... alien races are indeed trying to help humanity, and the government is indeed aware of or working with 19 different Alien races, I guess my question would be why are the good ones who want to hep us using the same information brokers as the bad guys?
It seems to me that a space faring intelligent life would certainly possess the technology to bypass Pope Jesuit, the Scum Queen, and whichever Nazi douchebag is currently running the USA Corp. Deep State, and take it right to the very human race they are supposedly trying to save.
But, all the disclosure talk is about how much of the truth, if any, the bad guys are going to let the slaves find out; a full disclosure? Or a Partial Disclosure?
I am not waiting around for that bullshit. It makes no sense.
I concur. One only need to go from the Atlanta airport to Northern Atlanta at rush hour once in order to have proof that the devil did indeed go down to Georgia. That shit is pure evil!
Edit: While I have made that journey many times in a past business life, I once had the good fortune of making that journey on the rare occasion that Atlanta got 1 inch of snow. Being from New England, it was no big deal to me. But, to them!.!.!.
It was like the Land of the Misfit Toys in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer meets a Mad Max Scenario. I have never seen anything like it in my life!
Hope somebody will enjoy. This guys work is new to me.
If nothing else,eye opening.
For those of you who may be following along with the FIXER, I would suggest that the real meat of this video starts at 1:00:00, and I've set it to start there--- @ 1 hr, - to save ya'll an hour (sigh);
My Dear Fixer, do your "Palladians", equate to a race that we know as the Pleiadians??
and can we assume that your Billy Myers, (and Billy Meyers), is an alias for Billy Meiers ~?
Thank you for queuing up that video, someday, you're going to have to show me how to do that.
Also, as I'm sure you're aware, I have no idea how to spell, and although I occasionally make an effort, especially if I can't read it myself, whatever is written in my posts, it is usually just my dictate programs interpretation of what I said.
When did you become the spelling police?
Back in the good old days, when the player actually worked on these pages, queuing up a video always worked when you did it.
Unfortunately, that function no longer works here, and now many of my videos are full of commercial interruptions, when I play them on YouTube, which is the only way they play for me now. Is it just me? Or does everyone else have to go to YouTube now to play the videos here? I never thought to ask.
It's been a long day, but I finally found a little bit of time to sit down and open up my laptop.
I tried searching YouTube for "The Talmud of Jmmanuel" to find a quick synopsis of its origins, an got 208 different videos, and unfortunately, I don't think any of them was the one I was looking for. That just tells me that it was part of a another topic, which makes sense, since it's not something I would go looking for in the first place.
You see, I don't study the Bible. Not at all. What I've been studying, is current events, the secret space program, UFOs, but not even for the storyline, I'm really into the technology.
So as you can imagine, "The Talmud of Jmmanuel" is pretty far removed from my line of inquiry, but surprisingly, the principles within it aren't. This isn't a religious debate, at least it isn't for me. In the pursuit of understanding the entire premise of free energy, I inadvertently stumbled into a whole shit load of lies in virtually every area of study that are all interrelated to disguise from humanity how the universe actually works. Understanding how the universe works, is actually required for an understanding of how to tap into this universal field that current science/Western religion refuses to acknowledge exists.
Now, why "Jmmanuel" starts with a J, and not with an E, or not with an I, is so far removed from what interests me, that you are going to have to address that one yourself, if it really matters.
I routinely place principles before personalities, and different narratives regardless of their source, as long as they are consistent with the principles, serves to deepen my understanding, and maybe at some point, my ability to competently articulate these principles.
So, it's entirely plausible that authenticating any particular source is of less value to me than it is to you.
Believe it or not, the whole free energy thing, is inextricably related to antigravity, and by all accounts, is what powers your typical flying saucer. I don't need to prove that they exist, I've seen them with my own eyes, on multiple occasions.
So for me, there's one less thing to prove. Billy Myers has come up dozens of times, and is primarily famous for being a contactee, and for the painstaking work he did to validate his discussions with his extra terrestrial buddies.
It was only today and I realized he was actually famous for the predictions he made that came true.
Many of those that he talked to, were extremely knowledgeable on the technology involved, but he wasn't.
That's why I tend to gravitate towards professional physicists who are blowing the whistle from inside these programs, as opposed to somebody who's into prophecy, narratives of ancient history, and uncovering esoteric mysteries of the first century.
If you're looking for a very similar message, it's actually easier to authenticate the Gnostic Gospels found in 1945.
It's most definitely easier to authenticate the Ancient texts regarding Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. Quite frankly, anytime you get into extreme human antiquity, or a search for the secrets of tapping the powers that are inherent in our universe, authentication might be problematic. It's certainly not going to be acknowledged by anyone with the authority to authenticate anything. Planet earth's official officialdom has been hopelessly corrupted to the point of useless.
