The latest home page piece at The Catholicist Nation delves into aspects of violence that, it seems, so few care to see.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
This week NBC got into a bit of hot water for showing the pics and airing the words of the Virginia Tech mass murderer. Shortly before shooting 32 individuals, he sent an informational package to the NBC offices in New York to explain himself. Predictably it was filled with profane rants and menacing images, and after chief correspondent Brian Williams expressed turmoil over the decision, NBC went ahead and showcased it all.
It is easy to understand the displeasure with this, ahem, "decision." The guy is now a celebrity, even if posthumously and with the abjectly repulsive notoriety. Add to this the number of other disaffected individuals who now have incentive to commit heinous acts because of the wide gratuitous publicity-- indeed this was the premise of the film Natural Born Killers. Reviled by many as being excessively violent, its message was that the media are such that a top rated feature can be hewn from "reality show" hyperviolence.
Actually, I shouldn't say the media are such, but that people are such. It is the people that make it so. It is the people so immersed in their abiding engulfing fear that the whole condition keeps violence flowing spitting spewing gushing from the souls of the populace.
The NBC connection?
I can only think of that fable about the scorpion and the frog. Know it? The scorpion wants to get across the river and asks the frog for a ride on his back. The frog properly fears the scorpion will sting him, but the scorpion assures him, "Why would I do that when we both would die if you are disabled?" The frog agrees, and half-way across the river the scorpion jabs him with his venom-filled tail. "Why did you do that? We will now both die" the frog laments with a last gasp. Just before both drop below the water, the scorpion replies, "Ah-ha, you must remember that stinging you is in my nature. It is what I do."
It is in NBC's nature to be an unassuming accomplice to murder. It can't help it. It is what it does. What were its detractors thinking? They got exactly what they wanted. In fact, that's a key point. What NBC does is precisely what the people want it to do. They say "No, no," but they mean "Yes, yes." It is a profoundly codependent relationship, and it is deeply motivated by the need for human sacrifice.
What's more, all of this is a clear testament to the power NBC has. The network doesn't just portray the World Powers-That-Be-- it is them. What are the legal, political, economic, social repercussions for this action? None, not a single one. This is not because it is acquitted of any wrongdoing, it is because NBC is itself the World System. It is the very voice of the Romanist autocracy.
Oh, it is very mindful of its role. It does intimately know of its task-- that crucial part it plays in managing the sin of the World's people. The Virginia Tech Bad-Ass Action Hero Extravaganza-- what else could it evoke but rage, from whoever is snorting the stuff? All for the purpose of keeping people seeking out the television network, the government, the state-church, the duly licensed fully humanistically trained therapist-- longing for some absolution, some direction, some fleeting assurance that the extent of our sins won't destroy us.
The Powers will certainly comply. Gleefully. But they'll be lying. Even when they express contrition or concurrance with some censure, they fold it all into the game they're playing.
When someone asks them about death, they're only going to respond with
Jesus said very clearly, "Let the dead bury the dead." All the grand institutions that govern the Catholicist Nation, they're all dead. All doing dead things.
Want to be alive?
There's life in the Son. There's death outside of Him, but there's real vibrant true life
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Day before yesterday at the airport waiting for my flight, I caught sight of a TV showing the nationally televised major league ballgame between the Dodgers and Padres. I noticed that every Dodger was wearing the number 42. I love baseball but after discovering the depth of its competitive duplicity, I don't pay any attention to what's going on there. Even as clueless as I was about this, however, I did figure the 42 thing had to be about Jackie Robinson, who wore that number. Now, as a rule, I despise the Dodgers, being a faithful San Francisco Giants follower, so my take here may be a bit biased indeed. You may certainly think that. But this wearing the number 42 thing. Utterly ridiculous.
It is not only that it is silly, but it is a prominent reflection of this obsession so many have with their racist guilt. I've wondered how to articulate all of this, and I think I've found one way to do so.
