We can simultaneously praise Mrs Sarah Palin for having achieved so much in her young life as to be amazing, and fault her promoters for choosing someone to rule us that has pursued a dual masculine/feminine career.
She was a star in basketball, head of Fellowship of Christian Athletes, a near-miss for Miss Alaska, at which contest she performed on the flute, a sportscaster, mayor, and governor. She is a mother of five, the last of which has Down’s Syndrome, and the eldest of which is about to be deployed to Iraq. In short, she is the very epitome of the super- soccer-mom, the woman who “wanted it all” and got it.
I tend to think this choice is a brilliant ploy from the McCain handlers, which is probably going to deliver the needed constituencies and thus the election. Specifically, (1) soccer moms that are Republican but were tempted to go for “change”; (2) soccer moms that are not Republican but might be intrigued by someone like Palin that could serve as role model for their daughters; (3) some of the female Hillary supporters who might balk at voting for the Negro and now have an ersatz woman to vote for; (4) evangelicals and pro-lifers who now can scamper back to the fold with a clear conscience.
It is brilliant for the cryptocracy, in that they will rope it in for their first choice, while continuing the humiliation and demoralization of the white man: McCain will soon be dead or committed to an insane asylum, which means the election will be a choice between a Negro and a Woman.
On the positive side, there seems to be some truth in what the guys in the lab were saying the other day. Every country tries a female head leader — once. It seems to get it out of their system. England had Margaret Thatcher, Israel Golda Meir, India Indira Gandhi, Pakistan Benazir Bhutto. Germany is taking her turn at bat now with Merkel. The frogs are still holding out: they had a choice between a jew and a woman last time, and took the jew.
So, if we have to catch this chicken pox in order to get it over with and not get it again, it seems like Mrs Palin would be better than anyone else I can think of.
The tragedy however would be if the Christian community presents this situation as something absolutely positive, and Mrs Palin as a role model for girls, and the political realities of today as something acceptable. I fear this could happen. Some have already started suggesting Mrs Palin is our “Deborah.” The foolishness of such a comparison, from either the perspective of exegesis or biblical worldview, is, I hope, too obvious to readers of this blog to warrant spelling it out.
More grim to contemplate is the cryptocracy’s deeper plan. Mrs Palin will deliver their man, but will she still be useful to them after that? She is undoubtedly certified as Israel-safe, but how deep does that go? I doubt anyone knows for sure. We were discussing what means might be employed to move her out of the picture to be replaced by Jew Lieberman once the election is over. I truly hope they would not use a bullet to the skull in the case of a woman. It it sickening to contemplate, but I would expect something more like an aircraft engine “malfunction.”
Don’t forget she was on the PTA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOht5Nwb4q4&eurl=http://housingpanic.blogspot.com/
The analogy with Harriet Miers seems obvious. I think the only man Mrs. Palin can deliver is Obama. And why would the cryptocracy prefer McCain over Obama? One puppet works as well as another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l31eIwZvW8M
Doug — you may be right. I don’t claim to have a crystal ball. Those of us that have been awakened need to help each other read the signs so we can take pre-emptive moves to protect ourselves and our kin, and I welcome your insights.
To me, the disanalogy to Harriet seems obvious. (1) Her nomination could not have been seen as a way to regain lost constituencies; (2) she had no appeal to anyone; (3) she had no particular qualifications whatsoever.
The cryptocracy would favor McC over Yo-mama for a variety of reasons. (1) McC would probably command more respect with the military, making the chance of its balking at their plans of hegemony less likely. (2) There is always the risk of a chimp-out with a Negro, thus making him a little less reliable. (3) Though Yo-mama is a fellow communist, and thus has natural appeal, he has not sold his soul to the cryptocracy for as long and completely as has McC. McC is more reliable in exactly the way Frost would be preferred over Filostrato (for those that have read That Hideous Strength): one who has given himself over lock stock and barrel.
Take the cue from the Connecticut jew. His party-switching support is utterly inexplixible except on the hypothesis that some deal or other has been made that he finds irresistible. I certainly hope the particular hypothesis I hint at above is not the one; but some deal has certainly been made.
Of course, the cryptocracy wins, and we lose, regardless of which of these chumps wins. That being granted, one can still discern that one chump would be favored by them over the other, given a choice.
If the Cryptocracy are so powerful to put in fake cronies that act like leaders, if they are really that powerful, why remain hidden?
Saw on antiwar.com that Palin has already (just) met with the board of AIPAC. Can you believe it?
Tim, Good points on Harriet. Mrs. Palin’s nomination came out of left field, but with clear appeal to the Evangelicals McCain has disenfranchised in the past.
Consider this description of Mrs. Palin’s Pastor, Ed Kalnins:
“During the 2004 election season, he praised President Bush’s performance during a debate with Sen. John Kerry, then offered a not-so-subtle message about his personal candidate preferences. “I’m not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I’m sorry.” Kalnins added: “If every Christian will vote righteously, it would be a landslide every time.”
Months after hinting at possible damnation for Kerry supporters, Kalnins bristled at the treatment President Bush was receiving over the federal government’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. “I hate criticisms towards the President,” he said, “because it’s like criticisms towards the pastor — it’s almost like, it’s not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That’s what it’ll get you.”
Much of his support for the current administration has come in the realm of foreign affairs. Kalnins has preached that the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq were part of a “world war” over the Christian faith, one in which Jesus Christ had called upon believers to be willing to sacrifice their lives.
What you see in a terrorist — that’s called the invisible enemy. There has always been an invisible enemy. What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what’s going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. … We need to think like Jesus thinks.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
For McCain, a running mate made in heaven.
On the other hand, Harriet’s nomination came out of nowhere, or perhaps the fetid swamps where W’s all-time all-star loyalists swim.
