuvers. They were honest while their adversaries were not. However, the second—not to mention every time thereafter—that the same thing happens, the victims lose the right to call themselves ill-used. They—or in this case, we conservatives—cannot blame “the other side” when we knew—or should have known—that the concept of “compromise” existed on our part alone while our adversaries were determined to continue to work towards total victory albeit incrementally. Indeed, I am willing to state unequivocally, that the results of all of our side’s “negotiations” with liberals in the assault on, among other issues, Southern heritage represent not compromise—however much we may have fooled ourselves that such was the case—but appeasement. Therefore, to continue down that particular road has only one destination: the extermination of both the culture and the history of the South. Whatever we choose to call these “arrangements,” they are concessions on our part. To again paraphrase Ronald Reagan, if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck—whether or not you call it a swan. Given this situation, how should those who champion truth whether it be in history or in any other field, deal with our adversaries? Is there any hope of valid compromise or are we dealing with an unrelenting, uncompromising, intractable mindset that will settle for nothing less than total victory—that is, the extermination of the history and heritage of Western Civilization – and possibly a good deal more? Sadly, the answer to the above questions is, “no,” there is no hope and “yes” we are dealing with a mindset that will accept nothing less than the total extermination of the White race, Western Civilization and Christianity as embodied in American culture, history and heritage. Furthermore, no amount of manifest good-will or conciliatory gestures on our part will change a damned thing. The “offence” expressed by our adversaries for historical evils is itself either a matter of ignorance or intentional deceit. If we do not recognize this existing state of affairs, we are not simply woefully naïve, but stupid—even insane! Remember Einstein’s definition of that condition: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results! Furthermore, to continue down that same road guarantees our extermination both as a people and even individually. Having accepted the matter as it stands, what then is left for us to do? First, we must not “concede” or “compromise” without understanding that such “solutions” are nothing but appeasement, the only benefit of which—at least to us—is that it creates—or more properly used to create!—a momentary lull in the struggle. Secondly, we must make much better use of whatever time remains to us attempting to forestall total defeat even if we cannot achieve total victory. We must—I repeat must—understand that any and all “agreements” reached with our adversaries are incremental victories for them and total losses for our side. Most important, we must be prepared to use what little time remains to regroup and go on the offensive rather than congratulating ourselves that we have forestalled total defeat for the moment. At the very least we must understand that the other side will never compromise on its stated goals! You cannot reason with iniquity – there is no common ground! Therefore, we must develop strategies to use when the enemy’s assault is momentarily broken off because we know from experience that they are busy formulating their next plan of attack—and the whole thing starts again. Remember, it is easyto “get along” with our adversaries! all we have to do is surrender—and die!
The following was sent to me by a worthy individual who keeps track of such esoteric matters. Why do we need to do so, one may ask? Because we find that in so doing, we learn that people “know” a great deal that isn’t so and as a result make decisions – and take actions – based upon false information. I hope that the following gives the reader pause the next time you are about to “believe” what so many in our “evil empire” wish you to believe: From a (fairly) recent poll conducted by "YOUGOV" a national polling outfit, come the results to the following questions asked of the average person on the street: Q: What percentage of our country is black? A: 41%. Actual: 12% Q: What percentage is "Latino"? A: 39%. Actual: 17% Q: How many families make over $500,000 a year? A: 26%. Actual: 1% (Apparently, Americans believe that a quarter of our country is wealthier than they are! Now what do you suppose this does in a culture based upon envy and entitlement?) Q: What percent of Americans are vegetarians? A: 30% Actual: 5% Q: What percent of Americans live in New York City? A: 30% Actual: 3%. Q: What percent of Americans are transgender? A: 22% Actual:1% (Though that figure must have increased greatly by now) Q: What percent of Americans are gay? A: 30% Actual: 3% As we can see, people are so very wrong in their beliefs regarding how many people are those we are assured are being “persecuted” by the culture. The question must then be, why do people have such inaccurate beliefs? The answer, of course, is the LIBERAL MEDIA! The media run stories on race, gender, wealth and other liberal shibboleths constantly! As a result, people are being brainwashed with regard not only to the numbers, but to what happens when policies are based upon fraudulent rather than accurate numbers. All governments are enmeshed in lies. Perhaps only the Kingdom of Heaven is free from the desire of even good people to make their agenda triumphant even through the use of propaganda (lies). This is never a good thing. Why? Because nothing based upon falsehood will thrive and if it does, the result is usually catastrophic. Good cannot result from evil save only if God intervenes to make it happen. Truth – even unpleasant truth – is infinitely to be desired rather than the pleasant lie. Here we see again what happens when what people “believe” is contrary to what “is!” Consider: Disney just went full-on "gender woke.” They will no longer welcome guests with the traditional "Welcome ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls!" Why? Because through the liberal media, 1% of the population dictates to the other 99% what they should believe and what they should accept, and most important how they should both act and vote ~ and corporate America not only falls for it but puts their “bottom line” over the well-being of the people of America! This situation is made even more obvious by the fact that though less than 20% of American's are connected to Twitter, yet statistically Twitter controls 80% of American public opinion! Why? Because the liberal media tells us it does and like the deluded people above, we believe! The great Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis once pointed out that if one begins in error, it doesn’t matter how much further along one goes, one cannot arrive at the proper solution being sought. So, to go forward in this circumstance, one must go back and “fix” the original error! Because today so many people know so much that is not true, it is no wonder we cannot reach useful solutions to our problems! We must go back and correct our errors before we will be able to arrive at anything at all useful. If we don’t, we will simply go further and further off course and, eventually, off a very high cliff to our ultimate doom.
Incompatible: 1: unable to cooperate or coexist 2: not suitable for use in combination 3: contradictory The concept of incompatibility is a matter of science, not rhetoric. Certain things are by their very reality—or nature—incompatible. If you put sodium in water, the resulting explosive reaction is a matter of chemical incompatibility. If you attempt to keep two preying mantes in a single terrarium, the result will be one well-fed mantis! Some years ago, boxes of newly hatched mantes were sold to gardeners, the idea being to use the insects to clear the garden of pests like the Japanese beetle but, of course, the nature of the mantis was incompatible with the use intended and the purchased insects' numbers were soon reduced by either predation or migration! Compatibility and incompatibility—are essential concepts in any culture. Attempts to force two incompatible matters together are bound to end in failure. I remember as a child attempting to push two small magnets together, North pole to North and South pole to South. It didn’t work as the magnets swiftly rotated until the poles were properly aligned. Indeed, in a more sane era, it would be unnecessary to bring the matter of compatibility up at all, but, alas, sanity is not the current culture’s strong suit. Below are quotes that provide a textbook example of incompatibility! They—and what they represent—simply cannot co-exist; one or the other must prevail: The object of The Stuart-Mosby Historical Society (a Southern heritage group) shall be to further historical research, to preserve accurate history and to perpetuate the memory and deeds of General James Ewell Brown Stuart and Colonel John Singleton Mosby. ~ Stuart-Mosby Society Mission Statement It’s our time; it’s our responsibility to set the record straight on Monument Avenue’s confederate Statuary. Equal parts myth and deception, they were the ‘alternative facts’ of their time—a false narrative etched in stone and bronze more than 100 years ago—not only to lionize the architects and defenders of slavery—but to perpetuate the tyranny and terror of Jim Crow and reassert a new era of white supremacy. . . I wish these monuments had never been built, but like it or not they are part of our history in this city, and removal will never wash away that stain. ~ Richmond Mayor Levar M. Stoney If I am elected lieutenant governor, I will ask the governor to appoint me to lead a commission charged with taking down Confederate monuments as well as renaming Confederate-themed highways and public buildings. Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to celebrate a rebellion against the United States of America, a rebellion intended to maintain slavery. ~ Susan Platt, candidate for Governor of Virginia But, sadly, far too many who champion the first sentiment – that is, the dissemination of accurate history and not just the presently desired narrative! – appear unaware or unable to recognize the existing situation. They really believe that they can produce at least a semblance of compatibility between these two irreconcilable sentiments. On the other hand, those who champion the second set – even though their opinions are inaccurate, do understand the existing reality – and thus, historically wrong to not, win the day! Several years ago, in the City of Auburn, Alabama, a black Councilman broke into a private cemetery and took battle flags from the graves of Confederate soldiers being placed there by the ladies of the local UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy). At first, there was little outrage as the man whined about how “offended” he was to see that flag even displayed in a private cemetery in which some of the graves being honored contained family members of the ladies placing the flags! However, so egregious were his actions that the local newspaper began to run comments and more and more people began to opine. Some, of course, championed the “noble” Councilman and his “brave actions” against the few elderly ladies involved, but most began to wonder why the police let what were obviously crimes of intimidation, theft and vandalism go unpunished. However, there was indeed a reason! The ladies of the UDC upon whose property he had trespassed and whose family graves he had desecrated as well as having harassed and threatened those very same ladies while purloining their funerary displays, refused to press charges! It is supposed that these gracious ladies “didn’t want to make a fuss!” Folks, that’s how you lose your cause! Had charges been filed at the time, who knows but that a positive finding might have helped stop the ongoing vandalism against Southern monuments – and even graves! – before it became socially, culturally and even legally acceptable! With each attempt by supporters of the first sentiment to accommodate, conciliate and propitiate supporters of the second sentiment, we grow ever closer to the time at which the first sentiment will not be permitted and those who insist on maintaining it will meet the fate of those decent folk in the North who rejected Lincoln’s war—that is, exile or imprisonment. If you think it cannot happen, in Europe people are being sent to prison for “insulting Islam” or questioning the “holocaust.” In the United States, Christian business owners find themselves forced to participate in cultural arrangements they reject for reasons of faith or, in the alternative, suffer severe government penalties! If such things had been suggested not too long ago, they would have been considered examples of unchecked paranoia! But, alas, that is no longer the case! What was once unthinkable is now unremarkable, acceptable and even desirable! As a total supporter of the first sentiment and a person who acknowledges that there is a factual concept entitled incompatibility, I would hope that not only the people of the South, but all Americans stop trying to pretend that all we need do is remain silent and submissive and we will be permitted to keep our monuments, heroes, symbols, history and heritage, for the sad fact is that there are circumstances under which one cannot simply co-exist because both "sides" of the matter are incompatible! One side must triumph—or die!
Historical Truism: When the civil government fails to protect innocent citizens against violent criminals, eventually that situation results in the rise of “vigilantism.” This consequence is not unique to the United States but is a common condition wherever people who live in a supposedly “civilized state” governed by laws find themselves outside the protection of those laws. This reality is supremely important because the present culture in America and the West is massively deteriorating especially along racial lines. Even as we witness the precipitous rise of black on white crime, we also see massive efforts by politicians, law enforcement and the media to conceal what is now, in fact, a race war. Yet, despite efforts to blame any racial tensions on whites, the ubiquitous internet continues to inform those who wish to know the facts. Below is a report of one incident that took place in Milwaukee in 2011 illustrating the very different standards relative to criminal activity that clearly reveal that those standards are based upon race, both that of the criminal and of the victim. For there is no doubt that had this incident been an attack by whites on blacks, the story would not only have been prominently reported across the nation, but that the criminals would have been charged not with simple assault and robbery but federal hate crimes as well! But as the roles were reversed—black criminals and white victims—the response of the local “authorities” was very different not only in degree but in tone. In the end, most of the victims realized that the injuries they sustained and the possessions they lost were of no interest to the police who did not even want to hear an account of the crimes especially those containing particulars about the perpetrators. This fact was obvious to at least one victim: "About 20 of us stayed to give statements and make sure everyone was accounted for. The police wouldn't listen to us, they wouldn't take our names or statements. They told us to leave. It was completely infuriating…” One of the most thought-provoking—and frightening—aspects of the rampage involved was that it was not motivated by rage caused by some perceived “injustice.” It was, in fact, “pleasurable” for the perpetrators who obviously targeted whites knowing that the chances of any of them being caught—never mind brought to book—were virtually nil. This is the kind of behavior together with the common police response that eventually produces vigilantism as mentioned earlier. When the authorities refuse to “serve and protect,” the criminal element soon understands that a particular segment of the population is “fair game” for predation. Generally, not long after that, some people in that “particular segment” determine to protect themselves since they can expect no protection from the State. Fortunately, in this unprovoked and barbaric attack no one was very seriously injured, but next time, who knows? NOTE: Throughout the article below, my comments are in brackets and underlined, while comments of particular relevance in the article are italicized. The Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel Flynn calls looting, beatings in Riverwest barbaric—July 6, 2011 Shaina Perry remembers the punch to her face, blood streaming from a cut over her eye, her backpack with her asthma inhaler, debit card and cellphone stolen, and then the laughter. [Clearly, this was not a response to some perceived “racial injustice” it was just a “good old time” being had by the mob, a matter that must cause one to consider the character of those involved.] “They just said ‘Oh, white girl bleeds a lot,’” said Perry, 22, who was attacked at Kilbourn Reservoir Park over the Fourth of July weekend. Though Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn noted Tuesday that crime is colorblind [Is it really? Apparently, this mob went where it would find victims who were unprepared to fight back because they were law-abiding white people], he called the Sunday night looting of a convenience store near the park and beatings of a group of people who had gone to the park disturbing, outrageous and barbaric. Police would not go quite as far as others in connecting the events; Flynn said several youths “might” be involved in both. [The term “youths” is a code word in the media for blacks of pretty much any age.] “We’re not going to let any group of individuals terrorize or bully any of our neighborhoods,” Flynn said. [Really? It would seem that the circumstances proved otherwise—and the criminals knew it!] Perry was among several who were injured by a mob they said beat and robbed them and threw full beer bottles while making racial taunts. [Clearly proof that the victims were not simply chosen at random.] The injured people were white; the attackers were African-American, witnesses said. Some video of the BP station at E. North Ave. and N. Humboldt Blvd. shows the business being ransacked. A clerk at BP confirmed to the Journal Sentinel that he was busy waiting on customers when one or two people held the door open to let others rush in and steal snacks and candy. Not far away, 20 to 25 friends from Milwaukee’s Riverwest neighborhood had gathered at the park shortly before midnight to watch some fireworks set off by a neighbor. In interviews with 11 people who said they were attacked and witnessed the attack, a larger group of youths [!] appeared in another section of the park around midnight and were joined by more young people [!] running up the park’s stairs. At some point the group of friends and the group of youths [!] intersected; those interviewed said the attack appeared to be unprovoked. [In keeping with claims made regarding racially motivated violence, there is nothing about these instances that can be traced to any provocation; the provocation here was the color of the victim’s skin! This fact is clearly understood in incidents of black on white crime but appears beyond the capacity of the police to recognize here—and elsewhere—or to be publicly stated as such.] "I saw people dancing and I