Monday, February 19, 2018
Anyway, this was what I was privileged to behold. It is an advertisement, for the film Get Out, but it wrapped around the paper, covering up the actual front page news stories. Oh don't worry, those were just as racialistically oriented as the ad, but that the Times chose to feature this full four page movie ad to lead its Sunday issue says a lot.
In fact, I addressed this very principle in my latest home page piece. The Times is merely a large powerful megaphone for the World Operatives sworn to inject the most robustly virulent humanist dogma into the minds of those who refuse to follow The Word instead.
The message here is clear. It is not as much that Jordan Peele has found a poetic new way of talking about racism, but that he's spewed a viciously tired way of accusing all white people of a systemic racism that exists only in the minds of those captivated by the Society.
Don't get me wrong, I agree we're all racists, I understand that -- but so are Jordan Peele, the editors of the Times, and those who enable this ugly feature of the culture war to fester. We are not racists because we're white, we're racists because we're sinners, all of us guilty before a God who holds us accountable for far worse than racism.
Of course hard core racialists have a habit of going apoplectic over that kind of a statement. Racism is the absolute worst thing on the planet to many people.
I saw another horrifically racialist film last night, Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri. (A few spoilers follow, just so you know.) It was packed with all kinds of the standard assumptions about how racist the police are and how inept they are and just how good it feels to haul off with tons of violence against it all, especially when it comes from such a viscerally compelling protagonist like a Frances McDormand character.
There was even a scene when the McDormand character rips a huge new asshole on a Catholic priest who visits her home to urge her to take down the messages on these billboards. Interesting her analogy: she likened the priest to a member of a gang, and that when the gang does something evil then the unwitting member of the gang is culpable because he's in the gang. She pulls no punches by even making a reference to the church's rampant sexual abuse scandal.
That's all fine and true and the rage is certainly understandable! The intriguing thing is that some reviewers found it much like a Flannery O'Conner story. O'Conner was a devout Catholic who wrote graphically about the worst in people then subtly showcased some mildly redeeming quality in them that made her stories so appealing.
Thing is the film has received rave reviews, except that I'd been reading it has fallen back a bit in the Oscar buzz. Huh. I wonder why? Apparently the reason is that it is not racialist enough. Please. The idea is that one of the main characters is a particularly uncouth police deputy (played by Sam Rockwell) with a terrible racist streak, yet as the movie comes to a close he seems to have "found" that "redemption." He essentially has a change of heart, starts being a bit more kind and understanding, and then helps the McDormand character chase down a rapist. End of movie. (Yeah, well, that whole thing deserves some attention, but not now.)
The critics getting the most airplay seem to feel that such a racist bastard should not be let off the hook so easily. Oh my. These racialists are just flat-out diabolical. I mean I may not quite understand this, so forgive me, but is the crime of racism just so reprehensible to them that should such a prominent film introduce even the smallest sense of mercy into the mix that it should be so widely dismissed?
The screenwriter is nominated for an Oscar and is also a lapsed Catholic. When I see that someone is a lapsed Catholic I generally think of someone who considers the Catholic Church bad for sexual abuse scandals and backwards patriarchal male-only-priests type things, then slips off into the humanist dogma and links up with progressively-minded organizations who promote those things. Certainly not all, I don't want to stereotype at all, but really, at least the most prominent ones do -- like moviemakers.
You can see it all over his film, though. The McDormand character is livid about just about anything that isn't in tune with the latest progressive agenda item. It is not overtly political, but it is not unclear. The humanist is the one who is really the one who is the most kind and sensitive and caring and bold and courageous to fight for this aggrieved group's rights and that aggrieved group's rights! Yeah how righteously wholesome!
So you've got wickedly sinful people trying to find redemption. Some go over with the humanists because they haven't a clue about the real redemption. They only know the Catholic Church and we all know how bad that is... so that Jesus thing? Not happening. If we want to get rapists, we'll have to hunt them down ourselves.
That's the message of this film, from a lapsed Catholic who only knows that he must have faith in a Caesar who has failed him and now flounders as best he can to find a better version of him. He hasn't the faintest notion of The Real Redemption because he's never been introduced to Him.
And the Society of Jesus, the guys with all the versions of Jesus they'd like you to embrace, they're perfectly happy with that. Their job is not as much to get you in the Catholic Church, but to keep you from Jesus. If being a Catholic gets you there, fine. If spitting on the Catholic Church gets you there, then that works too.
Either way as long as you are intractably in Caesar's grip, then it works for them, they've done their job.
