The word "Christian" appears in the Bible two (2) times. Let me repeat that number. . . No need. In fact, what makes the bible the bible and not the Torah is the inclusion of the new testament. And in the new testament the very word of the Christ inspired religion is mentioned only twice. Jesus Christ, the figure upon which the very essence of Christianity is predicated upon, used the word zero (0) times. You will excuse me if I find these facts baffling- enough to write an entire blog about it- but I must say: these facts are very intriguing especially considering we are dealing with a religion that assumes the title(s) of divine and ordained all in the same breath.
As I write this blog I sit in an open lounge coffee cafe. The time is 9 o'clock pm and I have a cup of coffee to aid me in this affair. I assume I will be up for a while, referencing and cross referencing and such. Let us examine:
I will not spend my time writing about why or why not Christianity is barely referenced in the bible. No, that would be an arduous task to be sure. Instead this blog will focus on the exclusion of the word and what that means. For example, if I compose a song, yet in this song I mention a specific word only twice in the entire song, one may assume the song was written not merely for the benefit of that single topic but that single topic is a beneficiary of the song; a bi product of sorts. This is not to say that the title of the song cannot be the less mentioned word/topic. But it does demand explanation and in this explanation there is a great deal of interpretation that may or may not be true.
By comparison, the word "Jew" is used over 200 times in the New Testament alone. For the sake of argument we will ignore the fact that the word "Jew" is a purely English transitory convenience and that the word has no Hebrew or Aramaic roots. Nonetheless for the English bible, the word is mentioned over 200 times. Yet, how is it that Jesus Christ was a Jew, when the word Jew was not even a word until the 18th century? The word Jew is both malevolent and benevolent. In its malevolent form, the word is a derogatory one, as one may use the word negro to deride a darker skinned people. In its benevolent form, the word "Jew" actually means a resident from the land of Judea. Yet how is it that Jesus is believed to be a Jew when he was actually born in Galilee, a state entirely separate from Judea? Of course the answer belongs to the genealogy of Jesus' earthly parents who's lineage belongs to the tribe of Judah. Yet there is only one problem, and that is that Mary's lineage is never listed in the bible. In both Matthew and Luke the genealogies belong to Joseph, who in fact was not Jesus' father at all. In fact, the two separate lineage accounts are not the same. One starts with Adam and goes to David while the other starts with Abraham and goes to David. Biblical scholars argue that these are merely accounts of both Joseph and Mary and attribute the differences as such. I would follow along in this theory but I digress for now we have entered the often too familiar and peculiar land of Christianity: biblical explanation followed by interpretation. For to assume this conclusion as correct we would be forced to declare that the name of Joseph, for whom the genealogical references are attributed, are wrong in at least one instance and then take it upon ourselves to attribute one of them to Mary; which one we attribute to her, and how we make this decision is beyond me, I am not that smart. All I know is what the two references say and they have two different accounts, yet the same name and that name is Joseph.
Yet we know that Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah, a direct line from the offspring of David. But how? Mary's lineage is imagined and only Joseph's is confirmed. Yet if Jesus was born of immaculate conception, Joseph's lineage doesn't actually matter.
Why am I pointing to these inconsistencies and why am I harping on them? It's simple. Orthodox Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah because of this acute problem. Pastors across the grand globe of Christianity will tell you it is because Jesus did not physically overthrow the Romans. This may be partially true. But in all actuality the mainstay of their refusal to accept Jesus as Christ is one of lineage. You cannot be my king if there is no proof that you were born from royal bloodline. This is the argument and it deserves audience.
Understand therefore, it is not the Jews who accept Jesus as the son of God. It was not Jesus in fact who claimed to be God, and who constantly referenced himself as the "son of man". Rather it was those after Jesus died who claimed Jesus to be divine. I am not saying that this is wrong. I am simply stating the facts. Jesus did not create a new religion. Neither did his disciples. The people who never followed Jesus while he walked the earth created a new religion and they called it Christianity. Yet how can you claim to follow a man who's teachings you do not actually follow? Let us begin with the "Sinner's Prayer".
In many churches, the "benediction" as it were, concludes the service in which the pastor invites his listeners to become Christians by praying a certain prayer. There is an elephant in the room at such benedictions and that is that there is no "sinners prayer" anywhere in the bible. The only prayer that Jesus instructed his disciples to use was the Lord's Prayer: "Our father. . ." notice, Jesus begins this prayer with "father" and never mentions himself in the prayer at all. Yet somehow we have have distorted benedictions in which pastors are instructing their listeners to pray to Jesus. This is obscene, to be frank, and I will take it a step further. There is very little that Paul, says in the New Testament by way of salvation that agrees with what Jesus says.
For example, according to Paul, one must "confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead and you will be saved." Romans 10:9-10. Who gave Paul this authority to declare the process for salvation? What exactly is he talking about and what makes him think that he can super cede what Jesus himself said about salvation? For Jesus gave an entirely different path to redemption. Read Luke 10:25-27. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself." Read John 5:24 "I tell you whoever hears my words and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life. . ."
There is a definitive difference in the teachings of Jesus and what was taught after Jesus about Jesus and I contend that what was taught after Jesus about Jesus is not entirely correct. One of the main proponents of these incorrect teachings is Paul himself. Allow me:
If Jesus tells you what you must do to inherit eternal life and then someone else tells you what you must do to inherit the same but what he tells you is different than what Jesus told you, who should you believe? It is at this point that we see the beginnings of what I now refer to as the adoption of Christianity, that is, Christianity's journey of change. Understand, I am not saying that Paul was a liar, neither am I declaring his teachings to be false. What I am saying is that there is a clear difference in what Paul said and what Jesus said. The fact of the matter is that what Paul says in the New Testament has no authoritative figure to validate it. Jesus quoted the Torah, thereby validating the Old Testament. He constantly referenced its teachings and values. Therefore, if I believe Jesus I have no choice but to believe the Old Testament and vice versa. My question, is what and who validates Paul and the rest of the New Testament after Jesus?
Paul claims that Jesus himself stopped him on the road to Damascus in the form of a bright light which blinded him and thereby ordained him as an apostle. Paul then claims that after he was led to Ananias that Jesus himself trusted Paul with the gospel to carry to the Mediterranean world. Again I do not dispute any of this. What I do question is its source of validation. If the story of the Old Testament is that it was designed to prepare us for Jesus and Jesus validated and fulfilled it, who and what validates and fulfills the post gospel New Testament? Paul would have us believe that it was Jesus himself. Yet Paul never saw Jesus, only a bright light. The light blinded no one but him, despite the fact that others were with him. And who were these other men? According to Hebrew law, a dispute must be validated by two or more witnesses and these witnesses must testify on behalf of the dispute. Read Deuteronomy 19:15.
Even Paul validates the need for witnesses and their verbal validation in Corinthians 2 13:1. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established".
Where is the testimony by the men whom Paul claims were with him that this event on the road to Damascus actually happened? There is none. There is Paul saying it happened, and Paul saying that men were with him, but their testimony is not recorded. My question is why not, and what does that mean? For if something so fundamental for the truth to be established is omitted we are asked to have faith in a man and that what he says is the truth.
Let me be clear about something, what makes God's word, God's word, is not because it comes in a book named the bible. What makes God's word God's word is the fact that a certain set of writings not only exist but are also validated by someone proved to be greater than all humanity. The problem with much of Christianity today is that our beliefs are based not solely on that person of Jesus but on the teachings of a mere man who claims to have been instructed by Jesus, but whom Jesus is never recorded as validating. You will forgive me if I am not ready to accept authorship from this person. You must forgive me if I do not care that it offends modern Christianity because modern Christianity is a revulsion of what Jesus taught that his followers must be. Are Paul's teachings part of the Bible? Absolutely. Are Paul's teachings the Word of God? Absolutely not. Paul was a man, flesh and blood just like you and I and therefore all his teaching were merely human and prone to the same human flaws we experience today. There is nothing Divine about his teachings or influence. The Word, as it were, was made manifest through Jesus Christ himself or need I remind you of John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word. . ."
