Sunday, March 25, 2007

Eric Rudolph Allocution

ERIC RUDOLPH ALLOCUTION (Birmingham court) July 18, 2005 AD

I'm here today to be sentenced for my actions on January 29, 1998. On that date I detonated a bomb at an abortion mill here in Birmingham, killing the abortion mill's security guard and injuring one of the abortion mill's employees. I had nothing personal against either of these individuals, Sanderson and Lyons. I did not target them for who they were - but for what they did. What they did was participate in the murder and dismemberment of upwards of 50 children a week. Even though the security guard, Sanderson, may have been ambivalent about the politics of abortion, he volunteered to wield a weapon in defense of these murderers, as they went about their gruesome work. And this makes him just as culpable as the murderers themselves.

My actions that day were motivated by my recognition that abortion is murder. Because it is murder, I believe that deadly force is indeed justified in an attempt to stop it. I do not claim this as a right but rather consider it the moral duty to come to the defense of my fellow man when he is under attack. This is an essential concept embedded in Western Civilization - that we are our brother's keeper.

Abortion on demand is a return to the ancient practice of infanticide. Whether it is to protect their limited food supply by killing off excess children, or whether in obedience to taboo, most primitive societies practice infanticide. When excess or tabooed children are born they are exposed, burnt, have their skulls bashed in with rocks, or they aredrowned in water. Among the savages, the strong control the weak as property to be disposed of at will. There is no inherent value attached to human life. People must serve a purpose or they can be subjected to death at the hands of the strong. This is how the Yanomamo of the Amazon and the New Guinea highlanders have lived for thousands ofyears. The ideas that underpin civilization – inherent rights, justice, fair play – don't exist among the primitives. Human weakness is less tolerated. Only the strong survive, and all obey the eternal decrees of nature that I'm not my brother's keeper, unless my brother serves some material advantage. Because of this children are disposed of at will.

It was a huge advancement when man stepped out of the jungle of self-interest and started to organize society on the idea of being our brother's keeper, of owing some measure of deference to our fellow man. Mankind traveled light-years on this concept of service to others. It is the bedrock of morality and has made higher civilization possible. This concept demanded rights and enforceable laws, with the notion of fairness and protection for all equally situated citizens. With this the weak were offered some measure of protection from the strong. Values were promoted respecting the unique dignity of the individual, whether he was weak, strong, poor, rich, young or old. Of course, civilization has struggled against the forces of barbarism embedded in human nature: slavery was tolerated for centuries but finally abolished .

Then in 1973 America took a giant step back into the shadows of the jungle when it decided to legalize abortion on demand. Thousands of years of moral progress were sacrificed upon the altar of selfishness and materialism. A new barbarism, a culture of death has now taken root in America. The state is no longer the protector of the innocent, promoting values that challenge the darker angels of human nature, but now it is the handmaiden of the new hedonism, supporting the citizen in a lifestyle of selfishness and decadence. It is a black, nasty decadence; the kind that will sacrifice a child to one's vanity or ambition. Rights which were created to protect life are now used to protect the killer, the savage painted in the blood of innocent children. Fundamental rights such as the right to life have now been twisted into the prerogatives of the barbarian ogre satisfying his lifestyle of self-indulgence. The abortion mill has become an integral part of this philosophy of self-indulgence. It is the necessary adjunct to the sexual license that goes with the orgy of modern life. It is the vomitorium of modernity helping the hedonistic partiers disgorge the unwanted consequences of their sexual license.

The purveyors of the culture of death tell us that the abortionist is the hero of the new progressive ethos of tolerance and diversity, laboring selflessly to protect our most sacred rights. A wise man once said that there is nothing new under the sun. And this is especially true of the abortionist. Far from being the paragon of progress, the abortionist is a barbarian taking us back to the jungle, back to the savage wielding the bloody rock over the helpless child's skull.

Hide abortion as you will behind the thin veneer of legality and technology, but it is still the same bloody practice of infanticide, the same concept of humans as property. Instead of the crude methods of exposure, the new barbarian performs her murders behind the sterile white gown of medical technology. The skull is no longer crushed by a rock, now the scalpel and anesthesia quickly, efficiently dispatch the victim. The scream of the helpless infant no longer echoes through the lonely forest, instead the cry of the innocent child is silenced in the womb by saline and suction machine. Clean, quiet, respectable – the modern killer goes about her trade.

But make no mistake, despite the methods used the intention is the same: and that is the disposal of unwanted property. The new law even acknowledges that the child is property by leaving the protection of the infant to the discretion of the mother. Like the master of a slave, the mother can access the protection of the laws for her unborn child if she chooses. There are laws protecting the unborn from assault if she chooses to recognize the child's worth. And also like the master of a slave, the pregnant mother can dispose of her child as unwanted property through abortion. The child, the child has no inherent value. This is the law of the jungle, barbarism.

On the other hand, the values of civilization recognizing that we are our brother's keeper, demand, for example, that the driver slow down and halt for the jaywalker that passes in front of his car. Likewise, the values of civilization should demand of the mother that she must slow down and let the unexpected child pass through her life. The culture of death, the new barbarism says, “Keep your morality away from my property. I don't have time to stop for the child; I don't have nine months to waste on the unwanted child passing before the wheels of my life.” It is a great poverty of humanity, a supreme diminution of morality to counsel a woman to build her independence and career upon the corpse of her unwanted child. This is not progress, this is not humanity, this is a return to barbarism and the culture of death.

What I did on January 29, 1998, was pull back the lid on this stinking vat of vomit, revealing the murderers behind the new “progressive” society. For this reason I'm hated. As I stand in this courtroom today I can feel the eyes of hatred upon me. However, I understand where the hatred comes from. The haters are like junkies or drunks beingconfronted with their vile behavior, causing them to react with burning hatred for the person who points out their addiction.

America was a great country, like a ship of discovery sailing straight and true to new lands. Then in 1973 its rudder was jammed and now it veers wildly on the seas of moral uncertainty. This country that put a man on the moon, now will not provide enough sustenance to care for its own children. This country has enough food to feed the world, but not an ounce of milk to spare for another child. Americans have the technology to satisfy any desire, but can't bring themselves to slow down for nine months as another human being passes through their lives. This country promotes a culture of selfishness and death and tells its daughters that their lives will be wasted if they bring an unplanned pregnancy to term. Every variety of filth is tolerated and aggressively pushed with the complete support of the state – abortion, homosexuality, pornography – but this country does not tolerate the values of life, family, and human dignity. They celebrate the likes of Hugh Hefner, Larry Flint, and Howard Stern as reflections of the American spirit, but those who attempt to save the lives of unborn children and who wish to promote a culture that respects life are now treated as fanatics, threats to American freedom. Britney Spears, Eminem, and Madonna are held up for our children as heroes, but the names of America's great men are now drug through the mud. And more heinous still, this country lionizes the fallen abortionist as a martyr for freedom, but he who attempted to knock the bloody knife out of her hand is treated as a criminal, standing in the docket for sentence.

God is not fooled, posterity will certainly judge differently. Even if it should take ten years, 50 years, or 500 years before this black night of barbarism is swept into the dustbin of history, I will be vindicated, my actions in Birmingham that overcast day in January of 1998 will be vindicated. And as I go to a prison cell for a lifetime, I know that “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course. I have kept the faith.”

Friday, December 15, 2006

Sympathy for Dick

Sympathy for Mr. Cheney

To prepare for this article:

by F. Tupper Saussy

Now that Michael Ruppert ( has shown that the whole 9/11 attack on America was masterminded and overseen by Dick Cheney, I suppose the Vice-President is preparing an apologist to take the heat. Of course, the media gateways will do everything in their power to prevent the public's being as informed as Mr. Ruppert, but thanks to the internet, people are being brought up to speed very quickly.