Reasons why the cryptocracy might favor Obama over McCain: 1. Obama’s tyranny could be kinder and gentler, and as martial law will probably be a heavier burden on the ethnic underclass, it may be easier for them to swallow if it isn’t brought down by whitey. (Then again, prison populations have the most racial conflicts between the blacks and the hispanics, not whites with either.) 2. McCain never passed his anger management class and has a hair trigger temper. Plus, as you note, he is battling senility, all of which makes him unstable, maybe even uncontrollable. I don’t know if Manchurian candidates can be programmed all the way through Alzheimers. 3. Obama is better at doing the NWO rock star tour. Remember the worship he received in Germany? The globalists must have loved that. 4. Most Democrats have a visceral hatred of Bush and his heir apparent voted with him over 90% of the time. I know a sales managers where I work who understands what really happened on 9/11 but has much hope in Obama and Joe(“I’m a Zionist”) Biden. Anyone unplugged enough from the matrix to know what happened on 9/11 is lost forever to the GOP, but might still have faith in Blue state America, and the cryptocracy knows that. I think they want the sheeple lulled into passive acceptance of the police state with its endless wars and endless debasement of endless fiat money from endless central banksters. The model are masters are working from is probably closer to Brave New World than 1984. We have had an emphasis on the latter for the last eight years, so it may be time for more of the former. Watch Mike Wallace’s interview with Aldous Huxley from 50 years ago. It sounds like today:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=brave+new+world&emb=0#q=aldous%20huxley%201984%20orwell&emb=0
Having said that I must confess I wondered if McCain had already been elected when he stayed at The Westin South Coast Plaza where I work(in the OC). He was there for all that folly with Obama and Rick Warren at the Church of the Propaganda er Purpose Driven Life. At least five white vans, with at least five black SUVs, dozens of Secret Service (I felt like I was Neo up against umpteen Agent Smiths), bomb-sniffing dogs escorted by OC Sheriffs, CHP motorcycle cops strolling the hotel in their knee-high black leather boots, while the Costa Mesa police patrolled the perimeter. Those are just the ones who weren’t undercover. The Praetorian guard would be in awe. I noticed a bracelet on one agent’s wrist inscribed with “Country First.” Yes sir, I believe you.
Changing the subject,(well not really), if there is anyone at First Word who doesn’t believe Israel dominates all the major media outlets in this country, please watch this video:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14055.htm
And yes, Tim, you are categorically right; McCain they win, Obama we lose.
I really appreciate that video link Mr. DPW.
Tim,
Your wrote: “I tend to think this choice is a brilliant ploy from the McCain handlers, which is probably going to deliver the needed constituencies and thus the election.” [emphasis mine];“Mrs Palin will deliver their man” [again, emphasis mine]; “the cryptocracy… will rope it in for their first choice…”
Your first comment I reference suggests that as you interpret the political currents, Palin, given the state of affairs she entered into, will probably effect a McCain victory. Fine, I believe I understand your meaning. In light of your tentative conclusion that McCain will probably win, I take your this comment: “Mrs Palin will deliver their man”, as not being a statement that comes from an omniscient-Tim but rather one that conveys a high-degree of certainty on your part. Again, I have no issue with that, if I read you right. Your two statements when I put them together can be translated, “Mrs. Plain will deliver the election for the Republicans, most probably.”
Your remark, that “the cryptocracy will rope in their first choice”, is a bit more difficult for me to process coming from a Christian. It seems to be a matter of fact for you that the “cryptocracy” will be successful, and that from where you are sitting their success should probably result in a victory for McCain, who will soon be out of the picture [in your estimation], which means that the voters, as second-causes, will do the cryptocracy’s bidding by casting their vote either for a woman or a black man. In other words, it seems to me that what you are saying is that no matter what happens the alleged cryptocracy will be successful. The only question is whether we can predict what the cryptocracy-Mind will bring to pass. I do not see how this is not to deify an abstract noun; bring God down to the level of plotter, prime-conspirator, or contingent-puppet. After all, if the cryptocracy’s plan cannot be thwarted, then isn’t that to attribute to it those things that are peculiar to God?
“More grim to contemplate is the cryptocracy’s deeper plan. Mrs Palin will deliver their man, but will she still be useful to them after that? She is undoubtedly certified as Israel-safe, but how deep does that go? I doubt anyone knows for sure. We were discussing what means might be employed to move her out of the picture to be replaced by Jew Lieberman once the election is over. I truly hope they would not use a bullet to the skull in the case of a woman. It it sickening to contemplate, but I would expect something more like an aircraft engine ‘malfunction.’”
With all due respect, I believe we get sounder insights from Larry Burkett, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and Jack Chick.
Some of your insights were quite good though.
Ron
Ron, I too have been scratching my head over Mike and Tim’s fixation on conspiracies. Typically one would expect some kind of biblical exposition on the subject as a foundation for further thought. With Mike and Tim, however, all I’ve experienced is an overt assumption that some vast conspiracy exists (usually relating to Jews), though I’ve yet to see a shred of evidence. Of course, they never define what this “vast Jewish conspiracy” is, or why it should be opposed. When I ask for specifics they only respond with pretentious or question-dodging comments. From this I can only gather that those enlightened by the conspiracy-Mind understand what is *really* going on. (Very Gnostic, no?) The rest of us have been blinded by Jewish-run statism. We are in the dark, being handled like pawns by a group of extremely well-organized rich Jewish men who probably have a secret base under a volcano somewhere in the Pacific.
For the record Mr. Keith, their base is under a cleverly disguised cantina in Mexico. (I’ve been there!)
Seriously though, Mr. DPW provided a link that if you take the time to watch, would cause a reasonable man to begin caerfully reflecting on the content of his daily reading.
I think the case built by the clip at least deserves to be considered instead of being dismissed out of hand.
After all, Mr. DPW DID specifically address the two of you. “…if there is anyone at First Word who doesn’t believe Israel dominates all the major media outlets in this country, please watch this video…”
I’m highly thankful for this blog.
“We were discussing what means might be employed to move her out of the picture to be replaced by Jew Lieberman once the election is over.”
“There is always the risk of a chimp-out with a Negro, thus making him a little less reliable”
I’m embarrassed for having linked to this site. These slurs are grossly unnecessary, and when considered in light of other content here, quite disturbing.
Ron and Keith,
I’m very much a simpleton compared to the other folks that frequent this board. However, in very simple terms, I’ve come to understand the “conspiracy” to mean the effort of all of lost mankind in their attempts to thwart the dominion mandate of holy scripture.
I think the reason that the Jews are brought up so much on this blog is because American Evangelicals see Judaism as friendly and sympathetic to Christian causes. This simply isn’t true. MRB and TJH are, in my opinion, doing a great job of exposing the truth regarding Un-Christian (they could be oompa loompas for all I care, but they happen to be Jews) control and manipulation of media outlets, government offices and business positions.
As far as scriptural evidence for my position, Psalm 2:1-2 gets me a ways down the road.