figured they were just having a good time," [again, clear proof that these were not crimes of passion but deliberate racially motivated assaults which were seen as “good fun” by the perpetrators] said Riverwest resident Jessica Bublitz, 28. Minutes later Bublitz saw a male friend hit in the temple and fall down. Her fiancé told her to run to safety. James Zajackowski, 28, said things suddenly turned chaotic. "Within 30 seconds to a minute, bottles were flying and people started getting punched. I was in shock. I thought, 'Really? Is this really happening?' I was on the ground, people were trying to get into my pockets, I could feel their hands but I held on to my cellphone and my wallet," said Zajackowski, a census worker. Emily Mowrer, 27, was not hurt but saw her friends beaten and punched and full beer bottles thrown at them. Her boyfriend was punched. She saw Perry lying with blood on her face, not moving. She called 911 on her cellphone. "I saw some of my friends on the ground getting beat pretty severely. They got away with one of my friends' bikes. Some people had their wallets stolen," said Mowrer, who owns a house with her boyfriend in Riverwest. "It didn't seem like it was a mugging - it seemed like an attack. Like they weren't after anything - just violence." [This eyewitness account validates the above conclusion that the criminals here were not provoked and did not engage in their criminal behavior because of any mitigating passion based upon the need for revenge or any other such emotion usually blamed for black mob violence.] Andy Lange, 29, a social worker who has lived in Riverwest for 10 years, said one of his friends was hit in the head with a bottle and needed staples to close the wound. Lange said he was struck in the face and didn't even see who hit him. Perry needed three stitches to close a cut above her eye. She said she saw a friend getting kicked and when she walked up to ask what was happening, a man punched her in the face. "I heard laughing as they were beating everybody up. They were eating chips like it was a picnic," [see above comments] said Perry, a restaurant cashier. "All I remember is seeing bright lights (after the punch), then my backpack was gone and blood was spurting out of my head." A police spokeswoman on Monday said police received no reports of mobs of people committing crimes in the Riverwest area, only the reports of two armed robberies. At the Tuesday news conference, Flynn attempted to defuse reports that the mobs of youth [!] were running through the Riverwest neighborhood attacking citizens. However, he acknowledged that those responsible for the BP store looting and attacks at Kilbourn Reservoir Park had mob-like characteristics. [Had these been the Klan or the Aryan Nation, the police would not be talking about “mob-like characteristics.” They would have referred to the participants as “a mob”—or worse!] “Clearly we had mob-like behavior in the incidents involving the robberies at Reservoir Park as well as the ransacking of the BP station…Certainly we had elements of mob-like behavior [see above] that challenged us on June 3,” Flynn said. With an estimated 200,000 people watching the lakefront fireworks, which ended about 10:30 p.m. Sunday, there was heavy traffic in the area as people headed home and police were responding to fights. The BP was overrun shortly before midnight, and minutes later the attacks occurred in the park. Several people seen on the BP station surveillance video may have been involved in the park beatings, Flynn said. Two strong-arm robberies were investigated by police at the park, the first at 11:50 p.m. and the second, involving Perry, at 12:15 a.m. Three males - two 16-year-olds and one 18-year-old - were arrested in the first robbery. No arrests have been made in the attack on Perry. [And it is unlikely that any will be made unless one of the perpetrators is caught with a stolen item and even then, both pursuit and prosecution of the malefactors will be half-hearted at best.] Most of the 11 people who told the Journal Sentinel they were attacked or witnessed the attacks on their friends said that police did not take their complaints seriously. They each said police responded to the scene quickly and tended to the injured, but officers did not take statements from them and told them to leave the area. [Enough Americans watch TV crime shows to know that the police always take statements—so why not in this instance? The answer to that is sadly obvious—because they had no intention of following up on the incident and they did not wish any inconvenient “paperwork” in their records.] "You've got 20-plus people giving eyewitness accounts. I'm very surprised that they said it wasn't a mob," said Mowrer. [I’m not—nor should anyone else be!] Lange said he told an officer about the beatings but noticed the officer didn't write anything down or note his name. Bublitz tried to tell an officer that her three-speed bicycle had been stolen and that one of her friends was hurt but said the officer told her he was looking for evidence. [Again, police behavior clearly indicates that the less the police knew about the matter, the happier they were and that no efforts at all would be made to bring anyone from this mob to justice. About the only thing that pleased the cops was that nobody was killed. A corpse would have been highly embarrassing and demanded considerably more of a response from so-called “law-enforcement.”] Let us now go back to the statement of a victim-witness that began this narrative, to wit: "About 20 of us stayed to give statements and make sure everyone was accounted for. The police wouldn't listen to us, they wouldn't take our names or statements. They told us to leave. It was completely infuriating…" The really frightening aspect of this sad tale is the fact that the police were—and continue to be—so intimidated by the “race card” that they accept and ignore violent criminal acts rather than take a chance on upsetting the racial apple cart. As noted, the actual crimes against the victims including physical injuries and the loss of property were of no interest to the authorities not because the crimes were insignificant but because the criminals were black and the victims white! Had it been the other way around, these same crimes would have assumed epic proportions and the charges resulting would have been increased by various “hate crime” statutes and penalties even though the very concept of a “hate crime” is the antithesis of American jurisprudence! And so, what has this to do with the Ku Klux Klan one might ask? Even a brief history of that organization cannot be included here, but it is necessary to at least point out that the Klan had three incarnations, the first arose during (so-called) Reconstruction in response to attacks on innocent Southerners—white and black—by the federal occupation’s terrorist group, The Union League. This first manifestation of the Klan acted against the carpetbaggers, scalawags and contingents of easily influenced blacks used by them to harass, terrorize and murder Southern civilians. The most important fact in this Klan’s history is that the organization arose out of the refusal of the occupation government to protect innocent citizens from the depredations of the freedmen members of the Union League and their white leaders. As has happened not only during Reconstruction but in other places and at other times, where the civil state fails to protect the people, groups always arise from the people themselves to fulfill that need. Vigilantes have a bad reputation but often vigilantism has been a necessary response to the failure of the state to provide protection to a helpless citizenry. After Reconstruction, the need for the Klan as it was first conceived, ended—and so did the original Klan. But its success in limiting the power of the newly enfranchised freedman proved to be irresistible to many white Southerners because they feared the possibility of once again coming under the power of Northern whites and their tool, the Southern Negro. The Klan that then arose—twice!—is the organization with which we are familiar today. This Klan was, in fact, a very real terrorist group using intimidation and violence to subjugate blacks and anyone seen as being allied with them. However, it is also important to note that this new Klan was not limited to the South. Indeed, its largest chapters were found in the Middle West! This new venue mirrored the northward migration of large numbers of blacks as the manpower shortages occasioned by World War I forced Northern industries to seek workers to man their mills and factories. The power of this Klan reached its height in the early 20th Century and lasted until the rise of the “civil rights movement” at which time the federal government bypassed local and State agencies to prosecute Klan members under federal statutes. However, for some reason, most of these prosecutions were limited to the South! Eventually, with the loss of the protection of local politicians and judges, the Klan became greatly enfeebled. However, the power of its name remained though the once mighty “Klan” had become a pale shadow of its former might thoroughly infiltrated by federal agents. Indeed, it has been claimed that in any contemporary Klan gathering, the majority of attendees are either federal agents or their paid stooges. With the success of the “civil rights movement,” most Americans hoped for a new era of amicable race relations. But this hope was soon dashed by racial violence in the early 60s that saw riots and chaos in America’s inner cities. The violence was seen as a reaction to the assassination of Martin Luther King and anti-black violence supposedly occasioned by the efforts of blacks and their white allies to achieve racial equality and political power. Yet