Before too long, millions of people are likely to be furious, perhaps even vengeful, at Mr. Cheney. He has thus far been very effective at enshrouding his responsibilities in darkness and confusion, but I doubt that he is prepared to defend in the clear light of day. Until his apologist appears, I hereby tender my unsolicited services, but only pro tem.

The United States of America (USA) is a type of corporation, having a President, Vice-President, a cabinet serving as the equivalent of a board of directors, and millions of stockholders who, by voting, give power to congressmen and senators to represent their interests in the corporation. Should individual stockholders grow dissatisfied with a representative, satisfaction is often unattainable until the representative stands for re-election, and even then is not assured.

The President is also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, which means that the USA is a war-making corporation, having a beast's capacity to exercise life and death power over its inferiors. Indeed, the biblical term "beast" best describes the heart, soul and nature of the USA, which after all confesses itself to be a beast (an eagle), while its dominant political parties characterize themselves as an elephant and an ass.

The USA lives in a beast's reality, a military reality defined by generals, men and women who have risen to supremacy through successful competition. Competition produces winners and losers, and generals are winners. The Commander-in-Chief is the general of generals: the Superior General. But he has an alter ego. If, in order to structure a deeply secret operation, the President is unable to act as Superior General, Art. 2 Sec. 1, clause 6 of the Constitution empowers the Vice-President "to discharge the Powers and Duties" of the presidency in case of presidential inability.

Every general knows that winning, whether in war or the jungle, requires exceptional skills in deception. A well-designed and executed ruse, aimed at an enemy or the general's own men or nation, can confound, instill fear, provoke to fruitless extremes, tap precious resources, sap energies, and ultimately make the general a conqueror with very little actual combat. The ruse is, by far, the most economical weapon in the Commander-in-Chief's arsenal.

As Michael Ruppert's evidence clearly shows, the events of 9/11 were a ruse. The objective of the ruse was to motivate, first, the American public and then other nations, to surrender voluntarily, in the illusion of avenging an indefinite nemesis, huge amounts of private rights and wealth to development projects in the middle east. At a cost of less than 4,000 lives and minimal expense of materiel, the Commander-in-Chief was able to stage, in a single day, an event that produced legislation empowering his executive department to search and seize greater amounts of life, liberty, and property with fewer restraints than ever before in the history of the Constitution. This is masterful war-making.

But nothing new.

When President George W. Bush became America's superior general, the future course of the United States had been already determined by his father. It helps to recall that in January 1989, the elder Bush began his superior generalate with an inaugural address prayer: "Heavenly Father...Make us strong to do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these words: ‘Use power to help people.' For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord. Amen."

Bush then flew to the Vatican City for an audience with Pope John Paul II on the following May 27th. Since the Papacy rules ex cathedra, "from the chair," the reigning Pope may be the undesignated de facto Chairman of the United States corporation. (I for one have arrived at that understanding upon realizing that the interface between the American Presidency, the Roman Papacy, registered voters, and the world at large mimics that between a corporation's president, board chairman, stockholders, and consumers.)

At the audience, His Holiness cited the President’s inaugural prayer. “Mr. President,” he said, “you made reference to power as existing to help people, to serve people. This is true at different levels, including power at the political and economic level. We see this, too, at the level of each community, with its power of fraternal love and concern."

The Chairman, one of whose titles is Patriarch of the West, then gently gave orders to the President: "In all these areas, an immense challenge opens up before the United States in this third century of her nationhood. Her mission as a people engaged in good works and committed to serving others has horizons the length of your nation and far beyond – as far as humanity extends. Today the interdependence of humanity is being reaffirmed and recognized through world events. The moral and social attitudes that must constitute a response to this interdependence is found in worldwide solidarity. In treating this question in a recent encyclical, I have stated that solidarity is... a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all. Truly, the hour of international interdependence has struck. What is at stake is the common good of humanity."

Who can deny that on May 27, 1989 the Chairman was instructing the President to use the corporation's power to create world events in order to advance international interdependence, or solidarity?

Solidarity is what the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought to Japan: a new culture structured on the 12th-century Roman church-militant's invention of debt instruments circulating and enforced internationally as money. It's what the Coinage Act immediately following the sacrificial assassination of President John F. Kennedy brought to the United States: debt money, made viable by compulsory acceptance. Debt money, as opposed to gold and silver coin, transfers the responsibility for charity from individual conscience to the corporation, which creates wealth and distributes it liberally to its most faithful consumers. It places economic opportunity in every hand, whether productive or non-productive, resulting in a confusion of moral and social attitudes which are regulated for profit by the Chairman and his international hierarchy of rulers of evil.

Have we forgotten what happened in the wake of Bush's audience with the Pope in May 1989? The day after the Pope declared the striking of the "hour of interdependence," Saddam Hussein, Iraqi premier, stood before the brotherhood of Muslim nations known as the League of Arab States and leveled charges that Kuwait had launched an unprovoked economic aggression against Iraq. (Kuwait had been an independent nation for 25 years when in 1986 the oil-rich al-Sabah family disbanded the token National Assembly and delivered all power to the ruling Emir, who brutally suppressed free speech and established a labor force of immigrants willing to work under conditions of near-slavery.)

Saddam complained to the League that Kuwait's policy of overproducing oil and driving oil prices downward would ultimately cost Iraq some $14 billion in lost revenues. He hinted at military action if the situation was not corrected.

America's allies then began cancelling "hundreds of major scientific, engineering, and food supply contracts with Iraq," in the words of Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ramadan. Strange treatment for a Premier who, from 1980 to 1988, had been a prized American ally himself. As Ted Koppel would later observe, the elder Bush operated "largely behind the scenes through the 1980s, [to] initiate and support much of the financing, intelligence and military help that built Saddam's Iraq..." (Nightline, June 1992)

The Emir of Kuwait ignored Saddam's complaint because he was assured by Bush administrators that his advantages over Iraq would be protected by American armed forces. He continued aggravating, even to the point of using slant drilling technology to steal oil from Iraq’s Rumaylah oil field. Stealing from a Muslim brother and waging economic war against him are both counted sins in Islamic law, yet no Islamic court ever acquired jurisdiction.

US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie declared publicly to Saddam, "I have a direct instruction from President [Bush] to seek better relations with Iraq." Encouraged by this instruction, Saddam invaded Kuwait on August 2 with a sufficient number of troops to hold Kuwait City. Photos from Soviet commercial satellites show that no more than a few thousand Iraqis were deployed.

Next day, in accord with Islamic law, the Arab League's council of ministers of resolved to (a) condemn the invasion, (b) convoke an extraordinary summit to find a Muslim solution to the crisis, and (c) reject foreign intervention, whether direct or indirect, in Muslim affairs.

Saddam Hussein made it clear that he was willing to withdraw from Kuwait if his claims could be satisfied. There was no reason why Muslim brethren, acting in good faith, could not settle the matter. In fact, on August 4th Saddam was so confident of a peaceful resolution that Baghdad radio announced that Iraq was ready to pull out of Kuwait the next day.

But peaceful resolution between Muslim states would not serve the Chairman’s Roman agenda for “worldwide solidarity.” For this, political Islam must be divided and conquered.

Which was easily accomplished when two crucial members of the summit, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, turned against Iraq. They did so, according to a study by Hugh Roberts of the London School of Economics & Political Science, under pressure from Dick Cheney, Bush's Secretary of Defense.

“What then happened,” wrote Roberts, “was a massive escalation of the crisis engineered wholly and entirely by the United States, which split the Arab world down the middle, destroyed the credibility and influence of the Arab League and scotched all chance of a peaceful settlement.”

