Posts Tagged ‘religion’

Being against Islam is not racism or bigotry.  Calling someone Islamophobic tells me you can’t refute an argument, deal with facts, or accept truth.  In logic, this would be considered an ad hominem fallacy.

They come to destroy our society so they can build their own.

This fallacy is usually resorted to by people who are unable to grapple with truth objectively, i.e., you can’t think.  It is also resorted to by people who believe that the appearance of tolerance is more important that justice, truth, freedom of speech, calling a “spade a spade”, or the rights and liberties of people, i.e., a perverse moral system.  It is resorted to by people who love the approval of men and for this approval will sacrifice principle (such as veracity and justice) in order to be accepted by the “crowd”, i.e., no moral system.

It takes no courage to fit in to a mob, thus it is the hallmark of moral cowardice.  It leads to the “tolerance” of evil and the condoning of violence which eventually causes the disintegration of the current society and makes way for a more “evolved” and much more evil one.  This is the goal of both Globalism and Islam.

  • Islam is not a race.
  • Islam is an ideology just like Nazism and Communism.
  • Islam claims to be morally superior but eventually seeks to enslave or kill all opposition.
  • Islam is not feminist (to believe this makes one less than a moron, i.e., a lemming).
  • It is just another form of centralized political and legal control using the stone-age ideology or brutal violence, plunder and slavery.

Educate yourself.  Understand the times we are in.  If you insist on remaining a lemming, please jump off a cliff.


Read Full Post »


I have a relative who loves to use moral equivocation when it comes to comparing Christianity with any thing else. What is moral equivocation? Not the formal definition mind you but in this case it is when one tries to make one thing as bad as the other so one can reject both. Sort of like (perhaps exactly like) setting up a straw man so one can knock it down.  Standard operating procedure for the closed minded who claim to be both open minded and “tolerant”.

You know, Muslims cut off peoples heads, well “Christians” burned witches.  Muslims practice honor killings, “Christians” had the inquisitions.  Islam is responsible for terrorism, then “Christians” had the Crusades.  And on and on it goes.  While such arguments are both shallow and poorly grounded in facts, they are common coin for the moral-equivocationist.  When mentioning Muslim communities always seem to try to set up Sharia courts within their settlements as a first step to establishing a competing judicial system.  The response was, well Christians did the same thing when they came over here and colonized America.  The incredible stupidity of the parallel requires a truly darkened mind.

I overheard a guy at work declare he had taken a comparative religion class in college.  He told the listeners, they were all pretty much the same.  They all had a holy book and “they” want you to believe it.  Earth shattering insight, I know.  But as long as you do not go into detail, such arguments hold weight in the superficial world of the non-thinker.


Take Christianity and Islam as examples.  First superficially, both have followers who do NOT read their Bible or Quran, who participate in the rituals and activities of church or mosque, and seem to be more secular by practicing their religion less strictly.  Then their are those who are ardent and fervent in their reading and knowledge of their holy books, where the will of God and their relationship to this “God” is central to their lives, and who reject the excessive secularness the world offers.  These two groups can be found in any sect or denomination.  Heck, they can be found in political systems too.

However, when one further refines their “query” stark differences emerge.  For it is one thing to claim to be a follower of any ideology and it is quite another to actually follow it. Take Jesus and Mohammad for example and the “serious” follower of these men.  If one is truly serious about following Christianity or Islam, then you are serious about emulating either Jesus known as Christ, the Messiah or the Prophet Mohammad (may peace be upon him) the perfect man.  From here clear differences can be seen.

Just a few examples should suffice.

Attributes Jesus the Christ The prophet Mohammad
Wage War against Infidels No Yes, on many occasions
Beheading people No Yes, many times
Assassinations No Yes
Women caught in Adultery Showed mercy Had her stoned
Wife beating N/A Yes
Pedophile No Yes
Women as sex slaves No Yes

The comparisons and contradictions are nearly endless and the differences are indeed stark. Analysis of Sharia vs. Any other law system, Christian or not, would end in the same way.  Hence, the greater the moral equivocation the more ignorant the person making it.   So, as with Europe, Islam is creeping into the US, now in Texas of all places, all under cover supplied by the equivocator.  Truth sets you free but lies enslave you.  So does Sharia.