It came from Shelby Steele, a black writer who has joined many thoughtful writers "of color" to decry the idiocy that is "race guilt" in the world today. It came to the fore once again with the whole Don Imus incident (see previous blog post). Recently I heard a promo for Laura Ingraham's radio show that featured comments by Steele about all of it, and the question posed to him was why he wasn't invited on all the network morning talk shows ("Today," "The Early Show," etc.) while the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and their victim enabling rants are all over the airwaves.
He replied that white people actually want the Jacksons and Sharptons for, get this, absolution. He stated that if he were to go on those shows, the white people would not get absolution from him, so he's not an attractive media product.
I thought about that. Wow.
It makes perfect sense, especially if you understand how the world works from the Catholicist Nation persective.
For absolution only makes sense in the context of someone sinning, in this case, the sin of keeping the Jackie Robinsons of the world from being allowed to fully benefit in a white man's economy. White people are now to feel such guilt for what they did, that they can only feel better by constantly hearing of the beneficent graces bestowed by the good black empowerment reverends. If those guys can absolve us of our inherent racism, then we can feel better. If we can shout to the world how much we feel shame for our racism by wearing 42-numbered attire and properly beaming anytime Jackie's name is mentioned, then we'll be golly gosh okay.
Now I'm not for a second saying people don't sin. Or that people have not been racist or that we shouldn't honor brave people like Jackie Robinson and genuinely appreciate that.
My point is simply that we don't do what it really takes to get rid of the sin in whatever form it's in, racist or not. The only way that can happen is to humbly accept the gift of forgiveness for it all from God in the Person of Jesus Christ. That's the Kingdom way, and it gets one truly free to authentically love one another no matter what their skin color or disposition is.
The World's way is to ride the wave of sin-shame-absolution-sin-shame-absolution-- up and down, up and down-- let's feel just a bit more guilty for not commemorating Jackie Robinson day enough, so let's paint 42 all over our clothes. Not enough? Let's wear it on our foreheads, tattooed there permanently-- not enough? Let's have plastic surgery so we all look like Jackie Robinson.
Oh, yeah, that's a bit much. But if that's too much,
Why isn't the utter folly of every baseball player wearing 42?
Friday, April 13, 2007
Benjamin Bush is a prolific blogger who recently made a foray to the "Jesus Creed" blog, a popular emergent church type forum that supposedly welcomes all views with all openness. What he found is that they aren't exactly so open as to hear views that would--heaven forbid-- perhaps close one's mind on something that is--oh my--true.
I enthusiastically encourage you to check out his eloquent narrative of this adventure. His blog is here, The Politics of Heaven.
In today's Los Angeles Times there was a piece by columnist Joel Stein about how pointless Don Imus really is-- this in light of the recent hypocritical popular culture witch hunt of the guy. Not that I'm an apologist for him, for I feel pretty much the way Stein does.
What is noteworthy is that the postmodern philosophy from which the emergent church movement takes its charge is all about rejection of truth as a weapon used by those who want to increase their power over others. With this in mind it is easy to see why the "Jesus Creed" people would chafe at any humble suggestion by Ben that something may indeed be objectively true. "Ooo, you're implying something that would mean we'd have to cede power to you. Ee-yuck."
The one thing I thought about when hearing the media go nuts about how upset the Rutgers team was over Imus' insensitive remarks was, just how much power do these women give Imus over their lives? Indeed, just how much power does Imus have over all their enablers--all those people who've jumped on the bandwagon to announce how victimized they are about anything that this boorish radio personality could ever say?
The only thing I can think is that the media run with this Imus-Rutgers thing and are successful in stirring up people's codependent passions so they can keep everyone's attention off the things that truly matter. In a very profound way, it is a subtle and insidious tool to stunt truthful considerations.
Wow. The weapons of the World's operatives. They get more and more sophisticated.