Again, I don’t pretend to be in the intellectual realm of other blog readers here, but I think I may have an elementary grasp of this concept.
Rebukes and corrections are always appreciated.
CAH
“However, in very simple terms, I’ve come to understand the “conspiracy” to mean the effort of all of lost mankind in their attempts to thwart the dominion mandate of holy scripture.”
CAH,
Let’s run with that for a moment. If the Conspiracy will get its first choice into office, then we must assume that God’s common goodness has been lifted and that he’s working within a slice of redemptive history whereby his purposes as they pertain to at least this election-link in the chain of history will be fulfilled through the greater of two evils. Given a pre-commitment to an election conspiracy, we cannot interpret the election of one candidate over another as our country receiving mercy, grace or goodness for a time, but rather we are constrained to see the outcome, whatever it is, as the greater of two-evils. At the very least, I’d prefer only to draw such conclusions through revelation, which I don’t have, and not mere conjecture.
Ron
CAH, I can see now how Tim and Mike’s view towards Zionism fits in their their reconstructionism and their opposition to dispensationalism. However, they go much further, claiming that Zionism is actually a kind of conspiracy (something I see no evidence for) that acts in an extremely well-organized fashion with God-like control (as Ron points out).
I will grant that the Jews probably have a lot of influence. But why should that bother me? All interest groups seek influence, why should the Jews be any different? From this we could argue that Christians shouldn’t get so caught up in Jewish lobbying. That’s a valid point, but only if one has a pre-commitment to dominion theology. Even if I grant this, I fail to see how it justifies Aryanism.
In sum, yes, Mike and Tim can say a lot of true statements about Jewish influence (statements that aren’t that profound, really, seeing as the Jews are generally more educated and diligent than other groups), but they make quite a leap when they say that this influence is the result of a conspiracy and that Aryanism is the proper response.
“Ron, I too have been scratching my head over Mike and Tim’s fixation on conspiracies. Typically one would expect some kind of biblical exposition on the subject as a foundation for further thought.”
They *have* spoken about conspiracy in an abstract/foundational sense:
http://butler-harris.org/archives/247
http://butler-harris.org/archives/181
Ron (#7) — I think we can dispose of the future-tense proposition cavil quickly: that is a problem of genre identification. Obviously, if someone says, “the Phillies are going to make it to the playoffs, then the pitching is going to fall apart and they will be crushed,” he is not claiming omniscience or occult vision, but simply condensing a lot of experience into a statement that takes the literary form of a prophecy. And he will be glad if things turn out differently.
Your other complaint is more subtle, and I’m not sure I am decoding it right. But let me take a shot at it and then you can correct my interpretation if need be.
“It seems to me that what you are saying is that no matter what happens the alleged cryptocracy will be successful. The only question is whether we can predict what the cryptocracy-Mind will bring to pass… After all, if the cryptocracy’s plan cannot be thwarted, then isn’t that to attribute to it those things that are peculiar to God?”
First, the cryptocracy’s plan can be thwarted — but it would look more like the peasants taking up their pitchforks and storming the citadel than going into a booth and pulling a lever. Indeed, I think the cryptocracy can be thwarted, and in the long haul, it will be thwarted. To that end, we write. The question is, will we prove faithful, or will it be some future generation more worthy? Christ has won, and therefore will win; but human history is still significant.
Or, perhaps the nub of your complaint (taking the hint from your #12 as well) is that we propose A or B as the outcome of this election, with both A and B favorable to and manipulated by the cryptocracy. “We are constrained to see the outcome, whatever it is, as the greater of two-evils.” (In passing, that wouldn’t follow. If both outcomes are evil, and if degree of evil can be compared, then it wouldn’t follow that either outcome is the greater of the two evils, would it? It would not necessarily be that A>B and B>A, even if A is evil and B is evil.)
Are you saying that (1) it would be acceptable to propose that A be an outcome manipulated by an evil conspiracy, provided we had option B to choose which is not manipulated by it; but (2) it would not be acceptable to propose that both A and B were manipulated by an evil conspiracy: to propose (2) would impute some attribute of God to the conspiracy?
Let me answer with another baseball analogy. Suppose you have become convinced that there is a syndicate of gamblers that is bribing players to throw games. You haven’t convinced everyone that it is so, but you are convinced by what seems like sufficient evidence. The division title is going to come down to a final game between the Mets and the Phillies. You announce, based on your analysis, “I think the syndicate has picked the Mets to win this one; but regardless of who wins, we can be sure it is the syndicate’s choice.” Is such a statement a denial of God’s decree, or an imputation of divine omnipotence or whatever to the syndicate? Not at all. It only means the DA needs to get busy breaking up the syndicate, and some players need to be fired.
The point is, this would be a case where, if your theory about the syndicate is correct, and if they have sufficient clout to make it happen, then A (Mets win) is bad, and B (Phillies win) is bad — bad for the honest sports fans — but either A or B will certainly happen.
The disanalogy here is that if the syndicate has “seen to” A winning, and yet B wins, then they have “failed”; while in politics, it could well be that they win in either case, yet favor one of the outcomes.
Or perhaps you are saying that though such a conspiracy could exist, its existence would be unknowable except by revelation. If that is the nub of your complaint, then my answer will go in a different direction.
And in all of this, I am using the word “conspiracy” loosely, and perhaps in a different sense than you are envisioning; certainly different than Keith’s caricature; much closer to CAH’s excellent statement.
Tim,
I’m glad you think that the cryptocracy can be refuted. I was not aware you thought that way, which raised my concern.
“Or, perhaps the nub of your complaint (taking the hint from your #12 as well) is that we propose A or B as the outcome of this election, with both A and B favorable to and manipulated by the cryptocracy.”
”“We are constrained to see the outcome, whatever it is, as the greater of two-evils.” (In passing, that wouldn’t follow. If both outcomes are evil, and if degree of evil can be compared, then it wouldn’t follow that either outcome is the greater of the two evils, would it? It would not necessarily be that A>B and B>A, even if A is evil and B is evil.)”
Of course, but keep in mind the supposition I was dealing under, that the cryptocracy would not be defeated, which maybe you might take responsibility for given your language (or maybe I missed something?), although the least of my concern is that you do take credit for my assumption. Here was my reasoning: Given a victorious cryptocracy that could not be altered, which I now believe you do not affirm, it would be now (at 8:15 a.m.) true that the outcome would be x and not ~x, with x being their victory as opposed to defeat, and therefore by definition the greater of the two evils. Now at 8:16 a.m., 8:15 a.m. is now necessary as are all the propositions that were true at that time, which would make the future outcome contained in the proposition not only true but also necessarily true as opposed to contingently true. All that to say, given the supposition that the cryptocracy will, not might, “rope in” their candidate, it was necessary that evil obtain, which gets to my original lament.