Like you, I watched a couple of good movies over the weekend. I watched the classic "1984", and I also watched the classic "Brave New World", both were considered highly prophetic. In my opinion, I think we're dealing with large aspects of both films, and the common denominator, is that right and wrong, or good and bad, had to be completely inverted in order to enslave humanity.
I didn't start out to "Expose" Yahweh as a fraud, and a truly evil entity, it just became self evident over the course of my studies. Heck, you can actually figure out how agenda driven the Bible is just from a Larkin Rose video. You don't necessarily have to read ancient scriptures that were banned from the Bible. That being said, if you do read them, the contradictions are glaring.
I remember in one of your posts to me, you expressed insult way that I had somehow been deeply scarred as a child, and maybe to a certain extent that's true. When I was in my late 20s, I recognize just how fucked up my life was, and I also knew that if I had to do it all over again, I would do it exactly the same way.
You do know, that with 12 years of Catholic school, intimate knowledge of the Bible was a requirement. Although I may have forgotten some of its intricacies, I have no desire whatsoever to go back and try to figure out what I might have forgotten.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. I'm actively trying to completely undo the total mind fuck that I was subjected to in my formative years. There's a reason my indoctrination didn't take, I asked to many questions. Things that I was told to just except on blind faith, was something that was beyond my own ability. In other words, I've always rejected things that make no sense. The fact that I was completely surrounded by a bunch of malevolent psychopaths trying to pound the "Truth" into me, simply reinforced my own personal opinion that they could take their book and shove it up their ass, I wanted no part of it, and I certainly didn't want to grow up to be like any of them.
Not that I particularly care what anyone thinks it's me, but I no longer experience anger when I look back at my past. These days, it's more a sense of astonishment as to just how successfully humanities indoctrination has been accomplished.
That's not to say that I haven't experienced anger, even the last couple of years. I was literally livid last year upon reading an article about a county sheriff who declared "My authority comes from God". Apparently, that excerpt that I posted in my last reply to you the other day, from Romans 13, does in fact appear to give that fat pompous piece of shit "Authority" over everyone in his jurisdiction. Worse than that, most people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated actually believe this shit, and bow to his alleged authority. You see, even if disclosure never happens, and we never get to the alleged "great deception", the one that we are currently living under, clearly places the most malevolent and morally reprehensible amongst us in charge of things. That's not a coincidence, and it's not even the result of any stupidity on anyone's part. It's been designed that way. The Bible is integral to the design.
In one of your questions to me, was your assertion that many of the biblical principles predate the Bible. You're quite correct.
I suspect in the thousands of years between when humanity was enslaved, and the Bible was written, many religions were introduced to cultures that have died out since. Quite frankly, they were probably easy targets. There's no need to go back thousands of years to figure out how easily you can dupe a populace. Just turn on the TV, or the radio, or read the cover of the newspaper on any given day. Making people stupid predates the Bible. I know by now, you're probably annoyed with my biblical analysis, one of those epic replies to JJ was only a partial list of atrocities committed by Yahweh. You know, one of those "off the top of my head" type of things. If you'd really like to get down and dirty, and truly explore biblical atrocities , this would be a good place to start: https://www.evilbible.com This guy has looked a lot harder than I have.
Anyway, while I was spending a couple of hours trying to find what I was looking for you before, I did come up with a particularly nice narrative explaining the origins of "The Talmud of Jmmanuel", which was at least of interest to me, as it would explain the motivations of any advanced species that might wish to give humanity a helping hand.
It's probably not exactly what you would require for authentication, and heck, it's not even what I was looking for, but between that seminar that I posted this morning, and the narrative I just posted, combined with the contents of "The Talmud of Jmmanuel", at least I've confirmed many of my own previously unbacked assertions, derived at from conclusions drawn from connecting my own dots. That's probably not important to anyone else that I know, but at least I get some sense of satisfaction out of it.
Now seriously, I'd like to take a break from exploring the root causes of human depravity, at least for a little while, and get my focus back on my own personal goals and aspirations. Every time I return to this particular topic, I feel like I'm being dragged into a cesspool full of bullshit. I assure you, it's nothing personal. For example, those two movies that I watched over the weekend, although they had powerful messages, they really were sad, especially when I realize just how dystopian our society has become, and being fully cognizant of the fact we've still got a long way down to go.
One of the common denominators in both movies, is that everything the public was told was bullshit, and yet almost all of them bought it hook, line and sinker. Occasionally, I get stuck in the "Somehow it will all work out" mindset, and realize that I'm probably just a victim of my own wishful thinking. Both of those movies had the odd ball that didn't quite fit in, characters whom I can intimately relate to, and it didn't work out very well for them in the end.
These days, anyone who asks questions is an odd ball. Welcome to the club.