If there was more to the gospel that Jesus wanted us to know as his word he would not have left without telling us. Understand that Jesus never says that the Bible is the Word of God. The Word was Jesus himself. Which leads me to my conclusion that the rest of the bible, (excluding Hebrews, a book included in the New Testament but was actually written by the Hebrew Patriarch Moses), after Jesus left the earth may be divinely inspired, but is not divinely ordained and I reject any argument which says otherwise. It is not God who affirmed the post gospel canonized bible. It was a group of men now called the Council of Nicaea. I repeat, the modern bible was created by a group of men. Furthermore, the book of Revelations was included in the canonized bible after the Council Nicaea convened. There is not even factual evidence as to how Revelations got included into the cannon. Yet we are under the belief that Christianity is the only way to God. Nothing could be more insecure, self absorbed and hideous; no statement more preposterous, because Christianity is what exactly? Oh I know what it is supposed to be. I know where its lineage comes from. But when you examine its evolution over the decades and centuries of its existence, it resembles nothing of its origin.
Let me ask you something. If you go to church, how many of your church's leaders are still in their first marriage? OK, great. Now how many of those who are not in their first marriage got divorced for any reason other than infidelity? How many of the female members are divorced because their husband was caught in infidelity? Final question: exactly where did Jesus say, for any other reason than a woman's unfaithfulness to her husband is divorce permitted?
This, ladies and gentleman, is where the truth meets reality and the truth is not comfortable. Read Mark 1:1-12. Understand, it makes no provision for divorce if the man is cruel to his wife. It makes no provision for divorce is the man is unhappy with his wife. It makes no provision for the woman to divorce her husband if the husband cheats on his wife. It makes no provision for divorce if the man is abusive to his wife or the wife abusive to her husband. And yet, how many churches condone, accept, teach, or practice otherwise?
Understand that the model for Jesus' relationship for those who believe in him is marriage. If we fail to get marriage right, and we have; if we create new laws and provisions as we "adapt" to modern times, if we conjure up our own ideas as we go along for what we deem as appropriate for what makes sense in our eyes, than we may have some idea of how the post gospel bible was put together.
Human interpretation will always lead to human error. And so Christianity has become this great chameleon. Yet I am not surprised. Christianity is based upon a figure named Paul who at once defined himself as a chameleon: 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." Indeed. Would you like to know what Jesus said?
"I am the same, yesterday, today and forever." Hebrews 13:8. Clearly contrasted. There is no chameleon in the church that Jesus created. There is in the gospel of Paul. These vastly different statements by these two different figures speak volumes about the message of these two different men. Alas, the Christians of today which claim to be followers of Christ are a group of individuals who I dare say Jesus himself would not accept. Some preacher somewhere told them to pray the sinner's prayer for salvation and they did. But Jesus never taught conversion, he taught discipleship. Jesus taught eternal life. You cannot inherit that by saying a simple prayer, it comes through sacrifice and repentance.
Look at your church today. I'll wager your pastor lives in the suburbs somewhere in some comfortable sided house in a two car garage with a minivan. Let us contrast that picture with the one given in Luke 18:18-22. A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Let's compare that picture with ourselves. Modern Christianity says that the lesson here is to be willing to give up everything. That Jesus isn't actually saying to give it all up but rather it is a mindset. Three words: Read It Again. SELL EVERYTHING, TO THE POOR (meaning you will have to short sell, not for profit). THEN FOLLOW ME. Most people who tithe aren't even giving to the poor, the money is going to the church building's mortgage, utilities and rent. I wonder how much money could actually go to the poor if churches got rid of their luxurious buildings that they've convinced themselves that God himself provided for them- while the rest of the city is starving and children are going without food and shelter and single mothers can barely pay rent- and instead rotated church member homes for meetings and service? I wonder how much money would go to the poor then? Two words: SELL EVERYTHING. But I digress, that would mean that pastors wouldn't get salary what with no office to go to and no building to run, the pastoral office just isn't quite so expensive. How much is the average cost of seminary again? Somewhere around $12,000 a year and that was seven years ago. I believe Jesus pulled out a whip and flipped tables for abominations like this. But we've succeeded, of course, in doing what he was trying to prevent: profiting off faith in God. But like Paul says, when in Rome do as the Romans right? Absolutely disgusting.
I don't care if you agree with this blog post or not, but the fact is, if you call yourself a Christian, you probably aren't the person Jesus had in mind for his Disciple. The two titles look vastly different in reality.
The time is now 2am of the same day and I must be up in three hours. Yet I am happy with my work. The cafe is empty. The store is closed. Sip on that.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Christmas: A Pagan Holiday
American holidays have always been and always will be a mixture of family tradition and history. Notice I omitted the word truth. Not to be misunderstood, there is truth in our holidays but I venture to say not many of those celebrating the holidays are naturally aware of its true heritage. Take for example our most recent mega holiday of Thanksgiving. How many people know the name of the native American nation that broke bread with the pilgrims? If you don't know, which I'm certain most of you do not, it is because the Patuxent were destroyed. In modern days they are living on reservations the US government graciously provided them and are just now rediscovering their native language. If Thanksgiving is such a glorious holiday, why is it that it is such a one sided celebratory affair? It is because the truth is no longer as important to US citizens as are the family traditions. This is not a noble conclusion. Do not mistake my accusations. I too enjoy Thanksgiving because of the tradition of family it tends to bring about. I simply do not celebrate the holiday itself. I consider it unjust.
Take for example our current holiday of Christmas. Rest assured I am not inclined to attack the nobility and spiritual connotations of this holiday; even I know better than that. Yet I would not be justified if I did not shed light on the true nature of this holiday's origin for its heritage is as pagan as the obscenity of Santa Clause.
Yeshua was not born on December 25. Historians, both secular and religious agree on this. What was celebrated on December 25 was the Italic god Saturn and the rebirth of the sun god Ra. These pagan celebrations were in affect long before Jesus or Christmas was ever born. many Christians say the exact date of Jesus' birth does not matter. This could not be further from the truth. It is not just the concept that counts, our recognition of God's son coming to humanity and saving us from spiritual mortality. Yet if this event is so important, and it is, then I contend that the date does matter. For to omit the actual date and trade it instead for a different one, a date that was established by pagans long before the inception of Christianity, pledges the allegiance of Christians to elements of both secularism and paganism. Both the time and money of Christians on Christmas are fodder for the proliferation of Santa, his predecessor Saturn, and his predecessor, Ra. Make no mistake, the commercialization of Christmas is no different than its Pagan heritage for in commercialization, multiple gods and religions are inherited and recognized. Yet somehow, Christians feel they have some moral ground to protest the removal of Christ from Christmas. Why? The holiday never belonged to Christianity in the first place. This is why the true date of the birth of Yeshua matters absolutely.
The great Roman Emperor Constantine understood this fact all too well and this is why he merged Christianity with Paganism by conceding the growing influence of Christianity and merging it with a fledgling Pagan hierarchy. A religion which heralds its belief in one God, was merged with a tradition of multiple Gods; out of which Catholicism was born. In one fell swoop he pacified the momentum of Christianity and cemented the tradition of Paganism by brilliantly merging both together. Without this unification, he would have never unified Rome. I cannot overstate that it is in fact this unification that Christians are celebrating when they unwrap their gifts under the Christmas tree. Not the birth of baby Jesus in a manger but the pluralism of Paganism and Christianity that occured under Constantine in 324 A.D. There was no vision of a cross in the sky, only the political savvy of a preemptive ruler who understood that his rival, Maxentius led a predominantly Christian army that was not seeing their beliefs acknowledged or permitted by their current ruler. By painting crosses on his troops' shields, Constantine sent a clear message to Maxentius' troops that he, unlike Maxentius would honor their beliefs, and so he won their allegiance before the battle of the Milvian Bridge was ever faught in 312 A.D.