“Are you saying that (1) it would be acceptable to propose that A be an outcome manipulated by an evil conspiracy, provided we had option B to choose which is not manipulated by it;”
Nope
“(2) it would not be acceptable to propose that both A and B were manipulated by an evil conspiracy: to propose (2) would impute some attribute of God to the conspiracy?”
Nope again
My point is that in your writings you literally attributed purpose and implied omnipotence to the cryptocracy and if you were to refine your language a bit in order to more precisely convey what you literally mean, your position on the matter would look more like: “I believe that there is a manipulation going on and that it could very well get its way, but even if it does it would only be playing into God’s hands for God would have been the one who orchestrated the whole thing anyway.” Not too sensational now is it?
” “I think the syndicate has picked the Mets to win this one; but regardless of who wins, we can be sure it is the syndicate’s choice.” Is such a statement a denial of God’s decree, or an imputation of divine omnipotence or whatever to the syndicate? Not at all.”
There’s a subtle equivocation going on here. First, there are degrees of certainty; so to say we can be “sure it is the syndicate’s choice” does not imply that the absolute truth of the outcome let alone the truth of the means by which the truth-outcome is ensured and thereby can be known in advance. In common parlance, such a statement about the syndicate, which lends itself to casual, even imprecise, conversation over cigars and scotch, does not compare to what you have carefully and literally written in this blog post. The accent was not on a degree of certainty but on the absolute fulfillment of the supposed cryptocracy. They “will rope in their first choice”. Any degree of certainty you had was based upon a supposed absolute truth of the matter, which has Gnostic tendencies. Again, your elaborations above takes away all the sensationalism.
Glad to see that you don’t believe what I thought. I could only wish that you would not try to trace pictures with the stars. Or if you must, that you would not pass them off as Rembrandts.
Ron
Ron, when the dust settles on this future-tense business (which I would like to engage you on, but under our Wittgenstein thread, not politics), it is not clear whether your point of disagreement is (a) the truth of our thesis, (b) challenging whether such a thesis is knowable, or (c) challenging whether the thesis is important.
As to the artistry, I’m quite happy to be seen as a stick-figure artist. That our thesis is true, and important, is what I am going to continue arguing for.
Concerning the statement that there hasent been a shread of evidence to support a so-called Jewish conspiracy, here are a few quotes from the Jew’s holy book. Take it for what it’s worth –
Some Teachings of the Jewish Talmud
Where a Jew Should Do Evil
Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis
Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile (“Cuthean”) the wages owed him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status
Baba Kamma 37b. “If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite…the payment is to be in full.”
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews
Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile (“heathen”) it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who “marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean…”
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile (“Cuthean”), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has “exposed their money to Israel.”
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews
Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies (“subterfuges”) to circumvent a Gentile.
Ron (#16) –
The nature of future tense propositions is beside the point. Bringing them up in this context is like the logician who sets out to prove that the sentence, “necessity knows no law,” is not a theorem of modal logic.
The problem is a failure to distinguish content from color. To be banal, just because an argument contains future tense propositions does not mean the argument trades on the logic of future tenses. This type of mistake is common to those beginning to acquire some formal training in logic. All statements are to be taken “literally” and used as the grist to be ground in the mill of logic. Or to change images: to a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Ditto for the business about degrees of certainty at the end.
Speaking of ‘literally’, your comment about literal meaning contains a confusion. You write:
“My point is that in your writings you literally attributed purpose and implied omnipotence to the cryptocracy and if you were to refine your language a bit in order to more precisely convey what you literally mean, your position on the matter would look more like . . .”
The two tokens of ‘literally’ in this sentence have different meanings. In the first instance it means what is actually said and the second, what was meant to be said. If we confine ourselves to the first sense, even this is ambiguous. Take
Cretans are always liars.
Does this literally mean, for each man if he is a Cretan, he is a liar? or, even stronger, that all times that Cretans speak are times that Cretans lie? or merely, that Cretans are prone to lie? One can make a case for each.
The point here is that the notion of literal meaning is not as straight forward as you think.
Keith wrote: …all I’ve experienced is an overt assumption that some vast conspiracy exists (usually relating to Jews), though I’ve yet to see a shred of evidence….From this I can only gather that those enlightened by the conspiracy-Mind understand what is *really* going on. (Very Gnostic, no?) The rest of us have been blinded by Jewish-run statism. We are in the dark, being handled like pawns by a group of extremely well-organized rich Jewish men who probably have a secret base under a volcano somewhere in the Pacific.
Actually there is so much evidence that world affairs are manipulated for the benefit of the elite it forms a mountain too large to see. Call it a Corporatocracy instead of a Cryptocracy. Unlike Neo, you don’t have to be an expert computer hacker to decode the Matrix. Many have already done it, using public materials, or in the case of John Perkins his own life experiences. Read The Creature from Jekyll Island, Web of Debt, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and anything by David Ray Griffin on 9/11. They will be hard at first to process because none are written from the false left vs. right paradigm, so when your mind tries to hang various points on one or the other peg it won’t be there. These books will help you drop your underlying presupposition that reality is what I receive from my radio, my newspaper, my television, my bank, my government because they would never lie to me. Until I got that monkey off my back I was indeed in the dark, handled like a pawn.
“The nature of future tense propositions is beside the point. Bringing them up in this context is like the logician who sets out to prove that the sentence, “necessity knows no law,” is not a theorem of modal logic.”
I wasn’t discussing the nature of a future tense truth proposition in my first post; I was merely interacting with one! Let’s remember that Tim was making propositional assertions about the future. To say that to interact with future tense propositions is beside the point is to suggest that the thesis, as stated, is untouchable.
“The problem is a failure to distinguish content from color. To be banal, just because an argument contains future tense propositions does not mean the argument trades on the logic of future tenses. This type of mistake is common to those beginning to acquire some formal training in logic. All statements are to be taken “literally” and used as the grist to be ground in the mill of logic. Or to change images: to a hammer everything looks like a nail.”