Nine days after Saddam's march on Kuwait City, the Kuwaiti government contracted the New York public relations firm of Hill & Knowlton to represent its American presence, an entity named "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" (CFK). The CFK account at Hill & Knowlton was managed by Craig Fuller, Bush's chief of staff during his vice-presidency. The Emir spent about $14 million with Hill & Knowlton on such devices as video news releases that American viewers presumed came from independent journalistic sources. These devices were mainly ruses designed to recruit American taxpayers to support military action against Saddam Hussein. They worked.

Meanwhile, President Bush despatched aircraft and 4,000 American combat troops to Saudi Arabia. He made it clear that this was not an invasion of Iraq. The troops were “strictly defensive,” sent to protect Saudi Arabia from an imminent Iraqi invasion. However, King Hussein of Jordan would inform the New York Times that American troops were being deployed to Saudi Arabia long before Saddam moved on Kuwait. [Times, Oct. 16, 1990]

Furthermore, King Hussein would say in the same report that he was told by Saudi King Fahd that there was no evidence of a hostile Iraqi build-up on the Saudi border; and that despite American assertions, there was no truth to reports that Iraq planned to invade Saudi Arabia. Fahd’s remark is corroborated by Soviet satellite photographs taken on August 8 which show light sand drifts over patches of roads leading from Kuwait City to the Saudi border – and no evidence of an Iraqi buildup.

Seeing that the United States was interceding to prevent a Muslim solution, Saddam declared the annexation of Kuwait on August 8. This did not mean that Iraq was no longer willing to consider a withdrawal. On the contrary, writes Hugh Roberts, it was Saddam’s way of preserving the issue until the summit could entertain fresh proposals during its August 9-10 meeting in Cairo.

But when the summit convened, delegates sat down to find the issue already decided by a “draft resolution” presented by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, written in English and translated into Arabic, and pre-supported by 10 other states, constituting a majority. Iraq was not present. The resolution condemned the Iraqi decision to annex Kuwait, called for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, affirmed Kuwaiti sovereignty, and agreed to respond positively to the requests of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to send Muslim forces to Kuwait’s defense. It was made clear, at the insistence of the Bush administration, that “international law” was going to be enforced on Iraq, despite the fact that international law had not punished many previous acts of aggression by other Muslim states.

The draft resolution, obviously prepared by Bush administrators, shattered a once unified Arab world. Hugh Roberts wrote: “The possibility of a peaceful, negotiated, [Muslim] solution to the Gulf crisis was dead, killed by US pressure.”

Saddam Hussein’s reaction was to submit proposals on August 12th (and again in December, as reported by Knute Royce in Newsday) for a comprehensive settlement of all outstanding Islamic territorial conflicts according to international law. He proposed that the Muslim states be judged equitably. He was willing to let Iraq’s transgressions be judged by international law if the Muslim leaders who claimed to be upholding it would let their national transgressions be judged by the same standard.

Saddam’s proposals were rejected out of hand by the United States. “From that moment on,” according to Hugh Roberts, “the Anglo-American and UN position lacked all legal and moral authority in the eyes of the vast majority of the Arab and Muslim world.”

But moral authority in the Arab and Muslim world is not the Bible. A world whose moral authority comes from the Koran (or any other source, for that matter) cannot understand that the Chairman and his American beast, in building "worldwide solidarity" for the better management of evildoing, can lawfully grant special immunities from the rigors of international law to favored subjects, such as other transgressing Muslim leaders who cooperate in the solidarity process. The world is ruled by the Bible, a single infallible standard which provides that evildoers – persons who deny the deity and unique saving power of Christ – are subject to rule by evildoers created and appointed by God. It has been so, I maintain in Rulers of Evil, since Cain. This is the fundamental fact of human life, clearly stated in the Bible: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

The American beast and its Vatican mistress are evils created by God out of unregenerate humanity for the purpose of ruling souls that have chosen to be cursed by Him rather than blessed. “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19) Since only Jesus Christ claims to be "the Life" (John 14:6), one's choosing any other means of delivery from death invites death itself, a process regulated by the rulers of evil.

A ruler of evil cannot choose the Life and continue the ruses, deceptions, violence, and betrayal necessary to remain in power. Under the scriptural standard, the "Christians" in world rulership must be followers of what the apostle Paul termed "another Jesus, another gospel," living out their death, doling out benefits and punishments to underlings living out their death. The Life is not prohibited to either, but choosing it requires coming out of Babylon, the angel's metaphor for dying in Christ and enjoying resurrection as a new eternal creature in but not of the world.

On August 12, all shipments of Iraqi oil were stopped by a naval blockade. Three days later, John Paul II commanded that the entire Catholic university system should aim for "a more just sharing in the world's resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level." (Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, August 15, 1990)

Bush administrator Craig Fuller produced a ruse with Hill & Knowlton that motivated Congress to declare war against Iraq. This was the famous "Nayirah" interview. Appearing before the unofficial (but official-sounding) "Congressional Human Rights Caucus" on October 19, the 15-year-old Nayirah al-Sabah testified that while volunteering in the maternity ward of Al Adnan hospital in Kuwait City she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tearing Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators and throwing them "on the cold floor to die."

Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, two maternity nurses in that ward later said that they had never seen Nayirah there and that the baby-dumping had never happened. It was later revealed that "Nayirah" was actually the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the US, and that the whole story was invented by a Vassar Phi Beta Kappa member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writer at Hill & Knowlton named Lauri Fitz-Pegado. But President Bush pumped the story six times over the ensuing five weeks, which gave Congress a credible pretext for supporting military actions against Iraq.

When the President explained to a joint session of Congress that he only acted to check Saddam's aggression after “120,000 [Iraqi] troops with 850 [Iraqi] tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia,” Soviet satellite photos showed no sign of any massing along the Kuwait-Saudi border whatsoever. The Pentagon was claiming some 250,000 Iraqi troops were occupying Kuwait, yet refused to show evidence that might contradict these satellite photos.

The Soviet photos showed American forces, encampments, aircraft, camouflaged equipment dumps, staging areas and tire-tracks across the desert. Analysts could find nothing like this to indicate an Iraqi presence anywhere in Kuwait. Peter Zimmerman, formerly of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Reagan administration, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded: "We don’t see any tent cities, we don’t see congregations of tanks, we can’t see troop concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It’s five weeks after the invasion, and from what we can see, the Iraqi air force hasn’t flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of [soldiers]. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food. But where is it?"

One week later, the Pentagon was issuing reports that Iraqi forces in Kuwait had grown to 360,000 men and 2,800 tanks – yet the satellite photos of southern Kuwait show no evidence of such.

Iraqi troops did eventually appear at the Saudi Arabian border, but “they were sent there as a response to a U.S. buildup and were not a provocation for Bush's military action,” reported Brian Becker, an investigator with the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.

On December 17, the U.N. set a January 15, 1991 deadline for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. President Bush promised to send Secretary of State James Baker to meet Saddam Hussein before the deadline, but reneged.

Saddam rejected January 15 and offered to withdraw by February 15. President Bush ordered American planes to incinerate hundreds of women and children sleeping in the al-Arneriyah bomb shelter, and two days later rejected Saddam’s offer of a February withdrawal.

On the 16th of January 1991, the President launched what has been called “the Gulf Massacre,” in which between 85,000 and 100,000 Iraqis were killed because the United States (a) refused to countenance either a diplomatic or a legal solution to the Gulf crisis, and (b) acted between August 2 and August 10, 1990 to make both solutions impossible.

Concludes Hugh Roberts, “The true number of Iraqis who have been slaughtered in the greatest act of western folly and murderous arrogance in living memory may well be very much higher than this, of course.” On February 27th, coalition forces entered Kuwait City, and President Bush declared Kuwait liberated.