Three Billboards is just another weapon in their arsenal.
Unless, of course you are a follower of Christ, you see it for what it is, your own faith in the real merciful life-gushing Christ flourishes, and you can better articulate what's happening here to the Flannery O'Conner types (there are so many -- the field is ripe for harvest!) so they may understand and know The True Rich Beautiful Redemption.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
I've been seeing this person "Omarosa" appear in the news a lot. Who is this?
From what I gather she is someone who worked in the Donald Trump White House for some time, and her qualifications for this position were her appearances on Trump's reality show The Apprentice in one or more of its manifestations. A basic Google search result tells us she is a "television actor." I've never seen her or heard her speak a word, but she seems to be getting a lot of attention. I have no idea why.
I imagine it is because the mainstream news media consider her a prominent voice in the anti-Trump movement so they afford her gobs of airtime, even shoving cameras and microphones in her face to help her out: "Come on, give us more of the dirt on Trump and do it in your spectacularly endearing way!" Again, I really don't know much about her so I don't want to be presumptuous at all, but I did find out one other interesting thing.
She is a minister of some stripe. Reading some of her biography she'd done studies to be a better institutionally accepted Christian individual -- I guess that's why she did it, no harm in that. This is a key part of this post's subject.
The latest news whirl is that Omarosa proclaimed that a Mike Pence administration would be worse than a Trump one, so apparently her message is "Be careful what you wish for Trump haters!" The reason is, in her words, "[Pence] is extreme. I'm a Christian. I love Jesus, but he thinks Jesus tells him to say things. And I'm like, Jesus didn't say that. It's scary."
Now, first of all, if she follows Jesus as she claims, doesn't she expect that Jesus would want her to do and say the things He would want? Why is Mike Pence's version of Jesus any worse than hers?
But that's the main point.
Who's version of Jesus is the one that is true?
Don't get me wrong, as a Catholic Mike Pence's version of Jesus is well-suited to carry on the duties assigned him by Cain's legacy. Some things may be perfectly within the things he's expected to do based on Jesus' authorization of Pence to do Caesar's work. Or it could be Pence may have said things that distort the reality of who Jesus really is and what He is about. I understand that.
The problem is those specific things are never addressed. Furthermore if they are, the purveyors of the Hollywood extravaganza that is Cain's work will always spew the Catholicist version of Jesus, never the biblical one. Is Omarosa's the biblical one? It may be, but I don't think it is simply because the purveyors are too eager to broadcast it.
Indeed they are unlikely to say anything about what Omarosa thinks about Jesus unless it fits in with the narrative, or even what Mike Pence thinks unless it too fits in properly. This is so a widely Catholicized populace can continue to believe from merely what they reported about what Omarosa said that Jesus is actually whatever Caesar says he is.
Really, would you be able to discern whether Omarosa's version or Pence's version is the real Jesus? Do you spend time with Him every day, reading His words, prayerfully, corporately, intentionally dwelling in His courts with Him listening to Him understanding what He is saying, then loving those around you with His love?
Or are you one of any of those frightened cowering types of Christians? Or are you simply dismissive of this "Jesus" anyway and now scared to death of Trump and Pence and all of them to further rationalize your participation in "The Resistance," which by the way is precisely what Caesar wants you to do to destroy your soul?
May I introduce you to Him, and not just because of what I say or anyone says. Find out for yourself.
Wednesday, January 03, 2018
Starting off the new year here I saw on the Internet news about what's going on in Iran. Thousands of people are filling the streets to protest Iran's government. Already two dozen people have been killed in the violent demonstrations. I don't know the details of what precisely is happening, but I do know a bit about how Cain's Agency led by the Society of Jesus is the most instrumental force in shaping government policy in every nation and forming what every citizen of each nation thinks about their government.
Iran has always been some kind of theocracy, at its core ultimate leadership is held by the oldest wisest Shia Islam minister of some sort. The core purpose of government is to crack heads, and when the people feel it is cracking heads of the right people they are fine. Trouble is when World Operatives disrupt that process, and right now it is being upended, as it has any number of times in Iran's history.
The mainstream news organizations led by the New York Times refuse to cover it all sufficiently because they are given over to their still fervent adulation of Barack Obama, whose pathetic foreign policy was such a catastrophe that the seeds for this current revolution are now sprouting.
But then, that's Cain's objective.
Disruption. Destabilization. Desolation. Death on some scale enough to draw enough people's attention back to Caesar's rule.