By the way, I've thoroughly explored the narrative that proclaims that Jesus Christ didn't exist, I know that such a belief is quite widespread. But there was a major paradigm shift in the first century, and someone was responsible for it. The book that the Vatican invented in 325, was damage control, and an attempt at retaking the public narrative.
Quite frankly, as I've said before, if I only had the Bible to work with, I would agree, Jesus Christ is just a fantasy, and there's plenty of proof that the narrative that the Vatican came up with, was plagiarized from earlier religions. But if you take into account the actual historical evidence provided by a vast array of literature that escaped the Roman empire's destruction, at least we have a legitimate explanation for the first century paradigm shift. By compiling these narratives, at least now I know that there was a real man responsible for the Vatican's Jesus narrative, and I've tied up all of the "loose ends" to satisfy my own insatiable curiosity.
The purpose of my posts, is to simply share my own research, and conclusions. You are quite entitled to your own.
Pretty much no in-page plays. also most of the posts in Mainstreet (but not all)
I think the theory of glysophate killing off the ocean phytoplankton is logical if the glysophate half life is boosted in salt water.
In order of appearance GMO by hectares (I am extrapolating Roundup/Glyphosate use because of vendor recommendations)
USA, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, India, China, Paraguay, South Africa, Pakistan, Uruguay.
Sweeps the Pacific & the Atlantic nicely doesn't it?
Heres a map. It's a bit dated, but probably hasn't improved since 2012
Mid-Eastern Russia looks doable for crops, possibly fish up north if you can cut through the ice.
Fishing-wise it kinda leaves the North Pacific to the Fukushima crowd since that's the way the current flows, & I am sure there is killer coverage for the North Atlantic available from the chemtrails. What's good for trees in North America is surely good for plankton.
North Africa could be OK if it wasn't being taken by ISIS/Boko Harem. I think certain famous people have an interest in areas of Central Africa that don't appear to be in the hot zone for crops. Watching for the next set of issues towards the mid-lower part of Africa that could be clean-ish and fishable.
I am unutterably tired of this.
David Rockefeller, Philanthropist and Head of Chase Manhattan, Dies at 101
I didn't do this math and I'm not taking the time to check it.
he dies on a day with the exact same moon phase as 9/11/01 and we know how instrumental he was in the construction and destruction of the towers. 3rd quarter moon phase is a big deal it seems. Trump's Inauguration on 1/20 was during the 3rd quarter moon phase and so was the destruction of the Plasco Building in Tehran on 1/19.
56-years since proposing the World Trade Centers in March of 1961.
"Rockefeller" = 56
"Singularity" = 56
"Washington DC" = 56 reduced
From his BD to his death is 101 years, 9 months, 1 week and 1 day - 9/11
David Rockefeller died at age 101 the 26th prime number. 26 letters in the Alphabet. God=7+15+4=26(Ordinal)
He died on a date with 33 and 42 numerology. Two of the numbers of Freemason obsession. Rockefeller himself a Freemason.
He died 84 days before his 102nd birthday. 33 years since 1984.
United States of America=84(Reduced)
He died a total span of 282 days after his birthday.
David Rockefeller=282(Reverse Ordinal).
Spring equinox its false flag season folks, keep your eyes and ears open. This period marks the 40 day 'season of sacrifice' from March19/20th-May 1st. Its name was coined by the Dark Occultists of this world, otherwise known as the Cabal, Illuminati or NWO, who believe that the Earth must be bathed in the blood of innocents to ensure a fruitful harvest and to invoke an archetype of the destructive forces of the universe.
March 20 is the 79th day and murder = 79 in ordinal
March 20th, the Eve Of Ostara. 'Ostara' = 322 in Jewish..He died 5669 days after Sep. 11th 2001.
5+6+6+9=26. He died at age 101 the 26th prime.
5669 = the 747th prime number.
Apparently he died at his home in,' Pocantico Hills' = 156. 156th prime number = 911.
'Thirty Three' = 156 / 66. 'Pocantico Hills' = 156 / 66.
14 years exactly since the Iraq Invasion or 'Shock and Awe'.
A total span of 5115 days.
He apparently died of, 'congestive heart failure' = 126 ( Reduced & reverse reduced ).
'Heart Failure' = 61. 'Rockefeller = 61, reverse reduced.
Today's date summed, 20+3+20+17 = 60. He dies 60 days after old Trump's inauguration.
Very interesting that he dies on a day with the exact same moon phase as 9/11/01 and we know how instrumental he was in the construction and destruction of the towers. 3rd quarter moon phase is a big deal it seems. Trump's Inauguration on 1/20 was during the 3rd quarter moon phase and so was the destruction of the Plasco Building in Tehran on 1/19.
56-years since proposing the World Trade Centers in March of 1961.