Less than a week later in Rome, some 15 Catholic leaders from the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and America held a “postwar Gulf summit meeting.” Pope John Paul II addressed the opening of the summit lamenting that the war had only sharpened tensions in the region and “awakened distrust and rancor inherited from the past.” His Holiness denied that any religious war had taken place, yet rebuked Muslim countries that “do not allow Christian [Roman Catholic] communities to take root, celebrate their faith and live it according to the demands of their confession.” Likewise, the summit’s final communique rejected all efforts to cast the war as “a conflict between Islam and Christianity.”

Indeed, the war was not a conflict. To the minds of Presidency and Papacy, it was precisely what Bush had prayed for and John Paul II had ordered the year before: the use of power to help people (at the price of much blood) in creating a world event that would reaffirm and recognize the interdependence of humanity. Thanks to the Gulf War, as the summit's final report stated, Catholic believers, for the first time ever, had an agenda to work for secure boundaries for Israel, independence and unity for Lebanon, a homeland and self-determination for the Palestinians, multilateral demilitarization and economic development of the region, and the establishment of Jerusalem as the international “holy city” of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. David Scott opined in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that the postwar Gulf summit “may one day be recalled as an historic turning point in the Catholic Church’s involvement in the Middle East.”

But the turning point was not the summit, but rather the Gulf War itself, an event created by Presidential deception. Had there been no Gulf War, there would have been no postwar Gulf summit. Significantly, it was on this Vatican summit’s final day, March 6th, that the President delivered a speech before Congress which sounded more like reassuring the Chairman than reporting to the corporate stockholders: “Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order."

In the decade between the Gulf War and 9/11 the United States covertly nurtured a Muslim reaction to America's blasphemous intrusions -- the Koran, after all, permits retaliation: "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." (2.194, Shakir translation) This nurturing produced the world's perception of "terrorism" as a product of Islamic fanaticism rather than of American foreign policy.

Textbooks in the schools of Afghanistan provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had since the early 1980s been "filled with talk of jihad and featuring drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines." (Washington Post, March 23, 2002) Written at the University of Nebraska, these textbooks reared Afghanistani kids in the retaliatory culture that encouraged (and made plausible the emergence of) personalities like the Afghanistan-trained Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, convicted for the 1993 parking basement bombing at the World Trade Center, and Osama bin Laden -- the man who would destroy America.

To anyone who has seriously studied how vigorously the Commander-in-Chief and his Vice-President have avoided apprehending bin Laden, and have obstructed, if not overcome, all attempts to conduct routine forensic examinations of "ground zero," the Pentagon strike zone, and the Pennsylvania debris field, all of which would almost certainly prove false the official version of that morning's events, 9/11 could only have been a ruse created by the American Presidency to furnish a pretext for restricting the rights and property of Americans in order to redistribute American funds and forces to the middle east and soon elsewhere, pursuant to the Papacy's design for "international interdependence."

I place no blame here on anyone. The Papacy and the American Presidency are appointed by God to regulate evildoers by all necessary means. This they're doing well -- "using power to help people" -- and are enjoying rich worldly rewards for their deceptive and often brutal services. But their eternal future is in dire jeopardy, a fact dimmed by the ecstasy of power.

When a self-aware evildoer is led to stop evildoing, he is being drawn inexorably by God out of the jurisdiction of the rulers of evil. This is "coming out of Babylon," and it's not easy. It's as hard on the body as stopping smoking, drugs, or toxic diets. How to leave the addiction of Babylon is not taught in any religious institution that I know of, Christian or otherwise. One learns only from humbly reading the Bible, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and others who have come out. Persons who help others wanting to come out of Babylon are called "ministers of reconciliation." Reconciliators don't condemn evildoers or their rulers. They don't evangelize for a particular church or sect. They only facilitate citizenship in the safest, best-protected government on earth, Jesus Christ.
This above all else: To thine own self be true. - William Shakespeare

Life is not a competition with anyone other than oneself.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Getting Real

There is a religious philosophy that claims we create our own reality. It is based upon the idea that reality is not constant, but is different for each person.

That philosophy does not understand God at all, for it subjects all reality to the shifting sands of man's viewpoints as he attempts to understand his surroundings. Insofar as it is man-based, it is essentially atheistic or agnostic.

In our search for an understanding of reality, the most basic truth to understand is that we are incapable of creating reality. Fundamental reality exists whether we understand it or not, and it will not change simply to conform to man's viewpoint. God is the ultimate Reality, and because He created all things out of Himself, the universe is also real. Where God is, there is Reality. Where God is denied, there is Illusion.

The structures that appear to us--which we often label "real"--are forms that change through time, though they are built out of particles of reality. We often confuse structure with reality, saying "this object is real," when in fact the only thing real about it is its true Atoms--the smallest particles that cannot be subdivided. It is not its form that is real, but its basic substance. All forms eventually disintegrate in order to be formed into some new structure that is temporarily useful for man's enjoyment and benefit.

When philosophers confuse reality with its manifested forms, they either worship the form (structure) or they deny reality altogether and thus deny the existence of God.

But when we believe and understand that God is the ultimate Reality, existing in spite of our viewpoints, we are able to function in harmony with God and Reality. Our creative authority as children of God is not to change reality, but to build it, shape it, and make it useful for life's enjoyment. We are to take the reality that is available to us and do something with it.

Our viewpoints are part of that which we shape and build. Viewpoints are forms and structures that change as we mature in our understanding of reality. As such, viewpoints are good. But when we confuse viewpoints with the reality itself, it shows a hardening of the viewpoint, a worship of structure. It becomes an illusion that is a "tradition of men" that makes void the word of God itself.

Wherever a viewpoint is hardened into a tradition of men, there is a lack of love, for it represents a hardness of heart characteristic of the legalistic mindset, which worships form over substance. The laws of God are part of the Word of God. The Word of God is an unchanging reality in its substance, because its origin is the Ultimate Reality. We are given the Word of God, even as we are given the Atoms of God.

These are real and unchanging, but our authority is in the realm of application, not the creation of law. Our place is to shape and structure law (the Word) into useful forms for the betterment of mankind. A great example of this is found in the changes between Old and New Covenants. The law of sacrifice did not change insofar as its reality is concerned. It only changed to a more useful form. Whereas they used to sacrifice a lamb, now we have the Lamb of God as our Sacrifice.

The Book of Hebrews was written to present to us the better form of the Word of God. Changes were made, because creation outgrew the old forms and structures that had been suitable for an earlier time. But none of this nullified the Word in any way, nor did these changes alter reality.

In the first century, Judaism had become hardened through the worship of structure and form, and thus, they denied anyone their inalienable right of men to change their viewpoints. If God had not taken the drastic step of hiring the Romans to destroy Jerusalem (Matt. 22:7), Judaism might still be sacrificing lambs and goats and bulls today. In fact, many Jews and even Christians today believe that God intends to revert to those old structures that He destroyed in favor of the new way. Such is the strong delusion of form-worship.

Knowing the difference between reality and form is the first step toward understanding. The second step is to know that the material universe is made of divine Atoms, which are the unifying point between matter and spirit. These divine Atoms are not the large "atoms" of science today, for such atoms can be split by nuclear fission. The divine Atoms, which have yet to be discovered scientifically, cannot be subdivided. They are God-substance. They are spirit until they are combined into complex substances and shaped into useful forms. At that point, they become material.

These divine Atoms, then, are the link between spirit and matter. They bring heaven and earth into unity. Jesus Christ was born to manifest this unity between heaven and earth. He not only taught it; He WAS this unity as Son of God and Son of Man. Through this unity, the miraculous was normal, because reality was released into the earth.