I heard on the radio news about California's new recreational marijuana law taking effect. They covered it profusely, and every individual interviewed about it was a stoner elated that he or she could now buy pot. Not one interview was with a scientist who knows about the horrifically detrimental effects of the drug.
I'd even heard that a benefit of the law is that now real studies may be done to determine the effects of marijuana. I guess. The only thing is research has already demonstrated how destructive it is, it is just that is still rarely broadcast, and deep politics handlers will still generate a narrative that does the most to mess with people and their communities.
I wonder: why such extensive coverage except to behave as one big advertisement for one of the most hideous activities an individual can practice? Why are loud blaring news organizations giving it this much credibility?
I know why.
I saw on television a promo for a new TV show. "The Chi." I knew nothing about it before seeing the ad. I imagine the "Chi" is short for Chicago. But here's what I watched for about a minute.
Very brief shots edited together very deftly, all showing black people in states of desperation or violence or sensuality. It was all strung together so fast, you know, the Michael Bay effect, that I couldn't tell you one thing about its intellectual value. It was all just gut emotion.
But what was in my brain was people pointing guns at other people, people running, people looking very angry, and dancing women in meager outfits -- and I'm pretty sure every one of them was black. Now this may not be exactly what this program is about, I understand that, but the truth is what was in that ad is what I think it is about.
I did peek around on the web at what they say the show is about, and the idea is that it is about the South Side experience.
And the South Side experience is all about that -- whatever it was that was in that commercial that now resides in my psyche.
This is what we're supposed to think of black people. Oh don't worry, white people have already degraded themselves with their wretched programming, I agree.
But still, this is the picture the mainstream media powers want us to have.
It breaks my heart for black people, or any people for that matter. How much their souls are being poured into the mouth of a ravenous devil.
This last item is one I take a bit more time exploring, with my latest home page piece. Would like to invite you to look it over, see if I've shared something of value with you. Email me with your thoughts, would love to hear them.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
I can't help but put in another plug for D.C McAllister, The Federalist writer who absolutely nails it with this piece regarding true sexuality versus the pathetic, warped, twisted version the World bilges through Hollywood, Washington, Wall Street, and especially Rome.
She actually does mention Christ in this one, through her simple reference to Song of Solomon. Because the entirety of the Old Testament speaks of Christ, Song of Solomon and its rich language of deep impassioned love is Christ. Truly this is how Christ feels about his bride. If you were Christ's you'd want to be beautiful before Him too.
Why does all this seem so unseemly to many? They've been so programmed by the System of sin management to do sexuality in so many horrifically unrighteous ways, all involving sin then law then condemnation then sin then law then condemnation repeat rinse repeat rinse repeat rinse ad nauseam, having no conception of who Christ is and what He's about and how much He loves.
Christ wants to have the most vibrant interaction with us -- profound, magnificent, exhilarating, dynamic, rapturous -- just as McAllister describes that glorious interplay between a man and a woman.
But the World just dumps that all right into the sewer.
So much to say, volumes indeed -- it is all so viscerally compelling.
And sorrowfully harrowing at the same time.
That so many would reject Christ, His extended hand for you to grasp, for...
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
I haven't blogged for a while and I don't know when I will again. I'm just so busy with work and family and Christmas events, I just can't hit the keyboard as often as I'd like. I do get discouraged, I confess, because I see so much folly smothering everyone all around and it doesn't seem like anything I think or feel or, of course, write about much matters.
I do, however, have to put up a post with a link to this piece from The Federalist, because it just hits at the heart of the horror of what's going on right now in an overly sexualized hyper-Catholicized society. The World System engenders all kinds of idiocy that simply does not address things righteously. The #metoo movement is a great example of this.
It is truly frightening, truly. The author of the piece even makes this the main feature of her thesis -- that it is the fear. The only way out is through faith, she says, but I must add...
Faith on what?
For it to be meaningful at all it may only be on Christ, and while The Federalist is one of the best thinking sites there is, the author simply will not expound on who Christ is and what He's about. This is indeed an excellent, excellent piece, but it falls a bit short because it doesn't have
She doesn't say what the totalitarian regime's engine is: nothing other than the militant arm of the Roman Catholic Church. I can't say that she could, because even The Federalist is still a bit too taken by the System. It is almost always considered too extreme to go farther than faith and love and describe the subject of those items, but they mean nothing unless you know the contrast between the System and the Kingdom.
I invite you to visit my webzine. There's more there about this dynamic at work. I hope and pray you are edified by what you read there, or even what you discover any way you can behold that contrast.
And find and know and revel in Him, and in His love.