Perhaps it is this same inaccuracy of the date of Christmas that leads us also to the inaccuracy of the scene in which Yeshua was born. Understand I dispute nothing that is in the bible. Yet my conflict arrives at the way in which individuals interpret many events in the bible, in this case, the nativity scene under the pretense of a star the three wise men followed that is depicted as hovering over the stable pointing directly down on the manger in the public perception of our most daring imaginations. Yet where exactly, did this scene come from? The only biblical text which even mentions a star is in Matthew 2:1-12. Yet if you read the text you understand that no one involved in Yeshua's birth besides the three wise men are recorded as having ever seen this prolific star. Furthermore, there is simply no way that an actual star would be able to come close enough to earth to guide three individuals without incinerating the planet, #1, or throwing earth off its celestial course, #2. As close as the moon is to earth, even that is not close enough to guide us to any specific location. In order for a star to come as close to earth as depicted in nativity scenes it simply could not have been a star. Yet the bible specifically refers to an actual star. What then could be the explanation? I contend that the "star of Bethlehem" was not simply a star in individual form but a star that was part of a larger map of stars. For if you understand the heritage of the three wise men, you understand that they were more than mere travelers but men who had an educated understanding of the science, meaning, and implication of the stars. They were called magi in historical text; they are called astronomers and astrologers in modern times.
Galatians 4:4 refers to Jesus' birth in the pretense "the fullness of time." This is not an empty statement. The "fullness of time" as it were, is a direct reference to astrology. There are 12 constellations in the heavens each distinguished by 30 degrees of separation which form the 360 degrees of our astrological calendar. Each constellation is represented by a zodiac symbol or sign. this sign, and its constellation dominates the heavens for a period of time referred to as an age. An age is estimated to consist of 2000 yrs. Or more accurately, 2150 yrs. You must understand that Jesus' birth coincided with the age of Pisces and the change of the zodiac calendar. Ever wonder why Christianity is represented by a Fish? Look up the zodiac calendar under Pisces and you will discover the truth.
Now, Jesus Christ came in the "fullness of time." What does that mean? We know that Jesus was born of a virgin about 3 BC.2 Whereas, our calendar begins in 1 AD, according to the best evidence, the star of Bethlehem did not appear that year. What made the event so important to the Magi, who were astrologers, was that it coincided with the beginning of a new age, the Age of Pisces. The birth of Jesus Christ coincided with the beginning of the Age of Pisces, the two fish, one pointing toward heaven and the other toward earth, which symbolized the propitiation of God and reconciliation of mankind to God through the offering of Jesus Christ on the Cross.
So, we know where Jesus Christ was born on the clock of time. And we also know that the zodiac begins with Virgo. It turns out that Pisces is directly opposite Virgo, which makes it half way round the zodiac. The dashed line drawn on the zodiac from Virgo to Pisces points to the middle of the clock, or the fullness of time. Now that is what the "fullness of time" means. It means not just the fullness of time in human history, but the fullness of time on the zodiac, which includes the section from Virgo to Cancer when time had not yet begun. The "fullness of time" not only refers to human history, but it also refers to the ages before time began. (biblenews1.com)
Of course Christians are not supposed to believe astrology or study the zodiac. According to whom? Certainly not the bible. I refer you to the book of Job "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with his cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens?" (Job 38:31-33).
I believe the true power of faith is rooted in the truth. Biblically, the truth is always there, it simply gets distorted when we seek to explain and describe it. And the the truth for Christians is that Jesus was not born on December 25. Try somewhere around September. Understand why the truth about Christmas must be important for Christians. Because if you place so much importance on his birth, then you must also know that he promised to return. Not at the end of the world, but the end of the age. He just never told us which age he was referring to. Or did he?
Take for example our current holiday of Christmas. Rest assured I am not inclined to attack the nobility and spiritual connotations of this holiday; even I know better than that. Yet I would not be justified if I did not shed light on the true nature of this holiday's origin for its heritage is as pagan as the obscenity of Santa Clause.
Yeshua was not born on December 25. Historians, both secular and religious agree on this. What was celebrated on December 25 was the Italic god Saturn and the rebirth of the sun god Ra. These pagan celebrations were in affect long before Jesus or Christmas was ever born. many Christians say the exact date of Jesus' birth does not matter. This could not be further from the truth. It is not just the concept that counts, our recognition of God's son coming to humanity and saving us from spiritual mortality. Yet if this event is so important, and it is, then I contend that the date does matter. For to omit the actual date and trade it instead for a different one, a date that was established by pagans long before the inception of Christianity, pledges the allegiance of Christians to elements of both secularism and paganism. Both the time and money of Christians on Christmas are fodder for the proliferation of Santa, his predecessor Saturn, and his predecessor, Ra. Make no mistake, the commercialization of Christmas is no different than its Pagan heritage for in commercialization, multiple gods and religions are inherited and recognized. Yet somehow, Christians feel they have some moral ground to protest the removal of Christ from Christmas. Why? The holiday never belonged to Christianity in the first place. This is why the true date of the birth of Yeshua matters absolutely.
The great Roman Emperor Constantine understood this fact all too well and this is why he merged Christianity with Paganism by conceding the growing influence of Christianity and merging it with a fledgling Pagan hierarchy. A religion which heralds its belief in one God, was merged with a tradition of multiple Gods; out of which Catholicism was born. In one fell swoop he pacified the momentum of Christianity and cemented the tradition of Paganism by brilliantly merging both together. Without this unification, he would have never unified Rome. I cannot overstate that it is in fact this unification that Christians are celebrating when they unwrap their gifts under the Christmas tree. Not the birth of baby Jesus in a manger but the pluralism of Paganism and Christianity that occured under Constantine in 324 A.D. There was no vision of a cross in the sky, only the political savvy of a preemptive ruler who understood that his rival, Maxentius led a predominantly Christian army that was not seeing their beliefs acknowledged or permitted by their current ruler. By painting crosses on his troops' shields, Constantine sent a clear message to Maxentius' troops that he, unlike Maxentius would honor their beliefs, and so he won their allegiance before the battle of the Milvian Bridge was ever faught in 312 A.D.
Perhaps it is this same inaccuracy of the date of Christmas that leads us also to the inaccuracy of the scene in which Yeshua was born. Understand I dispute nothing that is in the bible. Yet my conflict arrives at the way in which individuals interpret many events in the bible, in this case, the nativity scene under the pretense of a star the three wise men followed that is depicted as hovering over the stable pointing directly down on the manger in the public perception of our most daring imaginations. Yet where exactly, did this scene come from? The only biblical text which even mentions a star is in Matthew 2:1-12. Yet if you read the text you understand that no one involved in Yeshua's birth besides the three wise men are recorded as having ever seen this prolific star. Furthermore, there is simply no way that an actual star would be able to come close enough to earth to guide three individuals without incinerating the planet, #1, or throwing earth off its celestial course, #2. As close as the moon is to earth, even that is not close enough to guide us to any specific location. In order for a star to come as close to earth as depicted in nativity scenes it simply could not have been a star. Yet the bible specifically refers to an actual star. What then could be the explanation? I contend that the "star of Bethlehem" was not simply a star in individual form but a star that was part of a larger map of stars. For if you understand the heritage of the three wise men, you understand that they were more than mere travelers but men who had an educated understanding of the science, meaning, and implication of the stars. They were called magi in historical text; they are called astronomers and astrologers in modern times.
Galatians 4:4 refers to Jesus' birth in the pretense "the fullness of time." This is not an empty statement. The "fullness of time" as it were, is a direct reference to astrology. There are 12 constellations in the heavens each distinguished by 30 degrees of separation which form the 360 degrees of our astrological calendar. Each constellation is represented by a zodiac symbol or sign. this sign, and its constellation dominates the heavens for a period of time referred to as an age. An age is estimated to consist of 2000 yrs. Or more accurately, 2150 yrs. You must understand that Jesus' birth coincided with the age of Pisces and the change of the zodiac calendar. Ever wonder why Christianity is represented by a Fish? Look up the zodiac calendar under Pisces and you will discover the truth.