"Rockefeller" = 56
"Singularity" = 56
"Washington DC" = 56 reduced
From his BD to his death is 101 years, 9 months, 1 week and 1 day = 9/11
Mr. Fix I hear you about the use of Romans 13. I'm sure you've heard the rumors about FEMA training pastors to be part of their Clergy Response Team.
I don't have time to write my thoughts so I'm copying the writings of another guy. At least you will see that not all buy the story you've heard. Do his thoughts make sense to you? Notice how he substitutes "constitution" for "power" to add clarity to our time and place.
Romans Chapter 13
Published: Friday, August 10, 2007
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.
Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.
Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column (See: https://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html ), Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.
The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?
Thank you for queuing up that video, someday, you're going to have to show me how to do that.
here's what works for me (Windows 7, FireFox);
While watching a video at YouTube, stop the video where you would like it to start, and right click. You get a small pop-up screen that gives you options. Click on; "Copy URL to Start video at this point". Then just plop that link into your post.
I have no idea how thats gonna work in Mac...............................
That was a terrific and well thought out Post on authority, and how a proper Christian should conform to authority.
I agree with many of your conclusions, based on the "facts" you've presented for evidence, but I am vehemently opposed to your basic premise that a book handed down by the religious oligarchy has any basis in morality whatsoever. Therefore, my conclusions are quite different than yours.
Authority only works if people submit to it. People have to believe that it's the right thing to do. Your dissertation seems to be threading the needle as to exactly where you draw that line.
My basic premise, is that your Holy Bible is an indoctrination platform to make people believe in the concept of authority, when in nature, no such thing exists.
Your basic premise that every soul needs to submit to a higher authority, is the root cause of all that is evil.
Yes, I'm speaking in absolutes.
In actuality, no authority can be maintained, without instilling a fear of consequences if it is simply ignored.
When you give me your long list of sample questions pertaining to the various instances where "Gods Authority" was ignored, you are working from the premise of granting God any authority. Spiritual laws give no such stipulation to any external authority other than an individuals calling to a higher purpose.
In a nutshell, that would pertain to service to others.
Let me give you a real-world example:
A few years back, I was playing a trivia based board game, while on vacation with family members. One of the questions that was placed before me, was to answer the percentage of the population who believed that paying taxes was a moral obligation. After a very, very brief discussion, I quickly realized that was the only one in the entire room who believed that paying taxes was not a moral obligation, in fact quite to the contrary, I found the entire concept repugnant to morality, and felt it was my moral obligation to avoid payment wherever, and whenever possible.
For me, the decision regarding taxes, literally comes down to what I can get away with. I use as an example, the fact that I have license plates on my car, which is essentially pure theft by the state. (Just like all taxes are). My personal rationale for that, is I need to be able to transport myself and my own personal property across perceived jurisdictions where malevolent psychopaths with badges and guns can rob me of my freedom for literally any reason they invent, and providing them with an obvious reason to detain me, does not serve my own best interests.
If for example, I pretended that I had the right to ignore these pieces of human debris, I would quickly be reminded that they are authorized to kill me if I do not submit to their authority.
In this example, are my license plates serving some kind of higher moral purpose? Of course not. Regardless of the stated purpose of license plates, along with every other theft through taxes, I am submitting a payment to evil overlords who only uses it to enhance their ability to repress the freedom of all.
Even though you use an example of the constitution as "the Law”, you incorrectly assume that abiding by it has no consequences in our current culture.
For example, pretty much the entire Bundy family is now incarcerated, when all they did was defend their constitutional rights. One of their friends was murdered in the process of bringing evidence of governmental crimes to an Authority in an adjacent County who promised he would actually enforce the constitution.
It never happened. The Constitution is not enforced anywhere in the United States anymore. Authority can only exist under threat of violence.
The threat of violence is the only constant, and it doesn't matter whether you're talking Biblical law, or civil law.
The threat of eternal damnation usually works about as well as the threat of execution, or life in prison.
Your reply to me is still working from the basic misconception of “authority”. It doesn't matter where you draw the line, once authority has been established in the hearts and minds of the people, the inevitable abuse of authority will always follow. Once you throw away the basic principle of voluntary cooperation, the only thing that could possibly follow, is tyranny.
You also seem to be working under the basic premise that Judeo-Christian values is what made America great. Can you site an example of where submitting to authority has ever made anything great? What made America great, was voluntary cooperation amongst free men. (And of course, women).
In each and every instance where authority has been imposed, it has only served to undermine human potential, and progress. The entire concept is parasitical at its core.
You're asking the right questions, are you ready to contemplate the correct answers?
Please take a mere 15 minutes, and listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GQYg2xoHNk
I have gone through the entire book, and many more that work from the same basic premise. I can fully understand that you may not wish to invest in the many days that would be required to undertake such an educational process.