The reason science cannot comprehend the miraculous is because it has denied God. Thus, they assume that the miraculous is simply based upon a scientific law that is yet unknown. Or they attribute it to a power of mind that is yet unexplored. The scientific viewpoint is often based upon the assumption that there is no God; therefore, there is a perfectly logical, "natural" explanation for all miracles. And they define "natural" in atheistic terms.

Because God cannot be separated from reality, any science premised on the non-existence of God has formed a basic illusion that cannot possibly attain the highest truth. The efforts of such scientific endeavor are devoted toward re-creating reality according to its own illusion and in its own image. But reality does not need to be re-created. It already exists and will never change its basic substance. God is immovable and unchanging.

Whereas science tends to deny the existence of spirit, Christians tend to deny the unity between spirit and matter. This is the result of the dualistic thought process of the carnal mind that drives a wedge between heaven and earth in its attempt to understand and control reality. Jesus, however, was the embodiment of both heaven and earth. Men did not understand Him, because their minds could not comprehend how spirit and matter were one. The best of Greek philosophy was premised on the separation between spirit and matter, for it presumed that matter was evil and spirit was good. Thus, they could not see how the Holy Spirit could taint himself by indwelling human flesh.

The Covenant of Miracles will be fulfilled as we are able to re-establish the link between heaven and earth. Those who can do this will be the channels through which heaven is manifested in earth. Those called to this ministry will be (and are even now to some extent) the communicators between heaven and earth. At Sinai, the Word was spoken directly from the mountain top to the people--and they ran from it (Ex. 20:18-21). Years later in Jerusalem (in Acts 2) the Word was spoken again directly to the disciples, and then indirectly through them to the rest of the people.

The dispensing of the Word has never ceased, but it has been drowned out by the din and speed of civilization. But, God will speak loudly once more, interrupting the irrelevant conversations of society and normal traffic jams of life. Those of us who desire to be part of that next movement are preparing our hearts to dispense reality at the expense of man's illusions.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Spiritual and Mental Logic

Within each of us are two centers of thinking. In the Bible they are referred to as the spirit and the soul. The thinking center of the spirit is called the heart. The thinking center of the soul is called the mind.

We are primarily familiar with the thought process of the soul's mind. It was created to provide self-awareness and calls itself "I am." Thus, it is introspective by nature and is susceptible to pride. When it does not understand the logic of the spirit, it can easily stage a coup and take over the management of a person's life in order to maintain what it sees as orderly truth.

The soul's mind attemps to understand all things in life by their contrasts. In other words, it is dualistic. It does not understand white except when it contrasts it with black. It does not understand good without contrasting it with evil. It cannot understand long without short. The mind employs its logical ability to polarize its perceptions.

In our world of the kingdoms of men, the mind is the acknowledged master of the universe. But the mind was not created to be one's master, but only the servant of the spirit's heart. The spirit, along with its thinking center (the heart), is our point of divine contact. It has a logic of its own that is incomprehensible to the mind.

As long as the mind defers to the spirit, recognizing its subordinate role and purpose, it has a very good and useful function. The problem comes when the heart gives it signals (truth) that the mind cannot comprehend. The natural reaction of the mind is to think that it is being betrayed by the spirit. To the mind, irrationality is betrayal. It is then left with a choice, whether or not to defer to that which is beyond its capability to understand logically. If the mind's demand for order, structure, and logic is too strong, it will stage a revolt and usurp the authority of the spirit.

The Apostle Paul discusses some of these things in the first two chapters of his first letter to the Corinthian Church. He says in 1 Cor. 1:17 and 18,

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not with wisdom of words [Greek: logos, "logic"], lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that are dying [mortal] foolishness [moronic]; but unto us which are being saved, it is the power of God."

Paul is showing his readers the difference between the wisdom of mental logic and the logic of "the cross," which is the logic of the spirit. He admits in verse 21 that the spirit's logic is "foolishness" to the mind-dominated world--especially the Greek world, which worshipped the mind and considered it to be divine. Paul had lived in that culture long enough to know that the true gospel is spirit-based and not soul-based. Verse 23 says that "we preach Christ crucified, which, to the Jews is a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness."

The Greek word for foolishness is moros, from which we get our English word "moron." In other words, in the view of the intellectual, mind-dominated Greek philosopher, the cross is illogical, irrational, and just plain stupid. It makes no soulish sense for God to leave His glory, power, and comfort of heaven and be born of a virgin in a body that they considered to be "evil." Worse yet, why would an immortal God come to earth to die, not only a normal death from old age, but the tortuous death of the cross?

The gnostics could not understand it either, and so they attempted to rebuild Christ's honor by removing Him from the cross. They said He survived. Some said it was not really Him on the cross at all. They attempted to explain events rationally, and when the truth was irrational, their minds simply dismissed it and explained it rationally. Today the remnants of gnostic thinking is seen in The DaVinci Code, which claims that Jesus did not die, but lived and married Mary Magdalene, and had children who became the Merovingian line of Frankish kings in Europe.

To them the gospel that Paul preached was foolishness, and Paul says to them,

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weak thing of God is stronger than men. . . But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." (1 Cor. 1:25, 27)

The logic of the cross is seen in the days of Moses in Exodus 15:23-25,

"And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter; therefore the name of it was called Marah [bitterness]. And the people murmured against Moses, saying, 'What shall we drink?' And he called to the Lord; and the Lord showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet."

God tested Moses to show Israel that Moses was not mind-dominated. He listened to the voice of his heart through which God spoke to him by the logic of the cross. The bitter waters represent the bitterness in man that is caused by sin and death. The tree in question represented the cross, which was the solution to the problem. Though it made no mental sense to do this, Moses' mind was subject to the leading of the spirit when his heart told him to put a certain tree in the water. If we are led by the spirit, in which the Spirit of God dwells, we will live in and perceive a miraculous world.

An example from the prophets is found in the story of Elisha (1 Kings 6). He and the other prophet students went to the Jordan River to cut wood. One of them had borrowed an axe with an iron head--very valuable in those days. Unfortunately, the iron head flew off its handle, and it fell into the river. The man would have incurred a great debt and probably would have had to become a slave for a time to pay off the debt. But Elisha "cut down a stick, and cast it in thither; and the iron did swim."

The wooden "stick" (tree) again represents the cross, which, when applied to the problem, restores the iron to its owner and cancels the debt. Thus, we see the logic of the cross manifested in both the law and the prophets. Not that it makes any sense to the mind. But as we learn to live by the heart, rather than the mind, we are opened up to a whole new world where the miraculous is a way of life.

By this, I do not mean to imply that GREAT miracles take place daily, for that implies that such miracles are aberrations. Rather, I am saying that the heart perceives the miraculous in all things, and therefore comes to be a way of life. Only occasionally do such miracles occur in such a way that they smack the soul's mind on the side of the head. Most miracles are quiet and unobtrusive.

The mind, however, tends to ignore reality in favor of a perception that it considers to be logical and orderly. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14, "But the soulish man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

If reality is cluttered, the inner "soulish man" (that is, the mind) will not see or remember the clutter. It will see what it wants to see. It demands structured orderliness and feels betrayed by anything beyond its capability. Christians are admonished to be led by the spirit within (in which is housed the Holy Spirit). Christians do not receive this spiritual perception the moment they are justified by faith (Passover). It comes through the learning process called sanctification--the function of Pentecost.

The human mind demands structure. It takes at least 2 points to make structure, because a single point has no size or structure. Thus, the human mind is limited to the dualistic way of thinking and cannot understand the things of spirit. The Apostle Paul makes it clear in 2 Corinthians 1 and 2 that the source of divine knowledge is neither the body's sensory perception nor the carnal mind's perception of the world. It is rather a third source called the spirit and its heart-mind.