many whites found it odd that blacks would destroy their own neighborhoods to “protest” events that had already been condemned by the vast majority of white Americans and, at the time, some suggested more sinister motives were involved. In a supposed response to the situation, President Lyndon Johnson introduced his sweeping program of “reforms” that he called “The Great Society,” at the same time launching his “War on Poverty” as a means, it was claimed, of addressing racial inequality! Of course, “the poor” targeted by these reforms were almost always black, for though there were numerically more poor whites than blacks, the percentage of poor blacks vis a vis the total black population was far higher than the percentage of the poor among whites. Thus began decades of countless “social programs” and political nostrums intended to raise the living standard of poor “inner-city” blacks and bring them into the mainstream of America’s social and economic culture. Affirmative action replaced efforts to end racial discrimination by effectively substituting one target of discrimination with another. Ever larger and more comprehensive welfare programs were introduced into the inner-city black population. Liberal Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, seeing the results of these programs, wrote a book warning that the welfare state was destroying the black family and as a result, black culture. Indeed, far from ending the gap between poor blacks and the rest of America, these programs only made the divide deeper and more bitter, engendering an attitude among many blacks of both victimization and entitlement. And when politicians’ promises to this constituency were not forthcoming with sufficient speed and in sufficient amounts, this “culture within a culture” became more and more estranged, hostile—and dangerous. Many hoped that the election of a “black President”—Barack Hussein Obama—would bring forth a “post-racial” era but exactly the opposite proved to be the case. Obama openly admitted his hostility toward whites though his mother was in fact white. In his administration ever greater preferences were both demanded and promised while the second highest law enforcement agent in the land, Attorney General Eric Holder, a black, openly stated that blacks cannot violate the civil rights of whites and, in fact, that whites were not protected by federal civil rights statutes. Never has any person of such importance openly proclaimed that an entire segment of the population based upon race was not protected by American law! Even in the worst days of Jim Crow, no one was foolish enough to openly proclaim that the law did not apply equally to all Americans. It would be wrong to say that such a mindset was not in fact understood in many places, but it was certainly not openly stated as government policy at either the state or the federal level. Today, though black on white crime is raging while white on black crime is statistically miniscule, the supposed “great fear” expressed by liberal “racial-activist” groups such the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center is the danger to black Americans from vicious white racists affiliated with “the Klan!” Every news story about the display of a Confederate battle flag produces charges that the Klan is on the march and moving to bring back Jim Crow and the rope! These outbreaks of feigned hysteria are given credence and additional power by academia, establishment “historians” and government agencies like the Parks Department all of which are in collusion to consign to oblivion the heritage and history of the South. No amount of reasoned rebuttal to contrived “history,” no facts however well sourced and no sources—even Union records and Northern historical figures—will suffice to end the demand that all things Confederate must be condemned and banished altogether or, if necessary, displayed only as are the symbols of such rogue regimes as Nazi Germany! And this crusade for cultural genocide is only getting worse by the day as physical vandalism—sanctioned by various local and state governments—is now openly committed despite existing laws. Recently, even a “Civil War” museum was forced to remove the flags of the Confederacy and, as a result, has been closed! We must remember that many of those attempting to obliterate Southern heritage couched their demands with the claim that these symbols only belonged in a museum! Apparently not! Now let us go back to the first paragraph in which I pointed out that vigilante groups arise when helpless citizens are no longer being protected by the civil government. For while the NAACP and the SPLC cry “Klan”—like the boy who cried “Wolf!”—the very same circumstances leading to vigilantism in the past are once again appearing in the present. White Americans see their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights under attack by government at virtually all levels at the insistence of blacks and their liberal white allies. Voter intimidation based upon race that would never have been permitted if attempted by whites against blacks, is tacitly (and even openly) ignored when the racial components are reversed. And while the main stream media continues to ignore incidents of gangs of young blacks—some mere children!—targeting whites, the truth of these matters is brought to the attention of most Americans through the ubiquitous internet—another reason why the government so dearly desires total control over that entity! Meanwhile, local, state and national law enforcement turn a blind eye—or so many whites believe—to minority crime especially committed against whites. In other words, the race baiters and their ilk are creating the same state of affairs that led to the rise of the original Klan! Thus, it may well be that while these groups are mendaciously crying “Klan! Klan!” to bolster their own power and censor Southern heritage, they may in fact, be “whistling up demons” and calling into existence the very malevolence that they have used as a straw man for so many years in their war of cultural genocide! What a tragedy it would be if to feed the ambition, greed and hatred of the race-baiters and poverty pimps, we should see the rise once again of an agent of racial violence that had previously been almost consigned to oblivion. Fairy tales educate a child to certain eternal truths. The tale of the boy who cried “Wolf!” is meant to warn the hearer about the fact that even real danger will be ignored if it is frequently declared where it does not exist. When the wolf finally did come, the child’s cries were dismissed and he paid the ultimate penalty for his foolish efforts to gain attention. Perhaps it is time for the race-baiters to recognize that the day may come when the cries of “Klan! Klan!” are no longer lies used to taint a movement unconnected with racial bigotry—but, rather, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Consider “Black History Month.” Actually, though it is supposed to be one month in length, in fact it never really goes away as there is an ongoing focus on the glories of Black culture, history, heroes and wisdom inserted into almost everything touched upon by establishment institutions including academia, the media, politics and entertainment. And while I admit that Blacks have contributed to the culture, I would point out that the attention they continue to receive as a group has nothing whatsoever to do with enlightening the general public on the matter. I am reminded of a tongue-in-cheek story of newspaper headlines covering the end of the world. The conservative New York Post’s would be, “World to End Friday! God Help Us!” The tacky Daily Globe’s would be “As Edgar Cayce Predicted The End Comes On Friday!” And the liberal New York Times’ would be, “World to End on Friday -Women and Minorities Most Affected!” Americans have always championed those who are perceived as ill-used. But since the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons met on the frigid, wind-swept plateaus of ice-age Europe, there have been “winners” and “losers” in human interactions. One of the traditional means of group subjugation is slavery and that is the particular institution that obtains in this instance because of our nation’s history of black slavery introduced into the New World by various European Empires. In the British colonies, however, there were white and even Indian slaves. Indeed, Great Britain preferred white slaves because it enabled the British government to send dissenters such as the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh to the New World to swell the coffers of the Crown. Black slaves were purchased (yes, purchased) from African chieftains for the American colonies but not every Black slave remained in servitude. Some gained their freedom and went on to prosper. Indeed, the first man in the colonies who purchased a Black slave for life rather than as an indentured servant for a prescribed period of time, had been himself an indentured servant and was also, himself, black! His name was Anthony Johnson! After the Revolution, Americans soon discovered that the economic and cultural differences between the sections of the new nation resulted in very different ways of life. Immigrants from Europe flocked to the North where industrialization and a mixed culture made their absorption into society far easier than was the case in the more staid, fixed, agrarian social order of the South. But with this tremendous increase in cheap labor, most of the North’s black slaves were sold off because they were not cost-effective and, more to the point, because the North did not want blacks in their states, to which the existence of the exclusionary “Black codes” of that era attest. The North was centralized, industrial, full of moguls, merchants and religious