I also fully recognize that many of the concepts expressed will totally violate many of your life long held beliefs. But until the basic premise of the concept of authority is challenged in the first place, arguing where to draw the line becomes an exercise of futility.
If you're interested, the entire audiobook "The Greatest Superstition" is offered free on YouTube, in the form of a playlist. It does require that you to think for yourself.
For me, I even reject your premise that parents are in authority. Instead, I have always perceived myself as a mentor, and a guide.
I have allowed my own daughter to face the consequences of her choices, but have always been there to discuss the lessons learned.
My own parents were clearly authoritarian, and I suppose they had every right to think that they were being moral, since their authority was biblically-based.
The resulting disaster was a mind opening experience, as they routinely attempted to pound me into submission.
Ultimately, authority is an illusion. Sure, you can usually pound someone into submission, you can even kill them if that doesn't work, but that doesn't make the entire concept of authority moral, or legitimate.
Neither does the Bible.
but I did see the movie Fallen...I was in conversation with someone yesterday who said that you can't be sure they are really gone. Cue the music.....
The Plot....."Det. John Hobbes is convinced that when killer Edgar Reese is executed, all of his troubles are over. But when people he knows and people on the street start to sing the same tune that Reese sang in the gas chamber, and those same people taunt him, he is told that maybe the cursed fallen angel Azazel is behind it all. Azazel is cursed to roam the Earth without a form, and he can switch bodies by any contact, making him hard to track. When Hobbes is forced to kill a man possessed by Azazel, he must clear his name while protecting his family and others from the evil, vengeful Azazel."
The title of the book by Larkin Rose, is "The Most Dangerous Superstition". My mistake might have caused anomalous search results.
My memory sucks, and occasionally I make stupid mistakes.
By the way,
There's a reason why I pick the particular verbiage I use in my posts, that some here might find offensive.
It's my way of working these concepts down to the core of my being, so I feel it in my gut. Challenging authority requires fearlessness.
If you fear them, they sense it, just like a rabid dog. For years, if a police car started to tail the one I was driving, I would literally start to sweat profusely, shake uncontrollably, stutter and stammer to the point where I couldn't even articulate a coherent sentence, while all I could hear was my heart pounding both in my chest, and my head.
Years of attempted pounding into submission, caused a very real posttraumatic effect that I literally had no conscious control over.
Under such circumstances, challenging authority will likely get you killed. Lower level authoritarians, like piece of shit pigs in goofy uniforms with badges and guns, are really just slimy little cowards at heart. Once you take away their gun, they've got nothing. They will need to kill you, or treat you as an equal, generally speaking, I no longer leave any other options.
Over literally just the past year, I have learned not to fear them, at every possible level.
The same idea applies to district attorneys, judges, psychopathic politicians, and other parasitical and malevolent lifeforms.
So in reality, I'm not trying convince anyone of anything, other than myself at the subconscious, or gut level.
Incidentally, when the piece of shit pigs follow my car across town now, I just smile, and go on my merry way.
It makes driving between the lines much easier when you're not shaking violently and uncontrollably.
It's also a lot easier to talk to one, when you're not hyperventilating, or wiping the sweat out of your eyes.
You might not agree with my approach, but I can attest to the results.
I no longer experience those uncontrollable emotional reactions my years of indoctrination instilled in me.
It's just a start.
I am well aware of the fact that most of these people are just victims of their own indoctrination, believing the same lies that we've all been taught. Unfortunately, most of them turn into reprehensible pieces of shit as a result of their newfound authority. This is enough evidence for me, to conclude that the entire concept of authority is inherently evil.
Those that don't comply with the evil agenda, are routinely routed out of the system these days. Good people don't last long in an inherently evil organization. Considering that every last one of them is paid with the proceeds of funds forcibly stolen from those who have worked for it, there isn't any such thing as a good public employee. I don't just disdain cops, if they think they have authority over me, they are all pieces of shit in my book. Even the Holy rolling religious types.
In my view, I voluntarily comply with the laws that govern nature, because it is in my best interest to do so. It is a voluntary arrangement I have with the universe. I do so, because I've learned it is in my own best interests.
Since the universe never created any such thing as an authority figure, it always tends to support my efforts to rebuke these horrendously misguided individuals. In case you're wondering, I just smile at shithead cops now, they don't know what the fuck to do after that.
Authority does not work without fear. Fearlessness can be learned.
This may also explain why I tend to think, and articulate in absolutes on such matters.
It's just my own personal way of dealing with it, you're all welcome to choose your own.
Uggh, I just noticed that in my haste this morning, I didn't properly cut and paste and now I'm timed out and can't edit the original post. Here's the part I left out that pertains to substituting the word constitution.
Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Edit: Mr. Fix I think one reason why we will never get on the same page is that I see you responding in theory when I'm trying to deal with the here and now.