Now, Jesus Christ came in the "fullness of time." What does that mean? We know that Jesus was born of a virgin about 3 BC.2 Whereas, our calendar begins in 1 AD, according to the best evidence, the star of Bethlehem did not appear that year. What made the event so important to the Magi, who were astrologers, was that it coincided with the beginning of a new age, the Age of Pisces. The birth of Jesus Christ coincided with the beginning of the Age of Pisces, the two fish, one pointing toward heaven and the other toward earth, which symbolized the propitiation of God and reconciliation of mankind to God through the offering of Jesus Christ on the Cross.
So, we know where Jesus Christ was born on the clock of time. And we also know that the zodiac begins with Virgo. It turns out that Pisces is directly opposite Virgo, which makes it half way round the zodiac. The dashed line drawn on the zodiac from Virgo to Pisces points to the middle of the clock, or the fullness of time. Now that is what the "fullness of time" means. It means not just the fullness of time in human history, but the fullness of time on the zodiac, which includes the section from Virgo to Cancer when time had not yet begun. The "fullness of time" not only refers to human history, but it also refers to the ages before time began. (biblenews1.com)
Of course Christians are not supposed to believe astrology or study the zodiac. According to whom? Certainly not the bible. I refer you to the book of Job "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with his cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens?" (Job 38:31-33).
I believe the true power of faith is rooted in the truth. Biblically, the truth is always there, it simply gets distorted when we seek to explain and describe it. And the the truth for Christians is that Jesus was not born on December 25. Try somewhere around September. Understand why the truth about Christmas must be important for Christians. Because if you place so much importance on his birth, then you must also know that he promised to return. Not at the end of the world, but the end of the age. He just never told us which age he was referring to. Or did he?
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The Civil War: (Untold History)
There is a new movie coming. It is set to hit box offices this month. The movie is called Lincoln. As I sat in my favorite sports bar, barely paying the trailer any attention it occurred to me that maybe I should. So the next time the trailer played some 15 minutes later, I briefly ignored Peyton Manning and the Denver Broncos, watching instead, Steven Spielberg's dazzling display of historical record dance across the big screen and I found myself excited. A movie about the civil war and what many consider the greatest president in American history. But then I began to wonder, as I listened to clips of the narrative, what exactly was I getting excited for? And it became clear to me, that Steven Spielberg or not, this movie was set to fall along the narrative lines of many historically based films: pure propaganda.
I have not yet seen this film, this is a fact. Therefore this blog is not based on the film "Lincoln" rather it is based on mainstream history teachings on the civil war for I wish to shed light on what the entire war was truly about and what made Lincoln the president many believe him to be today.
I will start by stating the truth: Abraham Lincoln was a racist and a bigot. Moreover this was a fact he never tried to hide and was all too proud to announce. It is only history that has sought to cover up this fact.
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” – Abraham Lincoln in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas in the campaign for the United States Senate on September 18th of 1858.
Yes. The great statesman very clearly stated his bigotry more clearly than historical geniuses could weave the false story of a man who would willingly throw an entire nation at war with each other, pitting father against son and brother against brother; shedding family blood with one solitary noble purpose: to free the shackled black man and purge a nation from the scourge of slavery. Rather the coherent and documented words, in specific detail, show the convictions of a politician convinced of the moral authority of the institution of slavery and fly in the face of our nation's carefully altered tale of nobility and it is high time the truth came to surface. To pretend the civil war was about freeing the slaves is as false as the pretense that western powers created the state of Israel out of moral obligation. No. The civil war was what every war the U.S. has ever been a part of. Money and power.
Understand that the North and the South were very different economically at this time. The North, supported by millions of citizens and densely populated metropolises benefited from an industrial economy, manufacturing technology based goods and the products that support them.
The south on the other hand was supported by a plantation structure which allowed them to grow and harvest slaves much like they did their agriculture and proliferate this culture of slavery to support and grow its agricultural based economy. Because of the free labor the south employed and the nature of trade not only between the north and the south but also between the states and Europe, it was inevitable that the North and the South would find conflict. The only way the North could compete with the South's slave produced goods was to impose tariffs on imported goods; a policy which the south rejected. This form of currency manipulation not only strengthened the South's economy, it also began to drive the North out of once held markets in Europe. This began to weaken the North's currency and threaten their economy, to the point that the only alternative to reconcile this beleaguered relationship was conflict. The South realized their growing power and with the support of Britain made plans to form their own nation. This could not be more clearly illuminated than in the Trent Affair in 1861. Slavery, you see, had absolutely nothing to do with it. The only way to keep the South from successful succession, after failed diplomacy, was war. The only reason the emancipation proclamation was announced was to prohibit elements of the south from gaining the upper hand in the future. Remember, the west was not yet won.
So how was the truth about this pivotal time in our history obscured? I point to America's obsession with the notion of moral superiority. The fact of the matter is that we are morally superior to no one. This nation is just as capable and demonstrative of evil as the communist states of the 70's and the Imperial powers of Europe in the 18th century. There is nothing about this United States of America which gives us any ethical benevolence in comparison with the world around us. In truth, any "good" that America has proliferated has come about mainly from our leaders' knowledge of the evil we garnered and spread throughout generations. Abraham Lincoln was no exception. There was nothing that President Lincoln stood for or believed in that pitted him morally, ethically or otherwise against the evil of slavery or its institution. It was and still is a mere political opportunity to view his presidency as an opportunity for the halls off this nation's power to gain some sense of responsibility and accolade for its abandonment. And in truth, slavery was outlawed as a result of the civil war. But understand that it was outlawed because of economical and political gain. Not out of any sense of moral obligation.
You must understand the reason this entire discussion holds merit. Aside from the propaganda, lies, and absolute need for truth. Our current economic position as a nation has everything to do with the same reasons we went to war in 1865. It is because of our negligence as a nation in supporting the truth about the Civil War that we now find ourselves compromised as a nation once again, in much the same way the north was compromised. Free trade with a nation or power that produces its goods with slave or cheap labor spells disaster for our domestic markets unless we counter this economic imbalance with tariffs. We owe our current economic crisis to our obscurement of our own history. For it is impossible to learn the lessons of history if the truth of our history is covered up, omitted and egotistically inflated. For now China serves as our Southern parallel of 1865 and the Federal Reserve appears as our antebellum loan shark. In light of it all, the movie "Lincoln" could not have come about at a more opportune time. Yet it is only necessary in theaters if we are bold enough to look past historical lies and see the truth behind the screenplay and cinematography. The lessons of the Civil War therefore have nothing to do with slavery. Any fool can tell you that slavery is not good for a nation, least of all one that heralds itself on the equality of all men. Do not allow history to be told to you Learn it instead. Study it and decipher it. Understand the truth about our Civil War and the president who presided over it.
Those who do so will find that the lies are only believed because it gives the proponents of the decadence of slavery some sense of moral fabric to weave their scarlet robe of a more perfect Union.
I have not yet seen this film, this is a fact. Therefore this blog is not based on the film "Lincoln" rather it is based on mainstream history teachings on the civil war for I wish to shed light on what the entire war was truly about and what made Lincoln the president many believe him to be today.
I will start by stating the truth: Abraham Lincoln was a racist and a bigot. Moreover this was a fact he never tried to hide and was all too proud to announce. It is only history that has sought to cover up this fact.
The following quote from Abraham Lincoln’s 1st inaugural address clearly states that prior to the war Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery so it was not the cause of the Civil War:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Yes this is a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln, a quote he made in his very first Inaugural address, clearly stating his position on slavery. Yet the great man did not stop there, quite the contrary:“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” – Abraham Lincoln in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas in the campaign for the United States Senate on September 18th of 1858.