Read more about Sharia in Texas at Breitbart News 

Read Full Post »


What if governments needed to recruit some people to inculcate fear in their citizens.  The purpose of which is to create a boogeyman.  Why?  So the people will sacrifice liberty for security.  How?  Then governments can pass draconian laws so political enemies can be targeted.  When?  When the “natives” become restless.  When government plunder becomes to onerous and the smell of resentment and insurrection are in the air.  When people see their own government crafting laws to legalize what they want to do (like bank bail-ins) and to further criminalize the common man’s existence.  Why?  Because they will need justifiable use of force.  I mean, come on, this guy broke the “LAW”, Bingo, Yahtzee.


So who will fill the bill?  Who can governments get to terrorize the people or even other nations to comply with national policy?  Why terrorists of course.  So happens that there is an ideology ready made for this very purpose.  Islam fits that purpose perfectly.  Am I saying all Muslims are terrorists?  No.  But I am saying that terrorism is theologically consistent with the Koran (Qur’an) and the example of Mohammed, especially when abrogation (Naskh) is considered.  All that is needed is money funneled into the right places, resources to carry out certain events, a little direction, and poof, the terror event becomes the red herring the government needs to mask its true agenda and also provides the government with a perfect scapegoat in one complete package.


The Mohammedans already hate the western empires anyway.  Their young idealistic men will line up to get a chance to do harm to the West.  They are useful boogeymen ready made for nation security and foreign policy agencies.  Terrorism is horrible, but what is worse is our own government using them to run false flag operations against their domestic populations to give up liberty through fear and to enforce international compliance to safeguard our hegemony.

Read Full Post »

At least he shot them first?

At least he shot them first?  Just another moron protected by the media.

From Feb 10th?  Almost no media coverage?  The main stream media needs to have a whole bottle of suppositories shoved up their collective butts to get the crap out of their brains and start going some real reporting instead of drinking coolaid and having their camera lens fogged over with ideology.

Gruesome double murder, men decapitated

Another interview

Muslim shoot, behead coptic christians in NJ

Alt media report, regular “media” silent



Read Full Post »

Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh – Jeremiah

First: The “Progressives”


I have noticed how both the left and the right engage in putting all their hopes into either government or politicians.  I work in Washington DC and live nearby.  I have seen first hand the “Occupy DC” buffoonery and antics that went on here.  Some of the staff members where I work occasionally stopped by the Occupy camp to deliver food to the participants.  The police state apparatus was unusually patient with them.  I read nearly all their banners and posters.  I listened to a few interviews via local news channels and on YouTube.  For the most part they are of the more idealistic progressive left, horribly misinformed about economics and prescribed as the cure the same thing that got us into this mess in the first place.

To a man (or woman or transsexual) they wanted the government to do something to the Wall Street Bankers.  They rightly viewed J P Morgan, Goldman-Sachs, Bank of America, HSBC, Morgan-Stanley, CitiBank, etc. as the enemies of the 99% for which they claim to represent.  I did in some ways identify with them to a degree, but only because as a youth I was a dope smoking, LSD using hippy from the late 60’s who thought that Woodstock was an iconic cultural event that “defined a generation”.

However their prescription for economic salvation and social justice (the code word for Marxism) is more regulations and government intervention, the very things that caused the problems to arise in the first place (from the numerous attempts to establish a central bank to the unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers from Congress to the bureaucracies to the steady stream of unconstitutional and therefore illegal executive orders).  These people only see that the banks bribed some politician (almost certainly a republican) to create a loop-hole in the law or look the other way, as if this is a recent problem only arising in the last decade or two (starting with Ronald Reagan or the first Bush of course) or because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc.

Frequently they will claim deregulation caused the problem and that there is a great need to cap salaries, and of course, redistribute wealth.  They seem to have be clueless regarding economics and appear unable to follow a chain of logic that would reveal the stupidity of such actions.  Their worship of government is so adamantine that it is beyond the pale of reason to dissuade most of them.  They put their hope in the “muscle” and “enforcers” in the vain hope they may prosecute the “dons”.   All they may get is the occasional sacrifice to appease them.

It seems comprehensible for them to link the ability of government to spend far beyond their revenue stream (i.e., the illegal wealth confiscation of the tax system) with the banks. They favor central planning which is what centralized banking is all about.   Their never mention the centralize planning and fractional reserved banking (another form of fraud) as the power core of both Wall Street’s and the government’s ability to plunder the 99%.  Without it, the government could not buy votes through the welfare system and could not sustain the military-industrial complex, and terrorize the American citizen via the IRS, NSA, and the EPA.  Without it, they could not hire armies of bureaucrats to do their bidding, bribe state and local governments and police the world to ensure monetary hegemony.  Without these features of the banking system the petrol-dollar and reserve currency status could not have been obtained.   Our standard of living is more a product of banking fraud and monetary hegemony than American exceptional-ism.