If Tim is not to be taken literally then he might wish to modify the way he purports his opinions, but in doing so he’ll lose the sensational import of his thesis. Go back and modify with more tentative language all he has said and see what it leaves you.
As for your observation that “this type of mistake is common” among novices in formal logic – the only relevance I can glean is that you must think that such applies to me; or else you don’t really think so, or don’t have an opinion on the matter, but would like to try to imply the notion just the same. In either case, your remark is irrelevant to the discussion, doesn’t advance your position and frankly, reveals a side of you that seems to me contrary to Christ. Now of course you can try to put some ministerial spin on your remark.
I stated: “My point is that in your writings you literally attributed purpose and implied omnipotence to the cryptocracy and if you were to refine your language a bit in order to more precisely convey what you literally mean, your position on the matter would look more like . . .”
You replied: The two tokens of ‘literally’ in this sentence have different meanings. In the first instance it means what is actually said and the second, what was meant to be said. If we confine ourselves to the first sense, even this is ambiguous.
None of my observations or conclusions hinge upon the two ways I used “literally” in the above comment. There was no equivocation in my two uses because neither use of the word traded on the other. Now if I were to employ some of your rhetoric at this juncture, I might insert that such a mistake is common among those who have begun to acquire some formal training in informal fallacies, but that would be irrelevant and admittedly not true in this case.
Ron
Mike,
I should modify one thing. Tim, in post 15 referred back to my first post, suggesting that future tense truth propositions do not apply in this discussion. I went into some detail in my subsequent post on necessity of the future based upon the past, but only because in other interactions with Tim I have gotten the strong impression that he allows for pure contingency. I wanted to get that notion off the table up front, so I did so preemptively. It might have appeared a digression to some, or even as an attempt to impress but I believe nothing could be further from the truth.
Pax,
Ron
DPW, you would do well to read my second comment, where I admit that there is strong evidence for Jewish influence. My point is that this does not amount to a conspiracy. Tim later admitted that he is using the term conspiracy loosely. Fine, but my point still remains that you cannot go from “There is a strong Jewish influence” to “Aryanism is a proper response to this Jewish influence.” That has always been my contention. Still waiting for someone to fill in the missing premise from scripture.
And, actually, I am a computer hacking expert, know kung fu, can dodge bullets, and wear a trenchcoat and cool sunglasses while Rage Against the Machine blares in the background (wherever I go). That’s why the cryptocracy will never be able to handle me like a pawn.
“it is not clear whether your point of disagreement is (a) the truth of our thesis, (b) challenging whether such a thesis is knowable, or (c) challenging whether the thesis is important.”
Hi Tim,
I’d be happy to address your last post to me.
Concerning (a), I don’t believe the thesis to be true. The statistical observations found here http://butler-harris.org/archives/295 are intended to lead us to the question “What accounts for these statistical anomalies?” Yet that question presupposes an anomaly rather than establishes one. One flaw in the theory has to do with the undisclosed manner in which the sample was selected. Certainly, you would not have begun your quest by making Jewish people out to be pawns of a conspiracy or even the conscious mind behind a conspiracy and then looked to defend such an arbitrary thesis. In other words, of course I won’t conclude that you are out to get Jewish people. Rather, you must have suspected a conspiracy and then looked at certain industries you believed to be influential, and within those industries you found a disproportionate amount of Jewish people. This, of course, begs the question of the relative influence of those industries as compared to other industries less occupied by Jewish people. Coming at this from a slightly different yet somewhat related angle, if I suspect a crooked casino and then go back to find for a roulette wheel that has yielded 30 rolls in a row of the same color and after some searching find one, does such a finding imply a crooked casino? Of course not, yet (putting aside the two green slots on the wheel) the odds of such an occurrence is in one sense ½ to the 29th power!” Accordingly, the foundational flaw in such a question is actually implied, maybe a bit more subtly, in the discussion found here: http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2008/08/sometimes-we-do-agree.html . To pre-select a category of people and then look to find a disproportionate sampling of that category within a given industry does not imply a statistical anomaly let alone a conspiracy. I might suggest that if one feels he must see pictures in the clouds, then rather than interpret the disproportionate influence of Jewish presence in media, entertainment and politics as a conspiracy, why not interpret it as a forerunner to the conversion of the Jewish people and the Christianizing of the world through media, entertainment and politics? Frankly, I’d simply prefer to see it as noise and not signal.
Concerning (b), of course I don’t believe such an inductive inference is knowable, which is not to say that one cannot rationally maintain, even with great psychological certainty, such inferences. Allowing for that distinction, which is not germane to our disagreement, the answer is “no” – I do not think that such a position can be rationally maintained given what you have offered as evidence.
Concerning (c ), I can’t imagine thinking a theory important that I don’t think can be rationally inferred.
“As to the artistry, I’m quite happy to be seen as a stick-figure artist. That our thesis is true, and important, is what I am going to continue arguing for.”
My brother, I think at best you’re squandering your time.
Kindly intended,
Ron
Tim,
“And in all of this, I am using the word “conspiracy” loosely, and perhaps in a different sense than you are envisioning; certainly different than Keith’s caricature”
I read and re-read Keith’s statement, where exactly in his statement does he made a caricature of your conspiracy theory?
Another comment, using your term of conspiracy loosely and your line of reasoning, do you believe there is a secret Aryan conspiracy? Between you and Mike, you said that there is a Jewish conspiracy base on your reasoning called “Jews by the numbers”; based on slight percentage of Jews in government you gave in http://butler-harris.org/archives/295 and because of some of the pictures of Jews in government which you linked in the past here: http://www.fiu.edu/~jlsa/images/JewGovt/JewGovt.htm , there is a Jewish conspiracy. But how many White people are in Government now? How many pictures would be on a website titled “Whites in Government”
We all know the power of the Republican Party with the Red State verses Blue State; With the significant power of the Republican Party, have you noticed how many white people there is in that party??? 93% of Whites make up this powerful party, are these evidence (to play on Hillary Clinton’s words) of a vast White wing conspiracy?
I’m afraid that your line of argument is the same form of arguments that radical racial minorities anti-white groups use, whether they are MECHA, African American Studies, Affirmative Action supporters, Native American radicals, or radical Asian Pride members.
Do you think it is legitimate that they see a White Cryptocracy????
Slim — I was thinking of his statement in #8, “The rest of us have been blinded by Jewish-run statism. We are in the dark, being handled like pawns by a group of extremely well-organized rich Jewish men who probably have a secret base under a volcano somewhere in the Pacific.”