Remember my post about Samuel? The God of Abraham never intended for human beings to have a human ruler. By the time Romans 13 had been written, 1,000 years of subjugation to human rulers had been the order of the day to these followers of the God of Abraham.
As for our present circumstances, I would be thrilled if the Constitution was truly followed.
Wouldn't that actually require every citizen to have knowledge of the Constitution? What percentage of the population do you think has really read the document?
Let's suppose we work with the premise that the God of Abraham never intended human beings to have any authority.
Like I have saying all along, if you're a megalomaniacal authoritarian type, you usually don't like to share.
Now, if you want to get into a cut and paste contest,
I'll be happy to play:
This website is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along.
It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said Thou shall not kill. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).
God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!
Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered
The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.
Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK. If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself. Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven: For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12). I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.
The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice.
And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear: It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid (Luke 16:17). There are many more quotes on this topic at my Do Not Ignore the Old Testament web page.
I know that most Christians believe that God is a good and loving god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many Christians haven’t really read the Bible, or just read certain passages in church. This is understandable, as the Bible is hard to read due to its archaic language and obscure references. Also many priests and preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the Bible because they present a message of hate not love.
If you follow the links on this site you will learn about all the nasty things in the Bible that are usually not talked about by priests and preachers.
Go ahead, try to justify the reprehensible behavior that your Bible teaches us.
You don't need an earthly ruler to commit genocide, and all other crimes against humanity.
All you really need, is an imaginary malevolent dictator.
Is it any surprise that anyone might want to imitate his power of example?
You're basic premise that Your book is written by some kind of benevolent force, Is seriously flawed.
It's nothing personal, but if you just want to play competing Bible quotes, I'll play.
The Bible can easily be used to justify the most heinous crimes imaginable. And, it has been.
I was hoping we could just focus on the basics of legitimate authorities, but I see we are going to have to start by exposing your one perceived authority figure as the wretched malevolent piece of shit he actually is.
I'm not just talking theoretically.
Sounds like fun.
Just so you know what you're up against, and have the opportunity to prepare accordingly,
Go to the Home page of the link I just provided, and click on any particular topic you would like to.
There are literally thousands of biblical quotes, all categorized and ready to go at my disposal.
I will bury you.
If you want to justify any crime imaginable, just use a Bible quote.
You might want to consider a different topic.
Most readers of this website know that I seldom rely on Wikileaks as a source nor comment on any of its major leaks. Indeed, the organization reached a new high - or, depending on one's lights, low - during the last American presidential election cycle when leaks began to emerge during the last days of the campaign that were particularly damaging to Darth Hillary. Granted, she didn't need much help, for the stink of corruption and "suspicious deaths" have followed the Clintons since the Arkancides of the 1970s and 80s' up to and including the weird "suicide" of Clinton aide Vince Foster and the strange details around the bloody massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco, the weirdness around the Oklahoma City bombing, the dubious financial activities in Haiti, and so on. These matters have been covered by other researchers in depth, so there was no need here to comment on them. But Wikileaks itself has not been much of a subject here, either, though most regular readers here probably suspect that to gain access to the information contained in its "leaks," it had by the nature of the case to have "inside help," as it were. This, at least, has been my own suspicion, which is why when I saw the following article shared by Mr. S.D., and read a certain passage within it, that I had to pass it along, together with my daily dose of high octane speculation. The article in question is by Professor Michel Chossudovsky and appears at the website Global Research; the article, you will note, was dated December 13, 2010:
Most readers of this website know that I seldom rely on Wikileaks as a source nor comment on any of its major leaks. Indeed, the organization reached a new high - or, depending on one's lights, low - during the last American presidential election cycle when leaks began to emerge during the last days of the campaign that were particularly damaging to Darth Hillary. Granted, she didn't need much help, for the stink of corruption and "suspicious deaths" have followed the Clintons since the Arkancides of the 1970s and 80s' up to and including the weird "suicide" of Clinton aide Vince Foster and the strange details around the bloody massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco, the weirdness around the Oklahoma City bombing, the dubious financial activities in Haiti, and so on. These matters have been covered by other researchers in depth, so there was no need here to comment on them.
But Wikileaks itself has not been much of a subject here, either, though most regular readers here probably suspect that to gain access to the information contained in its "leaks," it had by the nature of the case to have "inside help," as it were. This, at least, has been my own suspicion, which is why when I saw the following article shared by Mr. S.D., and read a certain passage within it, that I had to pass it along, together with my daily dose of high octane speculation. The article in question is by Professor Michel Chossudovsky and appears at the website Global Research; the article, you will note, was dated December 13, 2010:
A few smatterings of information on Wikileaks.
An altruistic truth telling organization without an agenda? Highly doubtful.