revolutionaries along with the hustle and bustle that attends commercial enterprise and the making of money. The South was individualistic, rural and agrarian, a land of planters, yeoman farmers, scholars and preachers where wealth arose from enterprises that had been in place since the 1600s. The North was brusque, pushy and forward-looking; the South courtly, reserved and steeped in tradition. In a better world, each might have complimented and ameliorated the other, but such was not to be. Although the origins of discord between the sections had more to do with the Yankee North’s contempt for Southerners rather than any problem with slavery (from which, after all, the Yankee profited mightily!) yet, both blacks and slavery were hated in that section while being a cause of anxiety and moral discomfort in the other; interestingly enough, the institution was critical to the economy of both. But slavery hung like a millstone around the neck of the people of the South because the black population had grown into the millions by the 1850s while the exclusionary Black codes in the North kept that population in the South whatever its condition—slave or free. Thomas Jefferson, no friend of slavery found himself stymied by the conundrum of “what to do with the Negro” should blacks be emancipated as they would have been isolated in the South with no place else to go. Of course, the war of 1861 ended slavery permanently—if not properly—and the concerns of well-meaning people—North and South—who believed that slavery needed to be ended slowly and with great care to insure against social and political chaos proved valid. Suddenly liberated, absent either the training required for a life of freedom or, in the alternative, the nurture and supervision of slavery, the plight of former slaves after the war was unfortunate. Worse still, the use of the freedman by whites—radicals, carpetbaggers and scalawags—to subjugate white Southerners and rifle the treasuries of Southern States altered a formerly amiable albeit hierarchical relationship between the races in that section to one of mutual hostility and loathing. White Southerners swore that never again would they permit the black man to gain political ascendancy over them. Using the “separate but equal” decision by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, most whites in the South worked to isolate blacks and keep them politically impotent and socially segregated. Though this was both morally and legally wrong, any study of the reconstruction period makes it at least comprehensible. Furthermore, the treatment of blacks in the North was no better even though railroad cars, restrooms and water fountains were not proscribed by race. In the 1950s, a movement arose to end “Jim Crow” and give black Americans the equality promised them when slavery was ended. The civil rights movement was both just and considerably overdue as black Americans had indeed been denied many basic civil rights since the end of Reconstruction. On the other hand, the movement was a strategy of Marxist communism. Indeed, the racial condition of the nation was perfect for the communist tactic of “divide and conquer,” and, with the help of sympathetic whites—most of whom were unaware of its communist origins—the movement flourished. But its origins, though neither denied nor permanently hidden, could not be used against it without engendering charges of racism—a term from an earlier time created by Leon Trotsky, a leading communist forced into exile and eventually murdered by Stalin’s agents. Meanwhile, cultural leaders—including those in government—tacitly ignored the problem in the hopes of avoiding the appearance of bigotry. Also, though the civil rights movement included a great many people of all races and political persuasions who were sincere and well meaning, there were others who saw—just as in the time of Reconstruction—the opportunity for power and gain. These hypocrites have made careers of fomenting racial conflict wishing only to see it continue and even worsen in the new millennium. But bad as such individuals were (and are), matters were made infinitely worse by the federal government’s decision to make up for years of discrimination against blacks by now discriminating against whites. Among the efforts to “advance” blacks was a strategy benignly identified as “affirmative action.” This tactic was supposed to give an acceptable amount of assistance to blacks in their efforts to succeed but like every government “solution,” the premise was taken to the extreme. Instead of being limited to circumstances in which all the candidates were more or less equally qualified, affirmative action became a matter racial preference and even of quotas. This meant that often an unqualified black was chosen over a qualified white. Furthermore, these attempts to uplift the unfortunate black lower class produced a diametric result! For instance, young blacks with poor scholastic skills who were passed along in schools to avoid the appearance of being intellectually inferior or held back by white prejudice, were accepted through affirmative action into colleges only to find themselves unable to succeed. This further fueled the fires of resentment and the belief among blacks that they were still being discriminated against and among whites that blacks were in fact intellectually inferior. One of the consequences of these poorly conceived efforts to “help” was a double mindset of victimization and entitlement among many blacks—and this is where we stand today. “White society” continues to do all in its power to redress past wrongs by appeasing the present generation of blacks in order to prove whites are not, after all, “racist.” The only problem is, these efforts are, for the most part, lies—and, what’s more to the point, the establishment knows it. For instance, let us take the myths about black inventors. There is a long list of inventions essential for our society that we have been told sprang from the creative minds of black inventors but when these claims are examined, the black inventor’s achievements for the most part appear long after some white inventor has already produced the item in question. The internet site, Black Invention Myths (http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/) presents the tale of the traffic signal said to have been invented by Garrett A. Moran, a black man, in 1923. In fact, it was actually designed by J. P. Knight in London around 1868. The earliest electric signals were Lester Wire’s in Salt Lake City around 1912, James Hoge’s patented system in Cleveland in 1914 and William Potts’ in Detroit in 1920. All of the earlier inventors were white. Even the claims about black icon George Washington Carver, that is, that he “invented” peanut butter, fathered the peanut industry and revolutionized southern agriculture were dismissed by National Park Service historian, Barry Mackintosh who wrote: “Most of Carver's peanut and sweet potato creations were either unoriginal, impractical, or of uncertain effectiveness. No product born in his laboratory was widely adopted. The boom years for Southern peanut production came prior to, and not as a result of, Carver's promotion of the crop. And, finally, Carver's work to improve regional farming practices was not of pioneering scientific importance and had little demonstrable impact.” If a single website can produce proof that claims of “black inventions” are themselves “inventions,” most of those who have disseminated these falsehoods over the years cannot have been wholly ignorant. If that is so, why then did they do it? We see the same bad reasoning that believed an unprepared black student could succeed in a college setting simply because they put him there. That didn’t work and by lying about black inventors you run the very real risk of making irrelevant bona fide black inventors! Lies do not build up—they destroy. To discover what happens when you create a larger than life black myth from a man with well documented clay feet, consider “the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.” Revelations about King’s life are known but ignored for obvious reasons. University of Nebraska Professor Gerry Harbison, wrote, “In 1988, the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project made a discovery that shocked it to its core. . . As they examined King's student essays and his dissertation, they gradually became aware that King was guilty of massive plagiarism—that is, he had copied . . . other authors word-for-word, without making it clear that what he was writing was not his own. The Project spent years uncovering the full extent of King's plagiarism…The revelations caused a minor (my emphasis) scandal and then were promptly forgotten.” No, they were not “forgotten,” rather, The National Endowment for the Humanities actively suppressed the matter. Then there was King’s involvement with the Communist Party. His own biographer, David J. Garrow admitted that King once privately “described himself as a Marxist” and surrounded himself with Communists. According to one United States Senator, “King was repeatedly warned about his associations with known Communists by . . . the Kennedy Administration and the Department of Justice including strong and explicit warnings from President Kennedy himself.” But most disheartening for those who view King as a decent Christian man is his well-documented immoral and abusive sexual behavior. King’s personal friend, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, in his book, And the Wall Came Tumbling Down, wrote that King spent his last night with three White prostitutes and then beat one of them in the morning just before he was shot. An Assistant FBI Director described King's conduct as "orgiastic and adulterous . . . some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women." There have also been revelations by those close to King that his famous call for a “color-blind” society targeted white audiences while his actual opinions—that were neither inclusive nor charitable—were limited to fellow blacks. Why bring such things up? To begin with, the use of these lies and myths indicates little or no respect for blacks. Truth would serve the black community far better than lies. Furthermore, as previously noted, these actions have resulted in a belief by most blacks that as a group they have a moral right to demand certain things and that these demands require no other justification than that they – blacks! – are making them. Today these demands include the rejection and elimination from the public square of anything and everything that at least certain blacks find “offensive.” Neither does it matter that their “feelings” are based upon ignorance, lies and distortion. And now we come back to the original premise regarding America’s fixation on black slavery. For the cultural icons that blacks demand be removed and discarded are those of the South including Southern history and heritage—especially when connected to the War of Secession (the so-called “Civil War.”) Blacks have been told by the present politically correct historical establishment that that war was all about slavery and that the South fought solely to maintain that institution. And, of course, because many Americans feel both sympathy and guilt regarding blacks and slavery, there has been and is, a very real—and, to date, very successful—campaign of cultural genocide being waged against Southern heroes, heritage and history. But the conviction of moral superiority by blacks in this matter cannot be factually, legally or morally sustained. In fact, the South did not fight to maintain the institution of slavery. Had that been the case, the original Thirteenth Amendment which placed slavery into the Constitution in perpetuity without the possibility of revocation (the Corwin Amendment) would have ended the matter without a war – and with slavery intact in perpetuity as promised! And so, once more, the establishment lies to blacks in hopes of diverting them from understanding the real problem; that is, that none of the programs of the Great Society or efforts to solve racial problems through the use of income redistribution and reverse discrimination actually works—or, at least, works as was originally intended, that is, to bring blacks into the social and economic “main stream” of America. And since the establishment realizes that it has created a monstrous mindset among blacks rejecting anything that they do not wish to believe—such as the fact that no one is entitled to the fruits of other men’s labor or the power to nullify their constitutional rights—we find the government working hard to keep the “black community” focused not on the facts about black slavery, but on the same types of myths and lies that we find in the list of black inventors and the stories of the saintly Dr. King. In other words, black hostility is being channeled into the campaign of Southern cultural genocide which is hardly difficult to do given that today’s “historians” tell blacks—and everyone else—that the heroes, symbols and history of the South represent the glorification of slavery, the Klan and Jim Crow. Apparently, establishment elites believe that as lies have worked so far, why not continue to use them even though all but the deluded and intentionally blind recognize that the “help” given to black Americans through these means has, for the most part done them—and America—serious harm.
In an article by one Alice Edwards in June of this year, we were informed that – according to the headline “Scientists are Renaming Dozens of “Offensive” Bird Names. Ms. Edwards points out that, “The American Ornithological Society (AOS) has embarked on a significant and imaginative endeavor to redefine the common names of bird species found in the United States and Canada. In a transformative move, the AOS has committed to removing human names from the nomenclature of birds. According to Ms. Edwards, “this groundbreaking decision seeks to create a more inclusive environment for bird enthusiasts and ornithologists, transcending historical associations and embracing a newfound appreciation for avian diversity.” “Avian diversity?” Why do we require any particular indication of “avian diversity.” We know birds are “diverse!” There is no need to explain that to us ignorant folks by changing their “names!” No, the “diversity” that Ms. Edwards and her ilk fear is that the “diversity” of those involved in discovering and naming these creatures is not diverse enough or, in the alternative, is entirely too diverse! That’s because some of the “discoverers” might have been (gasp!) White and if you go back far enough, possibly even (ssssshh……) people who owned slaves or approved of that institution! Of course, the fact that probably the best known name in his particular branch of science is John James Audubon (1785-1851), an American naturalist and painter, widely considered to be one of the greatest bird artists of all time. Audubon was born in Haiti to a French father and a Creole mother and grew up in France before moving to the United States as a young man. He was self-taught and developed his skills as a painter and ornithologist through years of observation and study. So, in an effort to remove “the wrong people” from any connection with naming these remnants of the dinosaurs, our WOKE folk may be removing – gasp! – a person of color, though it would seem that Mr. Audubon approved – or at least did not disapprove – of slavery making him “unacceptable” as well! In any event, according to Ms. Davis, “The AOS aims to replace human-centric names with descriptive and evocative alternatives that mirror the traits, behaviors, and habitats of the birds. By eliminating human names, the society intends to foster a welcoming atmosphere for individuals from diverse backgrounds who are passionate about bird-watching and ornithology. The initiative, which involves renaming 70 to 80 bird species in the U.S. and Canada, reflects the evolving landscape of conservation, inclusivity, and respect for all.” – again with the “inclusivity!” The fact that your ordinary sparrow may wind up with a moniker that nobody can remember doesn't matter to our seekers of WOKE virtue. But now the author gets down to the nitty-gritty and leaves the cover of “inclusivity” to declare that “…The decision to redefine bird names comes on the heels of several years of controversy surrounding names linked to individuals with racist and genocidal histories. This move has garnered enthusiastic support from ornithologists and scientists who have advocated for bird names that focus on the birds themselves.” (Hey, Tweety Bird!) We are then introduced to another of the WOKE flock, “. . .Corina Newsome, an ornithologist who played a pivotal role in launching Black Birders Week in May 2020, expressed her excitement about this change. She noted how species names reflecting the birds’ characteristics are easier to remember and praised the shift toward a more equitable approach to understanding the natural world.” Huh? Obviously, us non-WOKE people don’t have all that much trouble remembering the names of birds especially if we are, ourselves, “bird watchers!” But the matter was not left for the reader to believe that it was only all about “inclusivity.” Ms. Davis mentioned that “The AOS acknowledges that this renaming project is not solely about addressing past wrongs (that have nothing to do with the birds ~ and, by the way, who says that these were "wrongs?!") but also about ensuring that bird names are primarily about the birds, free from any controversial associations. By taking this approach, the society hopes to prevent contentious value judgments regarding the historical figures linked to these names.” Again,HUH? Does/did anybody other than these loopy galoots spend time “associating” the names of the birds they studied with the name they carried as a result of the person who discovered and/or identified them? (For those who did, I, personally, wouldn’t give change of a dime for somebody that stupid!) Of course, it is all fine because, again according to Davis, “The renaming process will prioritize descriptive names that provide insights into the birds’ appearances, behaviors, songs, or habitats. This shift aims to enhance the connection between bird names and the birds themselves, making it easier for enthusiasts to identify and appreciate these magnificent creatures.” But the real plot is further acknowledged in Davis’ admission that, “…Species names considered derogatory or culturally inappropriate will also undergo changes. Among the birds set to receive new names are the flesh-footed shearwater, Eskimo curlew, and Inca dove. These changes reflect a commitment to inclusivity and respect, aligning with the broader goal of making ornithology and bird-watching accessible to all.” So, if you’re not “flesh-footed” (whatever that is!) or an Eskimo or an Inca, you can’t respect the bird that bears that name? Or, in the alternative, is the bird unworthy of respect because of their species names? And if you rename them, will the bird watcher still know what he or she (or it or them or they or whatever!) is looking at? Are the birds going to wear labels identifying their new species names – and why? It’s the “virtue seekers” who need to wear labels! Oh, and it goes on further, showing that everyone would have been better off – including the birds! – if all involved had gotten lost in the Everglades or the Amazon or some other remote location from which, if we were lucky, they wouldn't return! Below, Ms. Davis gives a thrilling account of efforts by these giants of science to deal with including the desirable and excluding the racist pigs (or birds). “The decision to rename bird species emerged from a series of events and evolving perspectives within the ornithological community. It also suggests that those with “bird brains” are not limited to birds. In 2018, a proposal to rename McKown’s longspur was rejected, sparking disappointment among birders. However, as 2020 ushered in nationwide protests against racism and a renewed focus on addressing social injustices, the AOS reconsidered its stance. Accepting a rewritten proposal to rename the longspur as the thick-billed longspur marked a turning point.” Really? Might the name “thick-billed” anything also appear “racist?” Only askin’! But, anyway, who knows, these days. Apparently, this group plans to launch a pilot project this year beginning with a group of 70 or 80 birds in the US and Canada. (Oh, dear! That means Trudeau might get involved!) As well, the society intends to “involve the public.” My guess is that “the public” they want to involve is not going to be of much help as many of those people don’t even know what sex they are. But, who knows? It might keep them out of our hair and that will be a good thing. And I’m sure the birds don’t give a damn.