Yes. The great statesman very clearly stated his bigotry more clearly than historical geniuses could weave the false story of a man who would willingly throw an entire nation at war with each other, pitting father against son and brother against brother; shedding family blood with one solitary noble purpose: to free the shackled black man and purge a nation from the scourge of slavery. Rather the coherent and documented words, in specific detail, show the convictions of a politician convinced of the moral authority of the institution of slavery and fly in the face of our nation's carefully altered tale of nobility and it is high time the truth came to surface. To pretend the civil war was about freeing the slaves is as false as the pretense that western powers created the state of Israel out of moral obligation. No. The civil war was what every war the U.S. has ever been a part of. Money and power.
Understand that the North and the South were very different economically at this time. The North, supported by millions of citizens and densely populated metropolises benefited from an industrial economy, manufacturing technology based goods and the products that support them.
The south on the other hand was supported by a plantation structure which allowed them to grow and harvest slaves much like they did their agriculture and proliferate this culture of slavery to support and grow its agricultural based economy. Because of the free labor the south employed and the nature of trade not only between the north and the south but also between the states and Europe, it was inevitable that the North and the South would find conflict. The only way the North could compete with the South's slave produced goods was to impose tariffs on imported goods; a policy which the south rejected. This form of currency manipulation not only strengthened the South's economy, it also began to drive the North out of once held markets in Europe. This began to weaken the North's currency and threaten their economy, to the point that the only alternative to reconcile this beleaguered relationship was conflict. The South realized their growing power and with the support of Britain made plans to form their own nation. This could not be more clearly illuminated than in the Trent Affair in 1861. Slavery, you see, had absolutely nothing to do with it. The only way to keep the South from successful succession, after failed diplomacy, was war. The only reason the emancipation proclamation was announced was to prohibit elements of the south from gaining the upper hand in the future. Remember, the west was not yet won.
So how was the truth about this pivotal time in our history obscured? I point to America's obsession with the notion of moral superiority. The fact of the matter is that we are morally superior to no one. This nation is just as capable and demonstrative of evil as the communist states of the 70's and the Imperial powers of Europe in the 18th century. There is nothing about this United States of America which gives us any ethical benevolence in comparison with the world around us. In truth, any "good" that America has proliferated has come about mainly from our leaders' knowledge of the evil we garnered and spread throughout generations. Abraham Lincoln was no exception. There was nothing that President Lincoln stood for or believed in that pitted him morally, ethically or otherwise against the evil of slavery or its institution. It was and still is a mere political opportunity to view his presidency as an opportunity for the halls off this nation's power to gain some sense of responsibility and accolade for its abandonment. And in truth, slavery was outlawed as a result of the civil war. But understand that it was outlawed because of economical and political gain. Not out of any sense of moral obligation.
You must understand the reason this entire discussion holds merit. Aside from the propaganda, lies, and absolute need for truth. Our current economic position as a nation has everything to do with the same reasons we went to war in 1865. It is because of our negligence as a nation in supporting the truth about the Civil War that we now find ourselves compromised as a nation once again, in much the same way the north was compromised. Free trade with a nation or power that produces its goods with slave or cheap labor spells disaster for our domestic markets unless we counter this economic imbalance with tariffs. We owe our current economic crisis to our obscurement of our own history. For it is impossible to learn the lessons of history if the truth of our history is covered up, omitted and egotistically inflated. For now China serves as our Southern parallel of 1865 and the Federal Reserve appears as our antebellum loan shark. In light of it all, the movie "Lincoln" could not have come about at a more opportune time. Yet it is only necessary in theaters if we are bold enough to look past historical lies and see the truth behind the screenplay and cinematography. The lessons of the Civil War therefore have nothing to do with slavery. Any fool can tell you that slavery is not good for a nation, least of all one that heralds itself on the equality of all men. Do not allow history to be told to you Learn it instead. Study it and decipher it. Understand the truth about our Civil War and the president who presided over it.
Those who do so will find that the lies are only believed because it gives the proponents of the decadence of slavery some sense of moral fabric to weave their scarlet robe of a more perfect Union.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Bush Legacy
As I watch intently, almost obsessively, the current world events; chaos in the middle east spawned by fallen dictators, a nuclear Iran hell bent on destroying its neighbor Israel, and economic catastrophe that has swept western civilization up in waves of fear and paranoia, a globe that is becoming increasingly hotter and an over reliance on a finite energy source that is drying up, I cannot help but feel a sense of impending doom. Perhaps I am not alone. Is it just me, or has the world taken on an almost conspiratorial overtone? One cannot actually believe that all these world events are working independently of each other without any common interest. Overwhelmingly, the argument can be made that it all can be traced to the gradual decline of American influence. In other words: America, the modern empire, is falling. Our military might is present but it lacks fortitude. Our economy is still the largest but it lacks manufacturing. Our education is renown but quickly falling. Our government is democratic but it is controlled by the Federal Reserve. There is a proverbial saying: "Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master over all industry and commerce... when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or the other, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." -James Garfield, 20th US President
Assassinated 1881
Those words are not only true, they are haunting for the same can be said about debt. No empire or world power has remained in power without a strong economy. I point to the Soviet Union; Great Britain, France and even Rome whose inflation was documented by the fact that their coins were so full of worthless metal that their monetary system collapsed. Does this system of worthless currency sound hauntingly familiar? The fall of every empire can be traced back to the empire's ailing economic state. If history is accurate then, we are led to believe that the great United States of America, the sole superpower of the world is receding from decades of dominance, retreating from the amber waves of power and greatness no other nation has ever known. And this is all happening because we are running out of money here at home. Our debt has finally overrun our ability to create revenue domestically, as in our GNP is consumed by our debt. The fact of the matter is that this nation is over $16T dollars in debt. And the only reason we as a nation are able to continue operating is because investors, both foreign and domestic to include nations like China and India, are holding the debt for us. These are loans that cannot be defaulted on. The Chinese will not allow it. The system will not allow it. For if we fail to repay our debt with interest, our nation's credit rating will fall yet again as it already did last year in July and we will be exposed to the world as a nation with worthless currency incapable of stabilizing our finances. There will be nowhere to hide Yet these are loans that will not be paid off by continuing our current trajectory as a nation. These are loans that may very well triple within the next ten years. This truth should cause every American great consternation; now and for the lives of future American generations. For given our current stagnant GDP and no relief in sight, the only way for America to continue operations as a nation is to continue to accrue more debt, which means the lives of American citizens are already monetarily red before they are even born. U.S. debtclock.org states that every American is $185,788 in debt because of the national debt owed by the federal government. And every family $700,649 in debt by comparison.
By contrast, according to CNBC, our debt holders are listed as follows: Taiwan, $184.4B, Caribbean Banking Centers, $224.8B, Brazil, $237.4B, Insurance companies, $253.7B, Oil exporters, $254.5B, Depository institutions, $286.3B, Medicare Trust Funds, $324.57B, state and local governments, $444.6B, Mutual funds, $797.9B, Pension funds, $903.4B, Japan, 1.083T, Savings bonds, $1.102T, China $1.169T, Federal Reserve, $1.659T, Social security trust funds, $2.67T. Might I suggest that these numbers are slightly as cued. For if you understand the nature of the Federal Reserve, you understand that U.S. debt held by domestic entities are also controlled by the Fed. Therefore you must understand that it is not China who controls our debt, rather a select few individuals we have given authority to monopolize the counterfeiting of US currency. In other words the Fed does not actually lend any money to anyone, it simply counterfeits currency into thin air. To speak plainly, this is $1.659T that will never be paid for. Understand that because of this power to print money, the US no longer has a permanent money supply, meaning that the stock market, lending rates, banks, and every company in America has money that is in fact, worthless because what ever money we claim to have is no longer based on a gold or even oil standard, but a debt standard. And that debt is currently hovering around $16T. This is the state of our economy. This is the reality of America's post modern era.