Not many Christians have a clear understanding of this. I was raised in a Christian home but was never taught such a thing myself. It was not until God took me out of the ministry back in 1981 that I began to experience a "knowing" that my mind itself did not believe or understand. Only then did I realize that I had another mind within me that was in conflict with my carnal mind. Paul calls these two minds the "new man" and the "old man."

From that point on, I slowly began to learn how to be led by the Holy Spirit (within my spirit). Most of the training took place when I was forced to choose to follow my heart when my mind found such a decision to be illogical and irrational. Believe me, with my love of logic, this was difficult.

Paul says at the end of his great "Love Chapter" in 1 Corinthians 13 that there are three great things in earth: Faith, Hope, and Love. He says that the greatest of these three is Love. Why? Because both faith and hope end with "sight." When you get what you "hoped for," hope ends. When you receive that which you had faith for, faith ends. Only love continues without end.

As Christian believers, we are being led to experience all three of these great principles as we grow up into the full stature (maturity) of Christ. There are denominations who give men the message of hope. They give believers hope in a future, other-world life of immortality. That is nearly their entire focus and message, and it is certainly acceptable to God. It is the message of Passover and the true Lamb of God who is our Passover. This message is enough to bring us out of the house of bondage with the hope of going to the Promised Land.

There are other denominations who bring believers beyond hope into faith. In fact, there is even a movement called "Word of Faith." As one might expect, it is more Pentecostal, or Charismatic, in its character. It tells people to go beyond the hope of Passover and enter into the world of faith. Faith comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17), and thus, it is dependent upon hearing God's voice, as opposed to the idols of the carnal mind. To distinguish between the two is the difficulty.

Hope is acceptable, and faith is good. But faith is still not the perfect will of God. Faith is applicable only until the object of faith is achieved or obtained. It then must give way to the greater experience of Love, by which we live and move and have our being. It is not that hope and faith are devoid of love. It is rather that the quality of love in those phases of spiritual development are imperfect, being restricted by the rigid structures imposed upon it by the carnal mind.

Love seeks its full expression through the feast of Tabernacles, even as hope is obtained through Passover and faith through Pentecost. Those who are justified through Passover are being prepared for Pentecost--the leading of the Spirit. Those who are being sanctified through Pentecost are being prepared for Tabernacles. A true Pentecostal is one who is learning to distinguish between the carnal mind and the spiritual heart, so that he may be divinely led toward Love.

The carnal mind has an Adamic perception of the world, and it thus creates god in its own finite image. This mental creation forms an idol, or image--a structured representation of the infinite God--that always falls short of the glory of God. But the mind of the Spirit sees and knows all things. It alone is capable of knowing God as He truly is and is therefore the source of all true divine knowledge.

On April 4, 2006 I wrote a final article on "The Axe Laid to the Root," in which I opened up some things of the spirit that were probably new and even irrational to many of you. I recorded some revelations that we received when I was in Sacramento in late March. I briefly related how we had been shown that we were repeating the pattern of Israel's encounters with Edom (Esau) and his son, Eliphaz.

To see these patterns, one must have some working knowledge of the Bible and of history. It is also helpful to understand the biblical meaning of numbers, along with the study of gematria. These are all helpful tools, and the more tools we have, the better able we are to run the farm.

In the course of history, we are progressing toward the Kingdom of God, even as Israel journeyed to the Promised Land. The final obstacle in their way was Edom, who refused to allow Israel to pass through their land toward Canaan. In modern history, this event has been repeated from 1948 to the present time. The Israeli state is modern Edom pretending to be Jacob, even as Jacob pretended to be Esau so long ago. If you have kept up with the web logs for a while, you will understand this.

At any rate, like ancient Israel, the Kingdom of God was delayed by Edom since 1948, but in late March we came to the end of delay. We had been watching Tom DeLay for nearly a decade, knowing that when he would leave office, there would be "delay no longer" (Rev. 10:6). Last fall when he stepped down as Speaker of the House, we took great interest in this sign. When he made it permanent in January, we again took note of it. But now that he has announced his retirement altogether, at the same time that God was showing us that Edom's delaying tactic had come to an end--we finally understood what the Spirit was saying to the Church.

We were seeing the signs of reaching the brink of Jordan. Remember, these are signs of what we believe will shortly come to pass.

Israel crossed over the Jordan on the 10th day of the first month (Abib) and kept that Passover near Jericho. Then came the battle of Jericho.

We went to Philadelphia for Passover to observe the sign of the Jordan crossing into the Kingdom. For you mathematicians, Philadelphia represents a PHI ratio with all its implications and is the place of the "Philadelphia Experiment" (time travel or interdimentional travel). Biblically, it is the only one of the Seven Churches that is associated with the New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12). This the Kingdom of the feast of Tabernacles.

Essentially, we saw the signs of crossing the Jordan at the time of Passover. We returned home and immediately went to another conference in Wisconsin, where we saw the sign of the fall of Jericho. The planning for this conference was done by others, simply being led blindly by the Spirit. When we arrived, we found that the hotel's restaurant was called "Jericho's." An unusual name, to be sure. God even provided someone to act out the part of the Jericho adversary.

These are things that make as much logical sense to the mind as when Moses threw a tree into the waters of Marah to make the waters sweet. But there is a spiritual logic to these things that transcends the structure of the carnal mind and is incomprehensible to it. When I first began to experience such things in 1982, my mind revolted. But as time passed, and I began to understand the thoughts of the heart and had to subordinate mental logic to the logic of the spirit.

Such things can be addressed, but only through experience can a person understand spiritual logic.

Up to this point I have emphasized the authority of the spirit and its heart (spiritual mind) over the soulish, or carnal mind. The soul and its mind ought properly to be the servant of the spirit. When the soul's mind does not understand the things of the spirit, it tends to stage a revolt and take over control. It restructures the revelation of the spirit to fit its own mold (understanding).

This has been recognized by many in the past, particularly in the Pentecostal movement of a century ago. In fact, they became so fearful of the mind that they downplayed education in order to keep it ignorant. Sermon after sermon told the people to "shut down the mind," rather than to subject the mind to the spirit. For a long time they refused to set up Bible schools, because they feared learning.

Some went so far as to discourage reading the Bible, as if it were harmful and even evil. "Just pray and get your own revelation," they said. "Don't eat yesterday's manna." In so doing, they cut themselves off from the true education that the soul desperately needs in order to defer to the mind of the spirit. You see, the spirit will not subject the soul; the soul must submit to the spirit.

The soul is a servant. A strong servant is more useful than a weak servant, or employee. An educated servant is more useful than an ignorant servant. Proper education is good for the soul. Truth is not harmful. What is harmful are the "traditions of men," which are the soul's limited perception, beliefs, and understandings of the word, which, when not subject to the spirit, torture the word into arriving at a preconceived conclusion.

When God created Adam a living soul (Gen. 2:7). He was part of the material and mental creation that God pronounced "very good." The biblical account of creation forms the foundation of all Bible philosophy. It runs contrary to Greek philosophy, which claimed that matter was evil and that it was created by the "demiurge," a lesser god that was evil (i.e., Satan). Thus, the Greeks were always trying to escape from the body and return to the purely spiritual form in the heavens.

But the Bible says no such thing. Matter was created good, because a good God created it--not the devil. Secondly, He did not create it out of nothing; He created it out of spirit and out of Himself. Matter is only disguised spirit. If you think of spirit as water, matter is ice--frozen spirit that has been given structure. Matter is not merely a form of spirit; it is spirit with form. Thus, in Gen. 2:7 Adam was "formed"--like all of creation, shaped by the Master's hand. God used spirit as the building blocks of creation, gave them form, and called each thing by its appropriate name.