A faction of the deep state opposing another faction of the deep state? Say it ain't so.
An intellegence operation guaging your interest in certain topics?
The Players playing the Players, and Playing us by exposing only the dirt that makes you feel like truth is being exposed?
Assange grew up in a cult.
Did you know Pamela Anderson grew up in black magic cults?
Whoever is behind Wikileaks, they seems to be content with the on-going, continued exposure of the US deep state - principally focused on NSA and CIA, with Vault7 especially on the latter (but only a small percentage thus far).
Yet CIA in particular has roots with Nazis from its very inception.
The Wikileaks exposures - at least on the surface - look to diminish the reputation of the CIA in the public eye.
So how does that compute with Nazi backing of Wikileaks? Wikileaks has been doing its thing for a number of years now, so presumably its backers are not displeased with its actions thus far...
Really, how deep the rabbit hole do you want to go?
Not very deep?
Who is Behind Wikileaks?
by Michel Chossudovsky
December 13, 2010
WikiLeaks: A Very Short Coincidence Theory
December 20, 2010
WikiLeaks Is Zionist Poison
October 28, 2010
WikiLeaks Is Zionist Poison II: Deconstruction of the Myth
December 15, 2010
Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job
by F. William Engdahl
December 13, 2010
WikiLeaks is Zionist Poison
December 22, 2010
The New York Times: A Curious Case of Change of Heart?
Seeing the Light, Sanctioned Illusionary Game, or …
By Sibel Edmonds
December 16, 2010
“Trying to Explain the World” – How the Globalist’s PR Agents Use the Wikileaks Psyops Program
December 13, 2010
Governments using Wikileaks to spread disinformation
Description of the above video:
John Young, a former WikiLeaks advisory board member and a critic of the website and its policies these days, explained how WikiLeaks does work and said it is not an easy task to determine the source of the leaks.
"There is a very large underground economy in stolen information using the internet for this purpose. WikiLeaks is a part of that -- it's a very small part. But the technology for selling stolen information is very large and very lucrative. Governments do it, cooperations do it, individuals do it. WikiLeaks basically sells stolen information," he said.
"We actually don't know where this latest leak comes from," he stressed, adding "Right now there is too much disinformation being put out by WikiLeaks as well as by our Defense department."
Wikileaks, Anonymous: “Media Instruments” Supportive of US-NATO Sponsored Regime Change?
December 4, 2012
Netanyahu: WikiLeaks revelations were good for Israel
For years he has warned of the dangers the Iranian nuclear program poses to the entire region. These warnings had been vindicated, Netanyahu said.
November 30, 2010
WikiLeaks: Good for Israel
First reaction from Israeli officials: WikiLeaks exposures proved Israel is reliable and one of the most important sources for the United States.
November 29, 2010
Wikileaks Outs Itself as an Intelligence Operation
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
WikiLeaks - War by Deception
(Note: This isn't necessarily about WikiLeaks, but this is the best documentary ever created about Israel's role in the world of manufactured geopolitics.)
Busted! Latest WikiLeaks - Israel - "Press" Talkingpoint
Turning Our Enemy's Incoherent Decency Into the Vehicle of Their Own Demise...Mossad
December 13, 2010
Busted!! WikiLeaks Struck a Deal with Israel Over Cables
December 8, 2010
Busted - WikiLeaks Working for Israel (Mossad Operation)
ADL: WikiLeaks Vital to Israel's Intelligence program
ADL to Attack Journalists and Publications Tying Israel to WikiLeaks
December 27, 2010
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is 'annoyed' by 9/11 truth
July 21, 2010
PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media
NYT Reporter Defends Publishing WikiLeaks Cables
Michel Chossudovsky, December 12, 2010
Global Research Editor's Note (on the above article):
The following transcript points to the involvement of the corporate media including the New York Times in the Wikileaks project.
How do we interpret this relationship?
The corporate media is the source of disinformation and at the same time it is supporting "transparency" and truth in media.
David E. Sanger, Washington Correspondent of the New York Times, worked closely with Wikileaks. He was involved in the distribution, editing and dissemination of the leaked documents.
Sanger is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Strategy Group together with Madeleine K. Albright, Richard Hass, R Talbott, Robert.B. Zoellick (president of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive director of the 9/11 Commission).
We have highlighted a number of important statements in the first part of this interview, which confirm that the NYT has not only been involved in the selection and redacting of the Wikileaks documents, it has they also undertaken these activities in consultation with the US government.
Unquestionably the released documents constitute an important data bank in their own right.
The question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of the released documents to the broader public.
What interests are being served?
To find out more about David Sanger, who is one of the main keys to this disinformation campaing, check out the following links that expose him for the shill and traitor that he is:
David Sanger warns of the danger of extremism and nuclear weapons in Pakistan.