So the question is: How does America stay in business? How can our country afford to operate even on a basic level? The answer is a startling one. Debt. Puzzled? I refer to my friend John Wagner: in USA Today's January issue Wagner states that: "The last time the nation's debt was this big compared with gross domestic product — 70.4% of GDP — was immediately following World War II." In fact the number was actually 121.7% of GDP. Before the war, may I remind you this nation was delirious with the Great Depression. Yet after the war, the United States' economy flourished and manufacturing jobs exploded so that the debt percentage reached a low of 24.6% by 1974. The cause of America's massive debt as well as it's massive wealth was the war. For in entering World War 2 and rescuing Europe from Nazi Germany, we held the debt of these nations and profited from it's rebuilding. If it wasn't for the war, America would not be the wealthy superpower it is today. I will not enter the conspiracy theories that allege that we helped sponsor the Third Reich any more than I will indulge in the theories that the US sponsors terrorism. But I must point out that America has a history of getting involved in wars because, to our credit, we understand the true nature of warfare perhaps better than anyone else. I think the movie "The International" stated it best: "Whoever controls the debt controls everything" While other nations go to war over religion, territory and generational feuds, the US has continuously sought to control the debt.
Understand that the Federal Reserve System was established in 1913. It's foundation was an admission that humanity had outgrown its vast natural resources. This calculated move was a preemptive graduation from wars for the sake of land and resources. For democracy had established a new modern justification for conflict just as it had justified a new era of currency. The most powerful people on earth were to be the people who controlled the greatest amount of debt. Not gold, not oil, not produce, not territory. These people are not China. These people are not India. These people are not the US anymore. These people are the Federal Reserve.
Bill Clinton realized this when he signed NAFTA, the death certificate for American manufacturing jobs. But what choice did he have? He realized that American manufacturing jobs had slowed down and would get only slower. He understood that free trade would keep the manufacturing industry from imploding completely. It is why he also signed the affordable housing act, a bill that consequently produced the great recession. Understand the President Clinton presided over the accumulation of fraudulent wealth; there was nothing legitimate about it. Manufacturing jobs disappeared after Europe was rebuilt, the unions were threatening to bankrupt what was left and therefore, in order to keep US businesses alive they had to be allowed to move overseas. So how do you replace this all important source of economic growth? You cannot. So he did the next best thing. He lied; he created an environment to engineer false wealth. He lowered Wall Street regulations, signed the Fair Housing Act and created Fannie and Freddie to cover it all up and allowed people with no money access to homes they could not pay for but could refinance two to three times over to access even more credit they could never pay back. But how else was he going to convince the citizens and the world that America was still the wealthiest nation on the planet? What one president signed into law, another president paid for and I contend this is why George W. Bush went to war in the middle east. It is ok if it does not make sense, for it will in ten years. Iraq will begin to rebuild its nation into a modern civilization and it will be Iraq that plays the greatest role in building and modernizing the rest of war torn middle east including Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan and all the surrounding Muslim nations that hate America. For you are missing the important key component in all of this; the Federal Reserve does not care if a nation hates this country, nor should they. Their hatred has nothing to do with profit. Creating infrastructure costs money and will require manufacturing. The money will come from America which is backed by the Fed. So will the Muslim world's industries as they are built and modernized. So will their militaries as they swell and are weaponized. Much like World War 2, the jobs will be created here in the United States of America because war is an institution not just a state of aggression and the debt that we now owe will be offset by the debt which we hold. The well kept secret is that it already is. Make no mistake about it, it is why Saddam Husein had to die and Iraq was invaded. It is why Khaddafi fell and Libya was "liberated" it is why Hosni Mubarak was killed. It is why bin Laden was exalted to defeat the Soviet Union by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush Senior and then executed decades later by the same people who gave him power.
How do I know that these middle eastern wars were created for profit? Because America has never entered any war without a plan for profit. It is the way of capitalism, it is our nature and nature does not change. Was George W. Bush a bumbling fool like he was depicted? In a word, no. His father was the head of the CIA. Do you think he entered war idiotically? Heck, the man was from Texas, he is a cowboy and acted as such. Could we expect any less? But he was no fool. He could not help the fact that he had to deal with the fraudulent behaviour of Bill Clinton. The bumbling fool will be the president who happens to be in office when the modernization of the middle east begins. He will have to deal with the duplicity of a middle east that hates us but is also our greatest source of wealth. This "bumbling fool", as it were, is Barack Obama who will be elected to a second term and under his presidency will begin the process of exporting goods and products to rebuild the middle east, thereby boosting America's stagnant economy once more. It is why he appears to now be taking a conciliatory role towards the Muslim world and a passive role towards Israel. It is why we have not yet become energy independent because we as a nation consume 26% of the worlds oil supply, by far the greatest percentage of every other nation on earth. Our government, controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, understands that in order for true profit to be earned from our wars in the Muslim world, the middle east must remain wealthy. It is the only way we can control their debt and profit without fear of default. For it is the only part of the world with true wealth that has not been financially destroyed by the greed of capitalism. We never went over there for the oil. Oil is a finite resource that keeps the middle east wealthy so that they can afford to by our products, goods and services when it is time to begin building a modern middle east. We went over there to control the debt of the nations that own the oil. This was the greater ambition than oil itself and will soon be known as: The Bush Legacy.
Assassinated 1881
Those words are not only true, they are haunting for the same can be said about debt. No empire or world power has remained in power without a strong economy. I point to the Soviet Union; Great Britain, France and even Rome whose inflation was documented by the fact that their coins were so full of worthless metal that their monetary system collapsed. Does this system of worthless currency sound hauntingly familiar? The fall of every empire can be traced back to the empire's ailing economic state. If history is accurate then, we are led to believe that the great United States of America, the sole superpower of the world is receding from decades of dominance, retreating from the amber waves of power and greatness no other nation has ever known. And this is all happening because we are running out of money here at home. Our debt has finally overrun our ability to create revenue domestically, as in our GNP is consumed by our debt. The fact of the matter is that this nation is over $16T dollars in debt. And the only reason we as a nation are able to continue operating is because investors, both foreign and domestic to include nations like China and India, are holding the debt for us. These are loans that cannot be defaulted on. The Chinese will not allow it. The system will not allow it. For if we fail to repay our debt with interest, our nation's credit rating will fall yet again as it already did last year in July and we will be exposed to the world as a nation with worthless currency incapable of stabilizing our finances. There will be nowhere to hide Yet these are loans that will not be paid off by continuing our current trajectory as a nation. These are loans that may very well triple within the next ten years. This truth should cause every American great consternation; now and for the lives of future American generations. For given our current stagnant GDP and no relief in sight, the only way for America to continue operations as a nation is to continue to accrue more debt, which means the lives of American citizens are already monetarily red before they are even born. U.S. debtclock.org states that every American is $185,788 in debt because of the national debt owed by the federal government. And every family $700,649 in debt by comparison.
By contrast, according to CNBC, our debt holders are listed as follows: Taiwan, $184.4B, Caribbean Banking Centers, $224.8B, Brazil, $237.4B, Insurance companies, $253.7B, Oil exporters, $254.5B, Depository institutions, $286.3B, Medicare Trust Funds, $324.57B, state and local governments, $444.6B, Mutual funds, $797.9B, Pension funds, $903.4B, Japan, 1.083T, Savings bonds, $1.102T, China $1.169T, Federal Reserve, $1.659T, Social security trust funds, $2.67T. Might I suggest that these numbers are slightly as cued. For if you understand the nature of the Federal Reserve, you understand that U.S. debt held by domestic entities are also controlled by the Fed. Therefore you must understand that it is not China who controls our debt, rather a select few individuals we have given authority to monopolize the counterfeiting of US currency. In other words the Fed does not actually lend any money to anyone, it simply counterfeits currency into thin air. To speak plainly, this is $1.659T that will never be paid for. Understand that because of this power to print money, the US no longer has a permanent money supply, meaning that the stock market, lending rates, banks, and every company in America has money that is in fact, worthless because what ever money we claim to have is no longer based on a gold or even oil standard, but a debt standard. And that debt is currently hovering around $16T. This is the state of our economy. This is the reality of America's post modern era.