But sin distorted it and caused the body and soul to revolt against the spirit. The purpose of history and the goal of the Kingdom of God is to bring all things back into subjection to God, who is spirit. This is accomplished in three phases depicted by the three feasts of Israel: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.

Passover justifies us; Pentecost sanctifies us, and Tabernacles glorifies us by giving us an immortal, glorified body. It does not eradicate matter as evil; it glorifies matter, bringing heaven back into the earth, so that His will can be done in earth as it is in heaven. The great example is Jesus in His brief transfiguration in Matt. 17 and in His permanent condition after His resurrection.

The good purpose of matter and also the soul (mind) is to provide structure for the things of the spirit. Think of the spirit as water. In order to make it useful, it needs something to give it structure, whether we turn it to ice or give it form by putting it into a glass, or channeling it within the banks of a river. Structure is not evil--it is useful for spiritual purposes. When it ceases to be useful--that is, when it begins to limit and cramp the spirit's purpose--it ought to be discarded in favor of a different structure.

So also is the case with a denominational structure. If it is subject to the spirit, it is useful for the Kingdom of God. But when the spirit becomes cramped and hampered by that structure, it ought to be discarded in favor of something else. Consider Israel in the wilderness. They were forbidden to build houses in the wilderness. Instead, they lived in tents, which were flexible and movable. It is not that God wanted them to sleep under the stars, but rather that they would not build permanent structures that prevented their progression toward the Promised Land.

A denominational structure is good if it remains a tent, rather than a permanent house. It must change with the progressive revelation of God. But normally, they set forth creeds, file IRS papers, and construct granite buildings out of fear that their current revelation might be distorted by future generations. They assume it will degenerate--with good reason, no doubt. But the motive is still fear, rather than faith. The very structure that is supposed to protect the denomination from heresy also becomes its prison, preventing the spirit from revealing anything further. They have heard all that they need, and now their ears are closed. It is the equivalent of Israelites building a house by an oasis in the wilderness, where the water is good, and then refusing to leave when the cloud moves on.

There was an ancient Greek philosopher who lived three centuries before Christ. His name was Epicurus. He postulated that all matter and the soul itself was built of tiny particles that could not be reduced or split into anything smaller. He called them atoms (Greek word: atomos). The Apostle Paul refers to him extensively in his writings, but never mentions his name, lest he promote Epicureanism.

Epicurus was correct in his assertion that all things were created from irreducible particles, but he did not believe in spirit. To him, all things were material. He was a classical materialist. He did not understand that matter is spirit that has been given form. Modern scientists proved the existence of small particles of matter, which they called "atoms," using Epicurus' word. The problem is, what they called "atoms" were not really atoms at all, because they were too big. When scientists split the atom into smaller particles, it proved that atoms were not really atoms at all. But now we are stuck with calling these reducible particles "atoms."

In fact, divine atoms are particles of spirit, and they are formed into matter by the power of love. Love shapes spirit and forms creation. Therefore, you are a combination of spirit and love. Many try to do love or act loving, when in reality, love is our being. Many covet the gifts of the spirit in order to do spiritual things, when in reality, we are spirit. Only when our structured actions flow naturally and unrestricted from our being can we manifest divine love and spirit.

How does one come to this place of being? It cannot be done by doing, but by the soul's submission to the spirit. In this way the restriction is removed and you are allowed to be what you are--as God formed you and purposed you to be. When we are filled with all the fullness of God and know how to speak the truth in love, then we will have the power to do the things that Jesus did while He was on earth.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Druids R Us

Evidence suggests there were many Christian missions sent to evangelize Britain beginning in the first century. Such jurisdictions as the Hebraic (Jerusalem), Ephesine, East Syrian, Alexandrian and Roman Churches can all be argued as present at some period with historically founded conviction. To facilitate the conversion of the Celts, further evidence suggests that the Druidic schools were often converted to Christianity as a whole since their theology of God was not totally dissimilar to the Israelites and later, Christianity:
    "This was the Druidic trinity, the three aspects of which were known as Beli, Taran, Esu or Yesu. When Christianity preached Jesus as God, it preached the most familiar name of its own deity to Druidism: and in the ancient British tongue 'Jesus' has never assumed its Greek, Latin, or Hebrew form, but remains the pure Druidic 'Yesu.' It is singular thus that the ancient Briton has never changed the name of the God he and his forefathers worshipped, nor has ever worshipped but one God."
It is believed by many historians that the Druids did communicate with their counterparts in other cultures including those in the middle East and the Orient. This suggests that the Hebrew Scriptures were well known to them as were other religious writings.

"For enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers: For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow" (Job 8:8-9).

The further back we journey into the historical and religious mists of the ancient world, the more amazed we should be at how these antiquitous records authenticate the annals found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Early Druid writings tell of God in Hebrew thought-forms. The universe is infinite, being the body of the being who out of himself [a Judahite thought-form identical to the belief of 1st century Hebrews in Judaea] evolved or created it, and now pervades and rules it, as the mind of man does his body. The essence of this being is pure, mental light, and therefore he is called Du-w, Duw (the one without any darkness). His real name is an ineffable mystery, and so also is his nature. [Sound familiar?]. To the human mind, though not in himself he necessarily represents a triple aspect in relation to the past, present and future [God’s triunity]; the creator as to the past, the saviour or conserver as to the present, the renovator or re-creator as to the future. "There are Three Primeval Unities, and more than one of each cannot exist; One God: One Truth: and One Point of Liberty where all opposites preponderate. Three things proceed from the Three Primeval Unities: All of life, All that is Good, and All Power" (Matthew Arnold).

The Druids also believed, according to scholar Max Mueller -- one-time professor of Sanskrit at Oxford -- that nature was merely God "in disguise." As we progress in resurrecting the first century thought-form we are uncovering a massive wealth of evidence that substantiates the biblical revelation! The Druid doctrine concerning man’s spiritual life is framed in the Druidic Triads:

"In every person there is a soul,
In every soul there is intelligence:
In every intelligence there is thought,
In every thought there is either good or evil:
In every evil there is death;
In every good there is life,
In every life there is God."

Thursday, November 24, 2005

we do not want war

“What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women -- not merely peace in our time but peace for all time"...

..."The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough -- more than enough -- of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on -- not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace."

June 10, 1963
Commencement Address at American University in Washington,
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Monday, October 31, 2005

A Separate Peace Indeed

A Separate Peace {Indeed}

Peg Noonan says America is in trouble--and our elites are merely resigned.

Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:01 a.m.

It is not so hard and can be a pleasure to tell people what you see. It's harder to speak of what you think you see, what you think is going on and can't prove or defend with data or numbers. That can get tricky. It involves hunches. But here goes.

I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now. In fact I think it's a subtext to our society. I think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can't be fixed, or won't be fixed any time soon. That our pollsters are preoccupied with "right track" and "wrong track" but missing the number of people who think the answer to "How are things going in America?" is "Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown destination."

I'm not talking about "Plamegate." As I write no indictments have come up. I'm not talking about "Miers." I mean . . . the whole ball of wax. Everything. Cloning, nuts with nukes, epidemics; the growing knowledge that there's no such thing as homeland security; the fact that we're leaving our kids with a bill no one can pay. A sense of unreality in our courts so deep that they think they can seize grandma's house to build a strip mall; our media institutions imploding--the spectacle of a great American newspaper, the New York Times, hurtling off its own tracks, as did CBS. The fear of parents that their children will wind up disturbed, and their souls actually imperiled, by the popular culture in which we are raising them. Senators who seem owned by someone, actually owned, by an interest group or a financial entity. Great churches that have lost all sense of mission, and all authority. Do you have confidence in the CIA? The FBI? I didn't think so.