Chief Washington Correspondent for The New York Times David E. Sanger writes compelling front-page analyses from the White House and around the globe that explain the most complex events of our time.
David Sanger Interview: Al-Qaeda fleeing Pakistan for Somalia, Yemen
WikiLeaks papers back Bush claims of Iran role in Iraq war
October 24, 2010
Architect John Young: WikiLeaks Fog of Infowar and Its Ties to the Elite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lTBJAkNyBk (Part 1 of 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzHRgJLgSm4 (Part 2 of 3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ve_ez3LL0 (Part 3 of 3)
Constitution Will Be Victim in Zealous Effort to Go After Assange and Wikileaks
December 13, 2010
Assange Prosecution: A Brazen Effort to Kill Alternative Media
December 8, 2010
WikiLeaks Being Used to Justify "Patriot Act" Legislation for Internet
December 7, 2010
WikiLeaks: Corrupted Oracle or Cointelpro Asset of the Establishment?
By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
Updated December 13, 2010
Wayne Madsen on Wiki (Israel) Leaks - Russia Today
November 29, 2010
Wikileaks + MSM Hype = ?
WikiLeaks Blames a Large Portion of the Deaths in Iraq on Sectarian Violence
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has close links to the Economist, controlled by the Rothschild banking family
December 2, 2010
Yeah, Wikileaks Is a Fake False-Front, a Brass Plate if You Will
November 27, 2010
Hidden Intelligence Operation Behind the Wikileaks Release of "Secret" Documents?
The real story of Wikileaks has clearly not yet been told.
Wikileaks in Venezuela: Espionage, Propaganda, and Disinformation
December 3, 2010
Wikileaks and Media Disinformation
North Korea, Iran and Belarus
December 8, 2010
WikiLeaks: Pouring Fuel on the Iran Fire?
By Russ Wellen
October 24, 2010
From the article:
At Danger Room, Spencer Ackerman and Noah Shachtman write: "No one would accuse WikiLeaks of being pro-war. . . . Not when its founder, Julian Assange, said that its trove of reports from the Afghan conflict suggested . . . American 'war crimes.'" They continue.
So it's more than a little ironic that, with its newest document dump from the Iraq campaign, WikiLeaks may have just bolstered one of the Bush administration's most controversial claims about the Iraq war: that Iran supplied many of the Iraq insurgency's deadliest weapons and worked hand-in-glove with some of its most lethal militias.
In other words, aren't Assange and WikiLeaks just adding ammunition to those calling for an attack on Iran to halt its nuclear program? In fact, though, withholding documents unflattering to Iran for fear of fomenting yet more war would only undermine the credibility of their work. Future efforts on their part to draw the brakes on unwarranted American interventions abroad would thus be compromised.
Wikileaks under doubt as “classified” documents substantiate bogus U.S. claims
Oct 24, 2010
WikiLeaks Is A Massive Fraud and Disinformation: WikiLeaks Founder Claims That 9-11 Was NOT A Conspiracy
October 26, 2010
Time for Wikileaks to come clean
24 August 2010
Wikileaks documents now targeting Iran
24 October 2010
How WikiLeaks Makes Confrontation With Iran More Likely
October 26, 2010
Iran says Wikileaks act 'mischievous'
Tue Oct 26, 2010
Iran transforming Afghan war
A leaked report suggests the death of a Canadian soldier was the result of a Taliban attack with a missile launcher--likely provided by Tehran
Iran's deadly hand in Afghanistan
BY James Kirchick
Thursday, August 5th 2010
CNN: Wikileaks and Iran
October 20, 2010
Afghan rebels got missiles from North: Wikileaks
Osama bin Laden’s financial adviser visited Pyongyang, says report
July 28, 2010
Maliki supporters say WikiLeaks revelations a plot
October 24, 2010
From the above article:
"It is a media campaign against the state and the political process carried out by several groups like the Baathists, regional forces and the new political order," said MP Hassan al-Sinaid, who is close to Maliki.
Allawi was a former member of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein's Baath party, and looks to Saudi Arabia for support.
"This is all in the past," Sinaid said of the allegations, adding that "in six months this business will be forgotten."
Ordinary Iraqis who support Maliki are convinced that the allegations against him are false.
"This information is false and this site lies by publishing these documents years after the incidents," said civil servant Raad Abdel Ghaffar, 42.
"This site wants to sow discord at a time when the political parties are about to agree."
Maliki's office said in a statement on Saturday: "There are some political interests behind the media campaign who are trying to use the documents against national leaders, especially the prime minister."
Former Pakistani General: CIA, Mossad behind WikiLeaks Reports
November 30, 2010
WikiLeaks Identifies "About 150 Whistleblowers & About a Thousand Activist" in Latest Document Dump