So the question is: How does America stay in business? How can our country afford to operate even on a basic level? The answer is a startling one. Debt. Puzzled? I refer to my friend John Wagner: in USA Today's January issue Wagner states that: "The last time the nation's debt was this big compared with gross domestic product — 70.4% of GDP — was immediately following World War II." In fact the number was actually 121.7% of GDP. Before the war, may I remind you this nation was delirious with the Great Depression. Yet after the war, the United States' economy flourished and manufacturing jobs exploded so that the debt percentage reached a low of 24.6% by 1974. The cause of America's massive debt as well as it's massive wealth was the war. For in entering World War 2 and rescuing Europe from Nazi Germany, we held the debt of these nations and profited from it's rebuilding. If it wasn't for the war, America would not be the wealthy superpower it is today. I will not enter the conspiracy theories that allege that we helped sponsor the Third Reich any more than I will indulge in the theories that the US sponsors terrorism. But I must point out that America has a history of getting involved in wars because, to our credit, we understand the true nature of warfare perhaps better than anyone else. I think the movie "The International" stated it best: "Whoever controls the debt controls everything" While other nations go to war over religion, territory and generational feuds, the US has continuously sought to control the debt.
Understand that the Federal Reserve System was established in 1913. It's foundation was an admission that humanity had outgrown its vast natural resources. This calculated move was a preemptive graduation from wars for the sake of land and resources. For democracy had established a new modern justification for conflict just as it had justified a new era of currency. The most powerful people on earth were to be the people who controlled the greatest amount of debt. Not gold, not oil, not produce, not territory. These people are not China. These people are not India. These people are not the US anymore. These people are the Federal Reserve.
Bill Clinton realized this when he signed NAFTA, the death certificate for American manufacturing jobs. But what choice did he have? He realized that American manufacturing jobs had slowed down and would get only slower. He understood that free trade would keep the manufacturing industry from imploding completely. It is why he also signed the affordable housing act, a bill that consequently produced the great recession. Understand the President Clinton presided over the accumulation of fraudulent wealth; there was nothing legitimate about it. Manufacturing jobs disappeared after Europe was rebuilt, the unions were threatening to bankrupt what was left and therefore, in order to keep US businesses alive they had to be allowed to move overseas. So how do you replace this all important source of economic growth? You cannot. So he did the next best thing. He lied; he created an environment to engineer false wealth. He lowered Wall Street regulations, signed the Fair Housing Act and created Fannie and Freddie to cover it all up and allowed people with no money access to homes they could not pay for but could refinance two to three times over to access even more credit they could never pay back. But how else was he going to convince the citizens and the world that America was still the wealthiest nation on the planet? What one president signed into law, another president paid for and I contend this is why George W. Bush went to war in the middle east. It is ok if it does not make sense, for it will in ten years. Iraq will begin to rebuild its nation into a modern civilization and it will be Iraq that plays the greatest role in building and modernizing the rest of war torn middle east including Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan and all the surrounding Muslim nations that hate America. For you are missing the important key component in all of this; the Federal Reserve does not care if a nation hates this country, nor should they. Their hatred has nothing to do with profit. Creating infrastructure costs money and will require manufacturing. The money will come from America which is backed by the Fed. So will the Muslim world's industries as they are built and modernized. So will their militaries as they swell and are weaponized. Much like World War 2, the jobs will be created here in the United States of America because war is an institution not just a state of aggression and the debt that we now owe will be offset by the debt which we hold. The well kept secret is that it already is. Make no mistake about it, it is why Saddam Husein had to die and Iraq was invaded. It is why Khaddafi fell and Libya was "liberated" it is why Hosni Mubarak was killed. It is why bin Laden was exalted to defeat the Soviet Union by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush Senior and then executed decades later by the same people who gave him power.
How do I know that these middle eastern wars were created for profit? Because America has never entered any war without a plan for profit. It is the way of capitalism, it is our nature and nature does not change. Was George W. Bush a bumbling fool like he was depicted? In a word, no. His father was the head of the CIA. Do you think he entered war idiotically? Heck, the man was from Texas, he is a cowboy and acted as such. Could we expect any less? But he was no fool. He could not help the fact that he had to deal with the fraudulent behaviour of Bill Clinton. The bumbling fool will be the president who happens to be in office when the modernization of the middle east begins. He will have to deal with the duplicity of a middle east that hates us but is also our greatest source of wealth. This "bumbling fool", as it were, is Barack Obama who will be elected to a second term and under his presidency will begin the process of exporting goods and products to rebuild the middle east, thereby boosting America's stagnant economy once more. It is why he appears to now be taking a conciliatory role towards the Muslim world and a passive role towards Israel. It is why we have not yet become energy independent because we as a nation consume 26% of the worlds oil supply, by far the greatest percentage of every other nation on earth. Our government, controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, understands that in order for true profit to be earned from our wars in the Muslim world, the middle east must remain wealthy. It is the only way we can control their debt and profit without fear of default. For it is the only part of the world with true wealth that has not been financially destroyed by the greed of capitalism. We never went over there for the oil. Oil is a finite resource that keeps the middle east wealthy so that they can afford to by our products, goods and services when it is time to begin building a modern middle east. We went over there to control the debt of the nations that own the oil. This was the greater ambition than oil itself and will soon be known as: The Bush Legacy.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Morality of Ages (pt.2)
Fact: the pledge of allegiance never had the phrase: "one nation under God". The Pledge was written in 1892 by a man named Francis Bellamy a baptist minister who believed in equality, justice and liberty for all men. In truth, the Pledge never included the United States of America. Understand that at the time of this nation's founding America was made up of many different nationalities and it was this fact that prevented Francis from making a specific reference to a country. This is a look at how the Pledge changed over time:
In its original form it read:
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
And yet, as we see plainly the pledge as it was originally created and evidence of why the pledge omitted key languages that we have now included, there are still groups in this country who claim that America was founded on Christianity. That it's founders were likewise Christian and created this nation on biblical precepts. Truth or myth?
"There was a religious element to the American Revolution, which was so pronounced that you could just as well view the event in religious as in political terms. Many of the founders, especially the Southerners, were rebelling simultaneously against state-church oppression and English rule. The Connecticut Baptists saw Jefferson — an anti-Federalist who was bitterly opposed to the idea of establishment churches — as a friend. “Our constitution of government,” they wrote, “is not specific” with regard to a guarantee of religious freedoms that would protect them. Might the president offer some thoughts that, “like the radiant beams of the sun,” would shed light on the intent of the framers? In his reply, Jefferson said it was not the place of the president to involve himself in religion, and he expressed his belief that the First Amendment’s clauses — that the government must not establish a state religion (the so-called establishment clause) but also that it must ensure the free exercise of religion (what became known as the free-exercise clause) — meant, as far as he was concerned, that there was “a wall of separation between Church & State.” " -New York Times Feb 14 2010
In February 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a conservative Christian named Major Greene. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Questioned on the matter of Jesus' divinity, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for we puny humans to understand.
Adams was not impressed. In his diary he wrote, "Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
As president, Adams signed the famous Treaty of Tripoli, which boldly stated, "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ..."
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/five-founders-who-were-skeptical-of-organized-Christianity-and-couldn't-be-elected-today-218705/#ixzz26oggGmP1
I am not suggesting that this nation and its founders did not believe in God. But the evidence points to a Deist approach to God as opposed to a christian one. A tolerant religious view as opposed to exclusivity. And who can blame them? After all they were creating a nation in which its citizens, and themselves included, had sought refuge from the religious sponsored state rule of Europe. So why then do many people today insist that America was built on Christianity? It is the widely held view of many conservatives that America's decline is because we have drifted from the christian principles on which this country was founded. My question is a simple one. What christian principles? The genocide of the indigenous people of this land? The pillaging of a "dark continent" stripping it of natural resources and enslaving their people? The slaughter of those people as they forced them to adapt to a new land for free labor? How exactly are these atrocities- at the foundation of this nation's inception- consistent with the widely held view that America was founded on christian principles? How is it that a nation which rose to prominence on immorality now claims by a religious select, that it's decline is because of an abandonment of those same values it never had?