But this recounting doesn't quite get me to what I mean. I mean I believe there's a general and amorphous sense that things are broken and tough history is coming.

Let me focus for a minute on the presidency, another institution in trouble. In the past I have been impatient with the idea that it's impossible now to be president, that it is impossible to run the government of the United States successfully or even competently. I always thought that was an excuse of losers. I'd seen a successful presidency up close. It can be done.

But since 9/11, in the four years after that catastrophe, I have wondered if it hasn't all gotten too big, too complicated, too crucial, too many-fronted, too . . . impossible.

I refer to the sheer scope, speed and urgency of the issues that go to a president's desk, to the impossibility of bureaucracy, to the array of impeding and antagonistic forces (the 50-50 nation, the mass media, the senators owned by the groups), to the need to have a fully informed understanding of and stand on the most exotic issues, from Avian flu to the domestic realities of Zimbabwe.

The special prosecutors, the scandals, the spin for the scandals, nuclear proliferation, wars and natural disasters, Iraq, stem cells, earthquakes, the background of the Supreme Court backup pick, how best to handle the security problems at the port of Newark, how to increase production of vaccines, tort reform, did Justice bungle the anthrax case, how is Cipro production going, did you see this morning's Raw Threat File? Our public schools don't work, and there's little refuge to be had in private schools, however pricey, in part because teachers there are embarrassed not to be working in the slums and make up for it by putting pictures of Frida Kalho where Abe Lincoln used to be. Where is Osama? What's up with trademark infringement and intellectual capital? We need an answer on an amendment on homosexual marriage! We face a revolt on immigration.

The range, depth, and complexity of these problems, the crucial nature of each of them, the speed with which they bombard the Oval Office, and the psychic and practical impossibility of meeting and answering even the most urgent of them, is overwhelming. And that doesn't even get us to Korea. And Russia. And China, and the Mideast. You say we don't understand Africa? We don't even understand Canada!

Roiling history, daily dangers, big demands; a government that is itself too big and rolling in too much money and ever needing more to do the latest important, necessary, crucial thing.

It's beyond, "The president is overwhelmed." The presidency is overwhelmed. The whole government is. And people sense when an institution is overwhelmed. Citizens know. If we had a major terrorist event tomorrow half the country--more than half--would not trust the federal government to do what it has to do, would not trust it to tell the truth, would not trust it, period.

It should be noted that all modern presidents face a slew of issues, and none of them have felt in control of events but have instead felt controlled by them. JFK in one week faced the Soviets, civil rights, the Berlin Wall, the southern Democratic mandarins of the U.S. Senate. He had to face Cuba, only 90 miles away, importing Russian missiles. But the difference now, 45 years later, is that there are a million little Cubas, a new Cuba every week. It's all so much more so. And all increasingly crucial. And it will be for the next president, too.

A few weeks ago I was chatting with friends about the sheer number of things parents now buy for teenage girls--bags and earrings and shoes. When I was young we didn't wear earrings, but if we had, everyone would have had a pair or two. I know a 12-year-old with dozens of pairs. They're thrown all over her desk and bureau. She's not rich, and they're inexpensive, but her parents buy her more when she wants them. Someone said, "It's affluence," and someone else nodded, but I said, "Yeah, but it's also the fear parents have that we're at the end of something, and they want their kids to have good memories. They're buying them good memories, in this case the joy a kid feels right down to her stomach when the earrings are taken out of the case."

This, as you can imagine, stopped the flow of conversation for a moment. Then it resumed, as delightful and free flowing as ever. Human beings are resilient. Or at least my friends are, and have to be.

Let me veer back to the president. One of the reasons some of us have felt discomfort regarding President Bush's leadership the past year or so is that he makes more than the usual number of decisions that seem to be looking for trouble. He makes startling choices, as in the Miers case. But you don't have to look for trouble in life, it will find you, especially when you're president. It knows your address. A White House is a castle surrounded by a moat, and the moat is called trouble, and the rain will come and the moat will rise. You should buy some boots, do your work, hope for the best.

Do people fear the wheels are coming off the trolley? Is this fear widespread? A few weeks ago I was reading Christopher Lawford's lovely, candid and affectionate remembrance of growing up in a particular time and place with a particular family, the Kennedys, circa roughly 1950-2000. It's called "Symptoms of Withdrawal." At the end he quotes his Uncle Teddy. Christopher, Ted Kennedy and a few family members had gathered one night and were having a drink in Mr. Lawford's mother's apartment in Manhattan. Teddy was expansive. If he hadn't gone into politics he would have been an opera singer, he told them, and visited small Italian villages and had pasta every day for lunch. "Singing at la Scala in front of three thousand people throwing flowers at you. Then going out for dinner and having more pasta." Everyone was laughing. Then, writes Mr. Lawford, Teddy "took a long, slow gulp of his vodka and tonic, thought for a moment, and changed tack. 'I'm glad I'm not going to be around when you guys are my age.' I asked him why, and he said, 'Because when you guys are my age, the whole thing is going to fall apart.' "

Mr. Lawford continued, "The statement hung there, suspended in the realm of 'maybe we shouldn't go there.' Nobody wanted to touch it. After a few moments of heavy silence, my uncle moved on."

Lawford thought his uncle might be referring to their family--that it might "fall apart." But reading, one gets the strong impression Teddy Kennedy was not talking about his family but about . . . the whole ball of wax, the impossible nature of everything, the realities so daunting it seems the very system is off the tracks.

And--forgive me--I thought: If even Teddy knows . . .

If I am right that trolley thoughts are out there, and even prevalent, how are people dealing with it on a daily basis?

I think those who haven't noticed we're living in a troubling time continue to operate each day with classic and constitutional American optimism intact. I think some of those who have a sense we're in trouble are going through the motions, dealing with their own daily challenges.

And some--well, I will mention and end with America's elites. Our recent debate about elites has had to do with whether opposition to Harriet Miers is elitist, but I don't think that's our elites' problem.

This is. Our elites, our educated and successful professionals, are the ones who are supposed to dig us out and lead us. I refer specifically to the elites of journalism and politics, the elites of the Hill and at Foggy Bottom and the agencies, the elites of our state capitals, the rich and accomplished and successful of Washington, and elsewhere. I have a nagging sense, and think I have accurately observed, that many of these people have made a separate peace. That they're living their lives and taking their pleasures and pursuing their agendas; that they're going forward each day with the knowledge, which they hold more securely and with greater reason than nonelites, that the wheels are off the trolley and the trolley's off the tracks, and with a conviction, a certainty, that there is nothing they can do about it.

I suspect that history, including great historical novelists of the future, will look back and see that many of our elites simply decided to enjoy their lives while they waited for the next chapter of trouble. And that they consciously, or unconsciously, took grim comfort in this thought: I got mine. Which is what the separate peace comes down to, "I got mine, you get yours."

You're a lobbyist or a senator or a cabinet chief, you're an editor at a paper or a green-room schmoozer, you're a doctor or lawyer or Indian chief, and you're making your life a little fortress. That's what I think a lot of the elites are up to.

Not all of course. There are a lot of people--I know them and so do you--trying to do work that helps, that will turn it around, that can make it better, that can save lives. They're trying to keep the boat afloat. Or, I should say, get the trolley back on the tracks.

That's what I think is going on with our elites. There are two groups. One has made a separate peace, and one is trying to keep the boat afloat. I suspect those in the latter group privately, in a place so private they don't even express it to themselves, wonder if they'll go down with the ship. Or into bad territory with the trolley.