The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn LIE – an intentionally false statement FALSE – [1] not according with truth or fact; incorrect; [2] appearing to be the thing denoted; deliberately made or meant to deceive; [3] illusory; [4] treacherous LETHAL – sufficient to cause death FOUNDATION – [1] the lowest load-bearing part of a building; [2] an underlying basis or principle; [3] the action of establishing an institution or organization on a permanent basis MATTHEW – 7:24-29 – The parable of the two builders: “The wise builder built his house on rock while the foolish built his upon sand. When the storms came, the house built on rock stood firm against the winds and rain. It had a solid foundation. But the house built on sand collapsed as its shifting foundation was washed away.” For any institution or edifice to stand, it must have a firm, continuing and sustainable foundation. Building anything on a base lacking solid footing is a sure and true manifestation of insanity. Above are noted sufficient reasons to admit and understand that nothing can be “built” on a lie. It doesn’t matter whether what is being attempted is a personal relationship or a business or a nation or a Church – when the truth is absent, any attempt at creation will be a failure if not immediately than certainly in due course of time. However, we must also understand that such “failures” are not uniform in their manifestations. Some are immediate as with a failed bridge or dam, some become obvious only by the passage of time as with the ruins of ancient civilizations. Of course, the foundations involved in civilizations are usually a “mixed blessing” that combine both truth and falsehood. When truth is in the ascendant, the culture is elevated and produces many blessings for its people. On the other hand, when the lie becomes the guiding force, the results can and will be catastrophic no matter how much those involved believe that the lie is, as they say, “for the best.” Historical studies of past civilizations clearly show that however well they start, eventually such cultures falter and decay. Why? Because Man himself is tainted by The Lie. What he was, what he should have been were destroyed through a lie, at least as the story is presented to us in The Bible, known to much of humanity as The Word of God. And even here, man’s weaknesses and deviousness have produced “pseudo-Scriptures” arising from errors and deliberate lies motivated and caused by our lie-tainted fallen state. But one needn’t become “religious” to realize the deadly effect of the lie as any part of the foundation of one’s culture. Even in relatively small groups, there is a need for a foundation based upon mutual trust. If a question arises, the individuals in that group need to believe that what they learn from their leaders in whatever capacity those people serve, it will be the truth insofar as those individuals know it. It is one thing to err, it is quite another to deliberately lie. And, of course, once a deliberate lie is utilized in dealing with the people in that culture, trust is no longer possible. However much one wishes to tell the truth “from now on” and however much one wishes to believe that such will be the case in future, it is never possible to disregard the original lie. This is manifested in the old saw, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!” Like virginity, once lost, trust can never be truly recovered. No, the truth that is essential in any civilization involves those matters upon which depend actions – great and small – by that country’s leaders. The problem is that very seldom indeed is truth the foundation from which those actions proceed or, rather upon which they are founded (as in foundation). Rather, they are usually determined by what is considered national necessity and political desirability. In other words, the leaders reason, “we need to create this set of circumstances to meet our goals,” and usually such circumstances cannot be achieved by telling the People the truth. What then is the answer to this conundrum? Simple! We lie – for the People’s good, of course! When this happens frequently enough, the culture involved becomes wicked no matter how good the original intentions of its leaders. And if it goes on long enough, soon “good intentions” are no longer necessary to excuse the lie. The intentions themselves become wicked because they are supported and promoted by the “Father of Lies,” Lucifer, who by that time is in charge of all that takes place in that culture! The “New World Order,” a demonic manifestation of man’s refusal of God’s salvation through the sacrifice of His Son and Word, Jesus Christ, has been with mankind beginning with the expulsion from the Garden through the building of the Tower of Babel – man’s first effort to usurp the place of God – right down to today where it would seem a world government under that name is fast becoming established. The modern manifestation of this “last chapter of mankind” began in earnest during the so-called Age of Enlightenment that arose in Europe in the 17th century and greatly influenced the cultures of the West and especially that of the United States. One of the most powerful groups arising during that period was the Free Masons. Masonry became a pivotal part of the established culture to the point at which there were – and are – few men of power who were not themselves Masons. However, not every Mason understood or understands the true goals and meaning of that group. Many “Christian” Masons do not see any conflict in their “religion” and their membership in that organization though those at the highest levels follow quite a different “god” than the God of the Bible! On the other hand, this situation was immediately recognized by the Church! Membership in the Masons is forbidden to members of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches in recognition of the true agenda of this “fraternal” body. Unfortunately for the United States, that nation was virtually born out of the philosophy of the Enlightenment and many of her most powerful and well known Founders were themselves Masons including Benjamin Franklin and John Hancock. Also included was the man called this country’s “Father,” George Washington and the Capitol city named for him was laid out with many Masonic symbols and meanings. Again, it is to be remembered that not every Mason understood or understands the true agenda of Masonry, but today almost all of the men in power in the world are members of this Order and know very well its aims and goals! As well, the with rise of Protestantism in the West, there were also changes in “Christian” attitudes towards Masonry. As Protestant denominations grew in number, there were definite changes towards that body albeit there are still Protestant sects that forbid it’s followers’ membership. However, there are also others who have leaders and pastors who were and are Masons including such well-known personages as the late Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller and Oral Roberts to name but a few. The result of the attack on the Christian aspect of Western Civilization achieved by the acceptance of the lie as the basis of our civil and moral ethics is that today we have reached a state of moral decay not just in America and the West but throughout the entire world in the fields of politics, faith, learning, culture, science and interpersonal relationships that has resulted in what can be rightly called accepted and acknowledged evil. Nowhere today, is Truth the touchstone of either beliefs or actions. Nowhere exists – at least culturally – the understanding that human desires should be, indeed must be contained within the boundaries of the Truth and the good – that is, the Will of God. With the departure of all means and methods of limiting human actions, the results are actions that cannot be described as anything but wholly and completely wicked. These actions no longer bother to make use of the pretense of “good intentions” save only when such are necessary to seduce the naïve and gullible into obedience to the establishment’s desires with the assurance that what is demanded is “for one’s own good.” And this strategy is furthered by a co-strategy assuring people that failure of obedience is itself evil and demonstrates a lack of concern for the well-being of others. Of course, this too is a lie. There are many, many examples both now an in the past of actions arising from lies that have been grossly destructive to mankind. The endless wars that have been waged from