I will not deny that there has been a drastic change in the barometer of immoral behavior in the U.S. the facts are clear that there has been as clearly outline by this blog's previous posting. But I suggest in this blog not that immorality is a false concept but that immorality gains traction the more pervasive intolerance becomes. For it is intolerance that foreshadows the fall of world powers, not immorality for it is intolerance that obscures truth and abuses power.
Constantine the Great. Much is made of this man in religious history. He is the man who united Rome from certain ruin by defeating Maxentius from the west after he saw a large cross in the sky. The story goes on to say that Constantine drew courage from this sign, drawing it on that of his troops and road divinely to victory, disposing of the pagan Maxentius and his blasphemous legions. But let us examine the story more carefully. There were 10 emperors of Rome who carried out systematic persecutions of the early church: "Many people have heard of Nero throwing Christians to the lions, but Nero isn't the only emperor who is accused of having persecuted the early Christians. The following are the emperors under whose rule you find the 10 major persecutions of Christians during the Roman Empire.
Under each persecution the faith only grew in number, influence and power, spreading from the common ranks of society to the affluent and wealthy. Could it be that unlike his predecessors, Constantine realized that he could be the first emperor to reign supreme under a unified Rome since Theodosius I? After all it was Theodosius who legalized Christianity and made Christianity Rome's official religion. Could it be that Constantine saw this move, radical from all the other emperors in Rome's history, as politically gainful and decided to follow suit? If so, why is it that Rome endured after Theodosius but met its demise under Constantine? What was different about these two men and their religious beliefs? If you look closely you will find that both men were politicians as well as generals and that gaining popularity with a religious group of power and influence would in turn make their position stronger but I suggest that Constantine erred in taking it too far. For while Theodosius established Christianity as the religion of the state, Constantine began to persecute the pagans. "Constantine gave one great boon to the Christians--he legalized their religion. From then on it rapidly gained more followers and began edging out the pagan cults. Soon it was the pagans being persecuted. Rioting monks trashed temples and killed pagan philosophers like Hypatia. In 382 the Altar of Victory was removed from its centuries-old home in the Senate. In 391 paganism was outlawed and temples shut all over the Empire. The old cults hung on for a few generations in rural areas, but Christianity was now the dominant power."-The death of paganism: how the Roman Empire converted to Christianity
In its original form it read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."According to John W. Baer who wrote "The Pledge of Allegiance A Short Story" Francis wanted to include the words equality but didn't because slaves and women were denied the rights given to white men. "His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]"
And yet, as we see plainly the pledge as it was originally created and evidence of why the pledge omitted key languages that we have now included, there are still groups in this country who claim that America was founded on Christianity. That it's founders were likewise Christian and created this nation on biblical precepts. Truth or myth?
"There was a religious element to the American Revolution, which was so pronounced that you could just as well view the event in religious as in political terms. Many of the founders, especially the Southerners, were rebelling simultaneously against state-church oppression and English rule. The Connecticut Baptists saw Jefferson — an anti-Federalist who was bitterly opposed to the idea of establishment churches — as a friend. “Our constitution of government,” they wrote, “is not specific” with regard to a guarantee of religious freedoms that would protect them. Might the president offer some thoughts that, “like the radiant beams of the sun,” would shed light on the intent of the framers? In his reply, Jefferson said it was not the place of the president to involve himself in religion, and he expressed his belief that the First Amendment’s clauses — that the government must not establish a state religion (the so-called establishment clause) but also that it must ensure the free exercise of religion (what became known as the free-exercise clause) — meant, as far as he was concerned, that there was “a wall of separation between Church & State.” " -New York Times Feb 14 2010
In February 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a conservative Christian named Major Greene. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Questioned on the matter of Jesus' divinity, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for we puny humans to understand.
Adams was not impressed. In his diary he wrote, "Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
As president, Adams signed the famous Treaty of Tripoli, which boldly stated, "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ..."
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/five-founders-who-were-skeptical-of-organized-Christianity-and-couldn't-be-elected-today-218705/#ixzz26oggGmP1
I am not suggesting that this nation and its founders did not believe in God. But the evidence points to a Deist approach to God as opposed to a christian one. A tolerant religious view as opposed to exclusivity. And who can blame them? After all they were creating a nation in which its citizens, and themselves included, had sought refuge from the religious sponsored state rule of Europe. So why then do many people today insist that America was built on Christianity? It is the widely held view of many conservatives that America's decline is because we have drifted from the christian principles on which this country was founded. My question is a simple one. What christian principles? The genocide of the indigenous people of this land? The pillaging of a "dark continent" stripping it of natural resources and enslaving their people? The slaughter of those people as they forced them to adapt to a new land for free labor? How exactly are these atrocities- at the foundation of this nation's inception- consistent with the widely held view that America was founded on christian principles? How is it that a nation which rose to prominence on immorality now claims by a religious select, that it's decline is because of an abandonment of those same values it never had?
I will not deny that there has been a drastic change in the barometer of immoral behavior in the U.S. the facts are clear that there has been as clearly outline by this blog's previous posting. But I suggest in this blog not that immorality is a false concept but that immorality gains traction the more pervasive intolerance becomes. For it is intolerance that foreshadows the fall of world powers, not immorality for it is intolerance that obscures truth and abuses power.
Constantine the Great. Much is made of this man in religious history. He is the man who united Rome from certain ruin by defeating Maxentius from the west after he saw a large cross in the sky. The story goes on to say that Constantine drew courage from this sign, drawing it on that of his troops and road divinely to victory, disposing of the pagan Maxentius and his blasphemous legions. But let us examine the story more carefully. There were 10 emperors of Rome who carried out systematic persecutions of the early church: "Many people have heard of Nero throwing Christians to the lions, but Nero isn't the only emperor who is accused of having persecuted the early Christians. The following are the emperors under whose rule you find the 10 major persecutions of Christians during the Roman Empire.
- Nero (64 A.D.)
- Domitian (c.90-96)
- Trajan (98-117)
- Hadrian (117-138)
- Marcus Aurelius (161-181)
- Septimus Severus (202-211)
- Maximus the Thracian (235-251)
- Decius (249-251)
- Valerian (257-260)
- Diocletian / Galerius (303-311"
Under each persecution the faith only grew in number, influence and power, spreading from the common ranks of society to the affluent and wealthy. Could it be that unlike his predecessors, Constantine realized that he could be the first emperor to reign supreme under a unified Rome since Theodosius I? After all it was Theodosius who legalized Christianity and made Christianity Rome's official religion. Could it be that Constantine saw this move, radical from all the other emperors in Rome's history, as politically gainful and decided to follow suit? If so, why is it that Rome endured after Theodosius but met its demise under Constantine? What was different about these two men and their religious beliefs? If you look closely you will find that both men were politicians as well as generals and that gaining popularity with a religious group of power and influence would in turn make their position stronger but I suggest that Constantine erred in taking it too far. For while Theodosius established Christianity as the religion of the state, Constantine began to persecute the pagans. "Constantine gave one great boon to the Christians--he legalized their religion. From then on it rapidly gained more followers and began edging out the pagan cults. Soon it was the pagans being persecuted. Rioting monks trashed temples and killed pagan philosophers like Hypatia. In 382 the Altar of Victory was removed from its centuries-old home in the Senate. In 391 paganism was outlawed and temples shut all over the Empire. The old cults hung on for a few generations in rural areas, but Christianity was now the dominant power."-The death of paganism: how the Roman Empire converted to Christianity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)