Remember how The X-Files used to say, "The truth is out there"? Oh it is. But be careful, because when someone in power--whether a prominent emergent blog or mainstream politically correct police news network--says something that sounds noble and progressive, and that person is contracted with the lucrative World System craftily managed by the media,
It's almost surely not the truth.
At least not truth that is meaningful.
My most recent home page piece gets into the idea of meaningful truth a bit.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
A new book is out by wunderkind 9/11 debunker David Ray Griffin called, appropriately enough, Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
So, to review, back on September 11th, 2001, there were these planes that went into buildings and caused us all to be horrified. Naturally we all asked, “What happened?”
Then the media gave us the story of Muslim extremist terrorists who flew the planes and all the rest of it.
And then evidence arose that it was an inside job— that, for instance, the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
And so the media went to work debunking that evidence. (Viz: “The structures of the towers were such that a single plane could indeed have destroyed the building, and here’s all the technical mumbo-jumbo that would make that possible.)
And then the truth seekers went to work debunking that debunking. (Viz: “You say this-and-that technical mumbo-jumbo, but here’s other technical mumbo-jumbo that clearly disputes that.”)
The Culture War continues.
Oh, the powers-that-be are indeed lying, so Griffin’s book should be very revealing. Good stuff.
Sadly, however, Griffin’s position is that of a zillion other radical selfists— that those powers all need to fess up, that we need to call them on it and yell and scream at them a lot. What they are just clueless about is that the media and their toadying government won’t stop lying. What’ll happen is that they will come up with their version somewhere somehow called Debunking the Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
So, yeah, The War continues.
Want out of The War?
Sunday, April 01, 2007
This was the title of an editorial in Saturday's Los Angeles Times, way in the back, way down at the bottom left corner of the page. It was about new DNA findings that tell us, essentially, that the theory of evolution is still quite the theory.
It addressed recent findings that show that the mammal line started shortly after the dinosaurs were made extinct by the cataclysmic event 65 million years ago turned out to be a dead end. Furthermore, it wasn't until 15 million later that the mammal line that supposedly led to us started.
This followed a cover story in Newsweek two weeks ago that revealed DNA discoveries have shown that most of the caveman types we'd all been taught were our evolutionary ancestors were also dead ends. This means Darwinists are now confessing that the evidence cannot be denied any longer, and are actually scrambling to hedge their sentiments as soon as they can by devising new theories to explain things.
In other words, they've got to come out quickly and modify what they've got with something that sounds elaborately reasonable before people start getting the idea that evolution is bankrupt, and that maybe, just maybe, there might actually be Someone who put it all in place to begin with.
What many people just don't get about the very short time spans for going from marmoset to human, periods that are now understood as cold hard fact, is that this is clearly just not enough time for evolution to happen. I really wonder what the scientists are going to do to try to spin that one.
In other words, Darwinists are saying that chance occurances leading to beneficial mutations had to have happened all along somewhere somehow for a human being to have eventually appeared on earth. But sound probability science tells us that for that to have happened, given all the variables we must consider, the universe would have to be (bear with me now) a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times older than it is.*
For Darwinists to be correct, it would be like planting watermelon seeds in your garden at 9 am, going in to check to see if the tea is ready, then coming back out at 9:10 and finding full watermelons on the vines. It is comical to think that any scientist would actually say "It could happen!"
Unless, of course there was a supernatural entity that made that happen.
I just wonder how much longer the folly of Darwinism will continue. The World is very powerful, and its operatives extraordinarily deft. Sadly, many will continue to buy it, but that's just because they are still beholden to a World that they see as their savior.
Maybe they'll find another Savior, One who actually loves them so much that He not only created them--as the evidence is now demonstrating clearly--but also cares for them.
A great website to check out for more on the scientific evidence for God's handiwork is Reasons to Believe.
(*The figures for how long the universe must be around for evolution to take place came from Christianity Today, March 2006, Vol. 50, No. 3, page 44)