Progressives have the wrong premise from the beginning.  They are collectivists which is the basis or root from which fascism, communism and every variety of socialism, slavery and oppression grow.  It doesn’t matter if it is run by theist or atheist.  They use collectivist justifications for the government to trample on the rights of the individual.  They believe this justification gives them the moral high ground to turn a blind eye to governmental lying and plunder and war.   They talk of justice but in its place substitute control.  They generally believe in their own moral and intellectual superiority yet cannot put a chain of cause and effect reasoning beyond two or three links economically speaking.  How does someone who believes in moral relativism come to believe they have the moral high ground anyway when there is no baseline to measure from anyway?

Second: The “neo-con Tea Party”


Most people do not seem to know the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic, hence we have become increasingly collectivist in our thinking, courtesy of state sponsored education via the public school system.

Now, before I go further, a further distinction needs to be made.  When I use the tern “neo-con” I mean those who claim to be conservative but still look to a particular politician or propose some expansion of government as part of the solution to all our ills.  In other words, their solution is nothing more than governmental intervention.  Their hope is in electing the right people from the right moral background who will implement the right laws and reform the right institutions and place the right judges on the courts.

An acquaintance of mine, whom I would consider a very brilliant fellow, falls into the same collectivist trap as does the “progressive”.  He is well educated, which is a shocker since he has advanced degrees in multiple fields, is very well informed about political, ethical and military issues.  Unlike the average progressive who fancies himself an intellectual, he actually is.  He is a retired army chaplain who has had Generals seek him out for staff positions, an expert in suicide counselling, is well read, possesses endless energy, very diplomatic yet is candid and I would wager could hold his own in any debate with any “progressive”.

In conversations I have had with him, he will frequently give expression to some great change that is taking place or is going to take place because a new election has put in some better people or some “statesmen” (as opposed to a politician) has said some remarkable thing.  Occasionally we get together to discuss issues and because he has access to various members of congress he seems to constantly be pumped up with false hope.  Last time we got together he told me that congressman so-and-so said to him “not to give up on them (congress, the political process)” because “there are giants” (great statesmen).   I simply told him it is already to late.  They will not be able to so anything about the economic collapse heading our way.  Worse yet, they are either ignorant of economics or are Keynesians (as are all who hope in government) .   No amount of “take back America” rallies held by Mark Levine or Sean Hannity will help.  Indeed, they just breed more false hope instead of leveling with the American people.

To make matters worse, many religious conservatives believe that will be just “raptured”, escaping the whole sordid mess at the “last trump”.  They have not prepared themselves nor their neighbors nor their congregations for what will surely come but instead take refuge in a patently ridiculous eschatology.  The lives of American’s are about to change for the worse yet they remain clueless, preaching self-image repair as they play church.  Perhaps the idea is to feel good about yourself as you watch your children starve and it dawns on you that everything the government, both political parties and much of the church has been telling you are lies and false hopes.

Read Full Post »

The ignored lessons of 1 Samuel 8 – Government as God.

Many misguided collectivists that stuff the pulpits of Christian Churches today (called by various names such as Pastor, Reverend, Minister, Father, etc.) ignore the straight forward lesson of the Book of Judges and 1st Samuel in the Old Testament.  The Christian Church, as an institution, is divided into liberal and conservative factions, much like politics.  We can ignore the more “liberal” or “Progressive” element for this rant.  I only want to deal with those to actually believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  It is they that tend to fail to understand the warning of Samuel.  The other side has drank this cool-aid long ago.  The are already infected by the collectivist dream.


“Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.” Benjamin Franklin

The power people in the pulpits of the nation on the conservative side are fond of using a verse found in multiple places in the book of Judges which lays down the principle that men, instead of obeying the moral order such as the Ten Commandments, do what seems right in their own eyes.

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.  Judges 21:25 (also see Judges 17:6)

What is usually done in this case is to couple the above verses with one from Proverbs.

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.  Proverbs 14:12

Or this one…

There are those who are clean in their own eyes but are not washed of their filth. Proverbs 30:12

Or this one…

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

This creates a package that tries to explain the supposed social and economic instability of the Judges period in the context of moral declension (a safe move).  Following this period come a parade of Kings, some good and some bad.  The effect of these verses cobbled together in this way and the supposed principle that arises from it leaves a congregation with the impression that every effort must be made by Christians to place into positions of authority the right people.  After all, big government is inevitable.  So we need a good King/president/leader, someone “righteous”, who has a heart after God, who seeks the Lord, etc.  Never mind if his economic perspective is Keynesian or his solution is collectivism.