I’m not sure how the post “Jews by the Number” got dragged into this discussion, because (1) I did not write that post, (2) I did not couple the statements of my post to that essay. We’re going pretty far afield from my reflections on Mrs Palin.
The only coupling-point I can see is my reference to “Jew Lieberman.” However, that was motivated by the well-known fact that Lieberman was McCain’s personal first choice for veep, according to several MSM sources I have seen; the fact that Lieberman was a keynote speaker at the Rep Convention, though he caucuses with the Democrats; the fact that the only thing Lieberman shares with conservatism as that is defined today, is his hawkish stance re our entanglement in the Middle East; and the fact that he obviously thinks the American horse is rightly hitched to the destiny of Israel. All of this suggests some kind of deal has been made, or the “fix is in” in some other way that is undesirable.
However, I agree with the concerns expressed in my colleague’s essay, so I’m willing to discuss it. But if we go much further with it, perhaps we should shift the location of the debate to that place. But note further,
(3) that essay does not argue from statistics to conspiracy. Thus, your questions are good, but irrelevant.
True, he does invite the readers to reflect on what the cause of the statistical anomalies might be, but I take that question to be genuine, not merely rhetorical.
As I said in comment #16 of that post,
“I have a slightly different angle on this subject [which my colleague granted in #17 is also his angle]. Let it be that not just many, but all the inventors and mathematicians were of the hebishkeit. Fine; now will you all just go home to Israel please, and not come back? Take the spies, enslaving “financiers,” blaspheming movie-makers, tendentious news-casters, and corrupting judges and lawyers, and you can also have all those geniuses.
“Despite exceptions here and there, overall, the infiltrated hebishkeitsreich is simply unhealthy for goy nations. We’ll buy your ball point pens from afar.”
Perhaps you will find that sentiment too harsh. The point is, it is not a conspiracy argument. It is that this “statistical anomaly” is unhealthy for any Christian nation, and is indeed unhealthy for any “goy nation,” and thus should be opposed.
The expectation is that the majority of party members in a goy nation would be goyim, so there is no parallelism there in supposing an equivalent, “equal but opposite” conspiracy. Unless, of course, your model of nation is a grab-bag of miscellaneous individuals with no heritage or tribal ties. I used to hold that model, but have become convinced by both the study of Scripture and world history that that model is false.
The term “cryptocracy” is unspecified as to exact membership. Certainly, I believe that jewish elements are a major, probably dominating and in any case essential element, but by no means is it limited to them. That much should be obvious to anyone with a cursory acquaintance of Rockefeller, for example.
Slimjim,
I think its pretty obvious that the “volcano” part was satire, but Tim called everything I wrote “caricature”! Conspiracy, by definition, involves organization, and Tim et al has failed to produce anything that amounts to Jewish organization beyond what we would normally attribute to “a group of people acting according to similar motives.” The notion that people with similar beliefs behave in similar ways is hardly profound, which is why they have to wrap it in conspiratorial verbiage to make their not-so-subtle plea for Aryanism sound legitimate. (And that’s assuming that Aryanism itself is a legitimate ideology—something I still haven’t them prove.)
Yes, DPW, I believe that the Federal Reserve is messing up our economy. Believe it or not, I am a libertarian, not some pawn molded by a right-wing/left-wing paradigm. Now, please produce some real evidence for the Jewish conspiracy.
Who ever suggested the word cryptocracy only refers to one particular people group or race? Some of the above contentions to the “conspiracy” view overagainst the “official” view are certainly odd. I recommend doing some open minded investigation rather then spending the time typing out the difficulties you have with such a view, such a view that is, based on some of the questions and augments, misunderstood. There is as was mentioned by a commenter, an abundance of material out there, material which I’ve found to be most interesting and certainly more interesting than the garbage presented on the mainstream boob tube. To this day I cant understand why people cling to the mainstream news and the politicians and their pundits so tightly. Have fun being willing to look into alternative views, there is absolutely nothing sacred about the “official” story and their spokesmen. As I see it once one has been convinced of the “conspiracy” view one assumes that others will readily follow suit. The “conspiracy nut” often speaks in generalizations and seems pushy or even condescending of course their reasons for approaching it the way they do are based on the dire nature of the whole thing and as they would testify the obviousness of it which demands reasonable people to wake up and while there are multitudes that do, there are still ever so many who do not and those who do not often view those who do as mad unreasonable and even un-American or un-Christian. Both views are scary. What scares me the most however is the official view for many reasons, I’ll mention the least obvious although it is also obvious. American Christians know more about and spend far more time absorbing the Fox news/mainline media worldview than the Christian worldview (I’m not saying that the conspiracy view is the Christian worldview but rather that the overall philosophy espoused by the mainline news and public square politically and otherwise is not the Christian philosophy) and consequently “Christians” become one of the biggest problems for the truly regenerate.
Keith — I explained that when I said, “Keith’s caricature,” I had in mind your #8, not “everything you wrote.” Read with understanding, take people at their word, and stop wasting our time with this trivia.
Further, read #26 and ponder a little. I explained that the danger of the jewish presence, in the form it is actually taking, is there regardless of the presence or absence of conspiracy — especially conspiracy as you insist on defining it. I also explained that your claim that the essay “Jews by the number” is our “proof” of conspiracy is misguided — based, again, on an inability to read carefully.
I have no idea what “Aryanism” is, so I don’t interact with that. That is Keith speaking, not us.
Certainly, there are jewish organizations that conspire. Study the Leo Frank/Mary Phagan case and the machinations that led to interfering with the Georgia judicial system, and the formation of the ADL. Numerous other examples could also be given. But our view of conspiracy is broader than that. Start with the essay on “Augustinian conspiracy theory.”
You might propose what you would accept as proof of conspiracy. I suppose nothing less than a photocopy of the minutes at the annual meeting of —?
I’m going to turn off comments for a few hours so that you can take a deep breath and think before you blurt. Also, to give people a chance to read some good comments before they get obscured in a cloud of gas.
TJH, “I’m not sure how the post “Jews by the Number” got dragged in…” The reason I brought that post in is because it is part of this website and appear to be the general thrust of this blog since there is now a discussion of the nature of your conspiracy: that there is some form of Conspiracy and the “jews by the numbers” appear to suggest that there is a conspiracy that is primarily Jewish in character (Otherwise, why not a “White” profile conspiracy, or Asian, Black, etc)… I do not think it is going off topic with my last comment because a major presupposition of this entry is that there is some kind of conspiracy suggested in your entry, and it is not tangent to seek clarity of what you mean by this conspiracy.