the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment have caused more grief than all “natural” disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes and plagues combined. And each war has resulted in the supposed causes never being rectified – never mind removed – thus paving the way for the next war. But even the great loss of life occasioned by these conflicts pales in comparison to what is happening right now across the world not at the hands of soldiers or even natural catastrophes, but at the hands of those whom we see historically as our well intentioned fellow men. There have always been those among us who chose to serve when sickness or trauma afflicted us. We called them “healers” or “physicians” or “doctors” and we have always considered them to be the best that humanity can produce as they work to alleviate those conditions of illness and injury that weaken and kill us. But slowly, the lie has destroyed even this field of service to mankind and in the name of the Great Reset and other such deceptions, our wicked leaders have chosen to afflict us through what is presented as a supposed defense of our health and well-being, that is, medicine. Ordinarily, truly wicked strategies and operations by any government or governments working in concert are deliberately hidden though often in “plain sight.” Usually, it takes a period of time after whatever strategy is put into place to fully understand and expose it and even then, propaganda used during the actions involved frequently provided cover for what actually did happen! As well, when such an atrocity is playing out, the rest of the world looks on either in disinterest or, in the alternative, lacking the necessary strength to directly oppose the matter. Seldom is it possible both to know of an ongoing atrocity and to be in a position to stop or at least resist it – until now. And to understand why that is so, we must look at the wicked acts of wicked cultures. In most instances, even wicked cultures tend to present their actions to their own people – if they are presented at all – as necessary and just and in most cases, that is believed by that country’s citizens until it is no longer humanly possible to maintain the lie. As well, in an altogether wicked culture no effort is made to deal justly with those considered its opponents. In other words, it is enough that one is considered an enemy – or, in the alternative an obstruction – to make any action taken against that individual or group justifiable. As there are no longer standards based upon truth or justice or the common good, then any act is permissible and hence any act is acceptable. The result of this situation needn’t be explained. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn whose call to truth begins this article has made those results quite clear in his work, The Gulag Archipelago! And this has been the way things have been done for perhaps all of mankind’s history but there is a definite “progression” toward an end game from the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment until today, the third decade of the 21st Century. Today, mankind’s actions are no longer limited to nation states. The great “collective” has begun, started by Marx and the socialists in the 19th and 20th centuries and continuing on with nations who were not “socialist” at their ideological core becoming more and more so as the decades have proceeded. Eventually, all the institutions of society – politics, science, academia and the culture – slowly adopted the understanding of the need to put all things under a world-wide government no longer answerable to the People, a government known as the New World Order or, the Great Reset. No longer were the evils of wicked nations limited to those nations and their allies, but instead they are and will be run from a central “authority” that belongs to no particular nation unless one were to consider that such authority exists under the auspices of the United Nations, an organization created and designed to usher in that same New World Order. There are many things that illustrate that The Lie prevails, but nowhere has the monumental nature of our danger been made more obvious and open than in the use of one particular science – medicine – to achieve two very important aims of our ruling elite, the depopulation of a large segment of the planet and the means by which the species homo sapiens can be integrated with so call “Artificial Intelligence.” Of course, this is all in the name of saving the planet, often with the added claim of “saving humanity” as well, but both claims are – you guessed it! – a lie! What makes this particular evil so obvious is the exceptionally short time it has taken for its “fruits” to become known even to many of the terminally naïve and delusional; indeed, only the most determined of these “deniers” continue to believe that “all is well.” In the year 2020, the government of United States of America was preparing for a presidential election through which it intended to remove the then occupant of the White House, a “non-politician” elected by the will of the People but rejected by the so-called “Deep State.” As part of that endeavor, a “new virus” suddenly appeared not just in the United States but around the world and within weeks, it seemed that all the nations of the world were prepared to move as one to prevent what was heralded as a “deadly pandemic” similar to that of the “Spanish influenza” of 1918 that had taken millions of lives. Never, it would seem, had those nations moved with such unison and speed! Meanwhile in the middle of the lockdowns and other mandates instituted in response to prophesied dangers, all attention was drawn to the claim that a “vaccine” would become available to “save mankind” before the year was out. Now, the story of how these “medicines” came into being through a handful of companies and the way they were treated vis a vis how other so-called “vaccines” had been treated in the past merely corroborates the point being made here: that is, that these were not vaccines, but “bioweapons” that were and are proving deadly either immediately or after a relatively short period of time to many of those who receive them. Furthermore, governments are mandating their use not only on people who would be proper candidates for an actual vaccine, but on those who would have no need of such treatment especially as the “deadly pandemic” involves a virus with a 97-99% recovery rate for those without co-morbidities. Especially suspicious is the demand that young children be inoculated when it was admitted that they were in no danger from the disease itself! But so wicked has our “civilization” become that verified and validated rates of death and injury from these nostrums are ignored outright while doctors and politicians continue to claim that these “vaccines” are both “safe” and “effective.” The genocide being brought about by the governments of the world in demanding that their citizens accept their own murder clearly indicates that we have achieved the final condition of the death of our society’s soul and that we are all now in the hands of those who serve the Father of Lies. But we cannot blame government alone for this, for government is usually another word for the representatives chosen by the citizens of that culture. In other words, one cannot have a morally decent citizenry and a morally corrupt government at the same time unless that government is put into place by force of arms as happened in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba and other communist regimes. It is true that decent people can be deceived into putting a Hitler or Mussolini in power, but the wickedness of these “leaders” is well hidden until they achieve full control and they, in turn, often rise as the result of crimes committed against those same citizens they deceive. But once a nation has reached the point at which open genocide is ongoing without an uprising of that nation’s citizens, there can be no other conclusion than that the citizens themselves are wicked or weak or stupid – or all three. And that is certainly the situation in the United States and the West today. All efforts made by doctors, scientists and even those individuals who have worked to bring forth what is happening but who have “repented” and are attempting to warn the people of this evil are punished, ignored and even murdered by the establishment. Meanwhile, people either through self-imposed ignorance or fear refuse to respond to what is now a worldwide campaign to commit genocide and install the infamous New World Order and all that will mean to the lives of the population of the planet. Successful efforts to end the ability of ordinary citizens to influence the power structure in their own countries through “free and honest elections” are openly known but either ignored or denied when efforts are made to address them. “Election deniers” have taken their place along with “vaccine deniers” and “Holocaust deniers” as the Number One enemies of the State! Those who make efforts to assure against or overcome election fraud find themselves in the hands of a hostile and all powerful government without recourse to justice. Why? Because justice demands truth and as the lie has triumphed, nothing of goodness or value or meaning survives while those remaining few who stand for the truth are hunted down and destroyed. And thus the edifice falls because the foundation has failed. And the foundation has failed because the poisoned clay of the lie has replaced the good soil of the truth. It’s an old story, really, but its very scope seems to indicate that this time there will be no “reprieves” during which a new culture arises, a culture founded on truth. Remember, as in all things, there comes a point of no return and with it, an end.