This sounds good to those who follow Christ’s vicar, the Calvinist theocrat, people looking for a human savior or that Christian leaders have some kind of magical power that can transcend truth and disregard the consequences of natural law.  The “progressives” already have their political savior in Mr. Obama.  The Conservative folks are much less aware that their course of action leads them towards the same fundamental quest without perceiving it as such.

These two groups are usually caught in the false dichotomy of Right vs. Left, Republicans vs. Democrats, FOX news vs. CNN.  Both sides of which promote collectivism in different ways.  Both sides hold out the false hope that if only we got our guys into the place of power the world will eventually be better.  Both offer up centralized federal solutions. Both claim the moral high ground.  Both propose their own practical method of implementing their Utopian vision usually involving a federal solution.

Actually, the book of Judges never insinuates that “everyone did what was right in his own eyes“ is an undesirable situation.  It simply states that it was the situation at the time these events occurred.  The undesirable aspect of it only comes into play when the verses in Judges are coupled with the verses in Proverbs.

However, before one rolls into Proverbs there is a very clear rebuke given in scripture against this interpretation and puts the debate squarely around liberty vs. collectivism, men with freedom to obey their conscience or men oppressed by government, whether one can enjoying the fruits of ones’ own labor or experiences the continuous and ever increasing plunder of those who rule over them.   In short, it is as Franklin said, the choice is between God and Tyranny*.

This volley against the standard we need a good king vs. a bad king extrapolation, or, in this day and age, good president bad president   is found in 1 Samuel 8.  Prior to this God allowed the people of Israel to obey Him or not with the consequences for each course of action laid out before them and known by them.  They could obey His wise council and prosper or ignore it at their own peril.  Nothing has really changed in an ultimate sense from that day to this.

But the people wanted to be like all the other nations.  They may have wanted to fit in or be respected by their peers (the surrounding nations).  Whatever the reason, they asked for a King.  The prophet Samuel was very angry at this.  Even so, God prevails upon Samuel to let the people have what they want.  God tells Samuel that they have not rejected Samuel’s judgeship; they have rejected God as ruler.

The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. 1 Samuel 8:7

Ultimately God warns them, in essence saying Israel may not like what they have but the course of action they are determined to follow will be far worse.

Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.” 1 Samuel 8:9

God then enumerates several things about the kind of king that will rule over them.  Even though the context here is about a king, the principles can be extrapolated to apply to any type of rule by men and about the tendencies of any type of centralized government as is clearly demonstrated not only by the history of ancient Israel but of the world.

  • He will utilize your offspring for his purposes whether serving in the military, aiding in pomp and ceremony, or sever in the bureaucracy (vs. 11).
  • He will use them for the production of goods to supply the governmental structure that will arise around his rule for both guns and butter (vs. 12).
  • He will take their daughters to produce his luxuries (vs. 13).
  • He will redistribute the best items from those who have it to those who attend his needs.  In essence he will have the ability to plunder the goods of the land and give it to those who serve his purposes just as the modern socialist welfare state does now (vs. 14-17a).  Three and one half verses are needed to cover the different kinds of plunder and theft that will occur under a central government.
  • The people will end up as a slaves, devoid of the liberties and freedoms they once had.  Their rights will also be plundered by the cancer of government expansion (vs. 17b).
  • It appears that once the king/government has gone this far it is irreversible and God will no longer be available to rescue the people from their dilemma (vs. 18-19).

God does not make any distinctions about the nature of the king.  He does not say this only applies to “bad” kings, but all kings.  Simply, this is what happens.  This is the overall tendency and direction of centralized power.  And while a truly benevolent king or bureaucrat may arrive on the scene from time to time, consolidation of power towards a centralized locus will still continue unabated.

It happens in evangelical churches too.  A pastor or pastors take it upon themselves to come up with a “vision” (purpose) for their local body.  Instead of “equipping the saints for the work of the ministry” as Paul admonishes, he/they come up with some catchy anachronism to illustrate what he and his fellow insiders perceive that “his” local fellowship should be doing.  Other visions are to fit into and be subsumed by this grander one.  They think that this is leading.  But it is not organic and it is not liberty.  It is veiled collectivism encased in Jesus speak.  Instead of the pastoral leadership facilitating the “vision” of others, they provide their own.  Instead of warning and preparing their people for the peril of the times, protecting them from wolves carrying doctrine or behavioral anomalies, and aiding in the development of and facilitation of the “flock” to do the work, they have the “flock” work for and around the vision they see.  Is this leadership serving or is this serving leadership?