Your entry above stated that “More grim to contemplate is the cryptocracy’s deeper plan.” But how do you know that there is a planned conspiracy? And how do you know that they have a deeper plan??? How do you know that “Mrs Palin will deliver their man” and who are these guys you call cryptocracy??? You somehow even know that they might “move her out of the picture to be replaced by Jew Lieberman once the election is over.” You even “expect something more like an aircraft engine “malfunction.”” to get rid of her!
This conspiracy seems to be organized than a loose group of people with a common cause.
Keith wrote: “I will grant that the Jews probably have a lot of influence. But why should that bother me? All interest groups seek influence, why should the Jews be any different?”
The Jewish control of all major media outlets is not a mere probability. It is not simply “a lot,” it as undeniable as it is total.
http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html
Nor is it a benign bunch of driven Jewish mothers filling the land with their successful lawyer sons. It is about Zionism and getting US goyim to shed their blood for the nation of Israel. It is about phony wars, based upon the most audacious false-flag terror event in history. It is about the draft re-emerging, so our children can do their part to serve the master race.
Why shouldn’t that bother you?
Having already posted(#5) on my belief that the cryptocracy would prefer a Brave New World to a 1984 super state, I felt vindicated when I found this quote from Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death:
“We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
“But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny ‘failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.’ In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
“This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.” [p.p. vii-viii]
If anyone is interested, Douglas Wilson has some interesting posts on Sarah Palin on Blog and Mablog. Just go to the archives section and click on “Politics”.
Troy — I can’t agree. He took the sucker-punch from McCain like any good judeo-christian lemming. But readers … yeah, go see for yourselves.
Jim (#30) — there are certainly branches of the cryptocracy that could easily pull off an engine failure, and have done plenty of such things — Mosad, for example. But that does not mean that there is necessarily some central command like SPECTRE in James Bond. Indeed, the Bond genre may have done harm by caricaturing and thus putting beyond serious consideration the real nature of the threat.
More generally to your question — because that’s not the purpose of THIS essay. It is more like an assumption in this essay. 80 or 90% of the essay was to make reflections on the situation of Mrs Palin’s nomination that are common-sense or unique angles on public information. Then, 10 or 20% of the essay asks, as it were, “but those of us that think the process is manipulated, let me now make an intelligent speculation as to what they may be up to in this matter.”
It is enough to follow the basic form of reasoning of the essay to believe that there are manipulators of almost ANY KIND WHATSOEVER. In other words, if you suspect that the American political system is something other than “a process by which Americans express their wisdom from the grassroots up by an electoral process that is honest, and informed by a news media that is honest” then you can follow the reasoning, EVEN WITHOUT KNOWING ALL THE DETAILS.
Moreover, if you take cognizance of the ever-present AIPAC (see #4), and the odd role of Jew Lieberman (see #26, paragraph 3), then you can start to put more of the pieces together.
So if you are wondering how I know it will be an aircraft engine failure, you are making an analogous mistake to Ron misreading the significance of future-tense propositions. I don’t know it will be that. I am giving a head’s-up that there signs that the manipulators have some ultimate goal other than getting nice little Mrs Palin in there as President, and working out the implications. (And, there is precedent for thinking about engine failure.)
Etc. That’s it. That’s how it works. It is more like guessing the strategy of your chess opponent, or figuring out what is really important when studying the history of a nation, then it is like proving a geometrical theorem, or looking into a crystal ball.
It is a layered cognitive situation. The big picture can be discerned without much information beyond what “everyone knows”; more detail requires more information.
If you want to pursue it further, beyond what is necessary to follow this essay, then you will need to do some work. It will require courage as well as diligence. If you sift through all the comments in this thread and pursue the links and books mentioned by various readers, that will be a good start. It will take a few days or weeks or more, depending on your schedule. I hope you do. Join us in uncovering and resisting the men the are wrecking our nation.
On the other hand, if your posture is, “convince me in one syllogism and three tight paragraphs that such a conspiracy exists, including all the details of its organization” then you don’t understand the nature of the subject, or are just playing with us.
T,
I have been following this blog for some time know and for me its frustrating sometimes as I feel that there is a lot more strong rhetorics than actual known truths. Brother, I just feel that most of the content is just too much speculation like the aircraft engine failure.
But rest assured, I will be reading.
It could be a scandal or any number of things. Hingest was murdered, but Studdock was removed from the college by whispering. Take the aircraft engine as a mythic symbol, and let’s all hope it doesn’t come to pass in quite that way.
So now, getting back to some of the earlier issues…
Jason (#10) — first, note that the “chimping out” reference in #2 was an attribution to the cryptocracy, not my voice.
There is so much to be offended at in what I write, why would you pick something out that I am attributing as someone else’s opinion?
This is at least the fourth example in this thread of simple exegesis mistakes. Is this a sign that our people have forgotten how to read? Or perhaps, the paradigm shift we are proposing is so radical that it causes all kinds of cognitive blockage. If the latter, there is hope. Angry men might change; placid ones won’t.
More, on your offense at the “Jew Lieberman” reference soon…
Chris Ortiz over at chalcedon.edu has a good, brief post up on this subject. He points out that too many “conservative Christians” object to Ms. Palin only because she’s a woman, a mother, has a Down’s syndrome infant, and a pregnant teenage daughter. While those are certainly reason enough to suggest that she has no business being mayor of Wasilla, much less vice president, it’s yet again an example of how deliberately blind and willfully ignorant so many who believe “every single word” of the Bible can be.
Let’s face facts. Obama/Biden are Bilderberger – Council on Foreign Relations – Trilateral Commission “Team A.” McCain/Palin are Bilderberg – Council on Foreign Relations – Trilateral Commission “Team B.” As Dr. Ron Paul pointed out at his recent press conference (quoting Carroll Quigley!), there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major political parties. They are both controlled, lock, stock, and barrel, by the mattoids of the cryptocracy.
Obama has pledged his fealty to Israel, while Palin is getting briefed by AIPAC. No matter who gets elected, the same neoconservative – Zionist foreign policy will be implemented, which means more wars in the Middle East to protect the anti-Christian, apartheid, racist state currently occupying historic Palestine. Billions of dollars will continue to be transferred from the pockets of American taxpayers by the Zionist Occupational Government to the patronage Jewish state.
While “Christian evangelicals” and the “religious right” huff and puff over the latest perceived slight to Ms. Palin, really and truly important news of historic importance is overlooked, such as the fact that the vast majority of modern-day Jews are not descendants of the Biblical Israelites at all:
http://poligazette.com/2008/09/10/long-lost-jewish-capital-found/
So much for being “the Chosen People”! So much for dispensational premillennialism! Hey, look over there — did Obama call Ms. Palin “a pig”? Oh, the humanity! :roll eyes:
T (#34),
You said of Douglas Wilson, “He took the sucker-punch from McCain like any good judeo-christian lemming.”
Have you even read his posts (prior to this comment)? If so, then what would make you think this?
Andrew (#39) — I would caution against putting too much weight on the Kazar connection in this sense: one can easily slip into granting a premise of the judeo-christians, namely this: that if the modern anti-Christs were actually descended from Abraham, then they would indeed have a legitimate claim on being the “chosen people.” But this is false. A people that rejects God incarnate — indeed continually blasphemes against Him — cannot lay claim to being God’s chosen people. The hebishkeit should thus serve as a scare-crow against a false appropriation of the concept of election.
Though I too regard our contemporary pretenders to descent from the Hebrews as largely a turkish tribe, there is no doubt that there was a heavy admixture of technically hebraic blood via migration and inter-marriage. The more important point, however, needs to remain that these are the reprobate rejecters of God. The true seed of God that was preserved among the Hebrews accepted the Messiah and have evidently largely been incorporated into the other nations.
T, thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with your first paragraph completely.
As to your second paragraph, I think I’m in (almost) total agreement, if I understand your last sentence correctly. If you are writing that their is no ancestral, ethnic, genetic, and racial connection between the so-called “Jews” of today and the ancient Israelites of the Old Testament, we see eye-to-eye. To make my point clear, Jesus was a Galilean, an Israelite, and a Nazarene, but he was not a “Jew,” nor were any of the early leaders of the church.
Although I am otherwise Reformed in my theology, on these matters I follow the wisdom of that great Christian and patriot, the late Pastor Sheldon Emry. Interested persons can hear and read more from this insightful minister at:
http://www.sheldonemrylibrary.com
See especially his excellent tract, “An Open Letter to Any Minister Who Teaches ‘the Jews Are Israel'”:
http://www.sheldonemrylibrary.com/Books.htm
Troy (#40) — yes I have kept up with Douglas’ patter on Palin more or less in real time, despite the serious annoyance that every twitter of his gray matter is thought to be worthy of public display, to the oohs and ahs of his claque of groupies. He is clearly an instance of category (4) that I mentioned, and was roped in virtually instantaneously. Then, he realized two things: (1) the cynicism of the Repub’s in choosing someone like Palin after selecting someone like McCain; and (2) the tension of all this with his own teachings on women in the home. (1) was addressed by a quick shift to praising the cleverness and political savvy of the McCain camp, and (2) is being addressed by a series of tortuous comparisons to Deborah. It took Negro pastor Voddie Baucham about 6.4 seconds to demolish that train of thought if you watch the video here. You might just as soon defend world-wide wrestling with an appeal to Samson. The very fact that people get going down that track with a straight face is amazing to me. He doesn’t even know what the book of Judges is about in its own context, let alone the analogies and disanalogies to our situation. The bit about “Barak needed to submit to a woman” is sophistry pure and simple.
Douglas’ confusions go so deep at every point that it would require an essay per sentence to unravel. Instead, I would turn your question back on you: summarize in standard syllogistic form any argument of his that you find particularly compelling, and I will take a shot at it.
“You might just as soon defend world-wide wrestling with an appeal to Samson.”
ROTFL! I’m glad that someone is calling out Disingenuous Doug Wilson these days, since Little Geneva is no longer online.
thanks for the above linked clip T – i enjoyed the quote above the clip – “Listen to these two feminist seductresses (one an evangelical) twist the Scriptures to fit their own obstinate and willful rebellion against God.”
Anybody who has not watched to video link from #43 needs to do so. That is how a minister of the gospel should speak in a public forum.
There is something troubling about the interview, though. A Negro pastor and a female evangelical “speaker” are interviewed by a female hostess about the prospect have having either a Negro president or a female VP. Not even a token white man.
While I admire the Rev. Baucham and would be happy to stand in the battle line next to him, it a testimony against the American church that a Negro pastor has to do what white pastors are afraid of doing. Yes, we applaud Baucham, but the larger message is shame. Shame, shame, and eternal shame. Shame on white men and shame especially on white pastors.
I agree about the failure of the American church on these issues, but I think in this case the absence of a white pastor is to be attributed chiefly to media selectivity. CNN is not going to ask Einwechter or Sproul Jr. to appear.
Joshua L. –
Well, I’m not sure I would pick the same examples as you, but I get your point.
I do not believe you can pin all of the blame for the choice on CNN. Sure there are numerous white preachers who would have taken a stand like Baucham, but compared to the number of white traitors in the pulpit, their numbers are insignificant. Why should we expect CNN to go into the backwaters to dredge up a white preacher who is not representative of modern evangelicalism? Warren and what’s his name from Willow Creek speak for far more “Christians” than Joe Morecraft does.
Abby (#3) — Good question. The form of your argument is “modus tollens,” namely:
if (there is such a powerful cryptocracy) then (they would seize power explicity)
They have not seized power explicitly
Therefore,
There is not such a powerful cryptocracy
The major (first) premise is the one I would challenge. Would they necessarily want to seize power explicitly, say, with a dictatorship? To ask it is to answer it. Clearly, at least at this stage in history, it would be greatly advantageous to maintain power with the illusion of the people choosing. Get us plebeans fighting over which Manchurian candidate is going to save us, then encouraging one another to “live with the outcome” regardless. Conversely, there would be great risk in seizing power with outward show, since millions of Americans have guns and might be awakened from their slumber if things went too quickly in that direction.
Rushdoony has noted that conspiracy follows the spirit of the age. Yes, propaganda does exist and there is an aspect of power seized by ill-gotten means, but by and large people voluntarily acquiesce to tyranny little by little (for example, there was no tax revolt in 1913). This is the most effective way for a cryptocracy to take hold. It is not imposed by force as much as accepted as a matter of course.