But this is how centralized power always works.  The only difference is the magnitude of force that is needed by centralized authority to utilize people as cows to be milked.  The pulpit occupier in the local church has much more limited power and must be more clever.  The government, with its vast and ever increasing centralized control, relies less on reason and more on violence because it can.

The founding fathers had very good reasons for distrusting centralized government.  Whether left or right, communism or fascism, or some socialist hybrid, people look to political men for their salvation.  What they will get is not liberty, but slavery.  This what always happens.  This is the warning from 3000 years ago.  It is not progress but regression back towards slavery.  We are almost there.

*Please, no idiotic comments from the atheistic peanut gallery about God being the Tyrant King or a genocidal megalomaniac.  These kinds of comments only show the complete ignorance of the Bible and the moral history and development of mankind by those making such comments.  They have been discussed and dealt with for 2000 years by many people in many places from many times.  Sorry if Christopher Hitchens was unaware of this.

Read Full Post »


After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings.”  ― Richard Dawkins

A statement such as the one above is loaded with materialistic assumptions about origin and being.  At the same time Dawkins attempts to add meaning to these assumptions by stealing from a non-materialistic, indeed theistic worldview, the presuppositions and assertions needed to give it meaning.  He crosses the two yet never realizing he does so.  And he is very consistent in his INABILITY to see it.

His promoters cheer on his brilliant insights when it is simply bad analysis.  For they suffer from the same logical and philosophical malaise.

First off all, Dawkins is a materialist, an atheist and holds an unshakable belief in evolutionary biology, the greatest of all “scientific” jokes.  Now I do not mean that much of what biology with its observations and documentation are wrong.  No much of it is good science.  But it is forced to make unscientific, even irrational conclusions, because of the worldview it must fit into.  Scientism is not science, nor is evolutionary theory, nor is creationism for that matter.

Scientism: the uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or investigation. – Collins English Dictionary.

“Scientists” who want science to be the final arbitrator of all truth is what scientism is all about.  It places the materialist into the position of high priest on par with the purveyors of all of the lunatic versions of religion.  Being the final arbitrator of all truth gives one tremendous influence and power over the less educated masses.  But at this point going into motives is digressive.

Some of the assumptions.

  • If we are merely matter and energy, why do we open our eyes to behold a “sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life”?  What are the attributes found in matter that recognize these things?  Matter has weight, takes up space, has color, texture, hardness, etc.  This part we get.  But if we are matter flowing here and there, coming together briefly to become us then vanishing and moving on to something else, why do we even care if matter has weight or color?  Why are we cognizant of this fact?  How does something lacking in any mental faculty or observable function organize and sort and quantify and analyze and draw conclusions and suggest plans and design systems to do useful work that servers some other abstract purpose or goal?

These are not observable functions of matter and energy.  They are the frauds of Scientism.  They are the product of a belief about how the world must be because that is the kind of belief that is wanted. 

  • Dawkins must believe that matter begets mind.  For example, the law of non-contradiction must somehow arise from the phenomena of matter and energy.  It is a very popular theme in science fiction to believe that once matter becomes complex enough, it crosses some threshold and becomes self-aware or alive.  The Terminator and Matrix sagas are examples of this.

Dawkins’ statement hides the belief that the effects can exceed the cause.  Because he exchanges an empirical hat for a metaphysical one he never sees the irrationality inherent in this.

  • Dawkins must somehow contrive meaning from meaningless matter.  Here he uses the terms “noble” and “enlightened”.  In other places he uses the term “wonder”.   But these are mental constructs describing emotional states.   These are not materialistic phenomena.  Perceptions and emotions are not found in hydrogen, argon, beryllium or cesium.  The cleaver use of adjectives does not somehow imbue meaning into believing that somehow dirt has magical mental properties.

The category error (or category fallacy as it is sometimes called) is the materialists’ bread and butter.  In an age of state run schools of collectivism propaganda it is too often missed and goes unrecognized.

Just as Augustine confused the moral with the metaphysical and sent the institutional forms of Christianity careening down a theologically erroneous and sometimes destructive path, learned men since the time of Epicurus, and scientists since Darwin’s time have made good science to serve their religion of Scientism and have become the pawns of the collectivist state where they serve has high priests.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »