Watch this video:
Okay, so the "friendly, peaceful" Muslims have over 30 paramilitary training camps in th USA. But when the Missouri State Police profile terrorist militia groups, what do they look for? Ron Paul bumper stickers, anti-abortion literature and anti illegal immigration material.
Here's an article by Chuck Baldwin (who was also targeted in the Missouri report):
"My Response"
Do you honestly think that this upside-down view is an accident? Is it mere happenstance that people with strong Biblically-based principles are painted as potentially dangerous while the Muslim militants' "Constitutional rights" are cited as the basis for letting them continue?
This is just another example of Psalm 2:2-3. I guess Scriptures like this are what make me a conspiratologist.
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. (Psa 2:2-3)
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Ruling Class: A Biblical View
The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Pro 22:7)
The problem is not that we have a ruling class. A ruling elite is present (and necessary) in every society. (Not a popular view among Christians who subscribe to a belief in "democratic" ideals)
The problem goes back to a time when Christians ceded rule to Enlightenment humanists. They [we] have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage.
The Great Commission (Matthew 28:17-20) clearly shows that the King intends for His people to exercise dominion over the nations for the purpose of subduing them to His reign. Significantly, the methods He taught His disciples in order to accomplish this are not primarily political.
Christians take dominion through a Redemptive Message and obedience to the Royal Law. I call this two-pronged approach Gospel words backed up by Gospel deeds.
About 1660, Christians began to lose sight of their mission's primary objective: to lead the nations into obedience to Christ. They began to interpret the faith in primarily personal terms: soul-saving and pietism. They forgot that evangelism and pious living are means to an end, not ends in themselves.
But when Christians began to think of their faith in strictly personal terms, dominion over society became an unnecessary -- even repugnant -- idea.
To be continued
The problem is not that we have a ruling class. A ruling elite is present (and necessary) in every society. (Not a popular view among Christians who subscribe to a belief in "democratic" ideals)
The problem goes back to a time when Christians ceded rule to Enlightenment humanists. They [we] have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage.
The Great Commission (Matthew 28:17-20) clearly shows that the King intends for His people to exercise dominion over the nations for the purpose of subduing them to His reign. Significantly, the methods He taught His disciples in order to accomplish this are not primarily political.
Christians take dominion through a Redemptive Message and obedience to the Royal Law. I call this two-pronged approach Gospel words backed up by Gospel deeds.
About 1660, Christians began to lose sight of their mission's primary objective: to lead the nations into obedience to Christ. They began to interpret the faith in primarily personal terms: soul-saving and pietism. They forgot that evangelism and pious living are means to an end, not ends in themselves.
But when Christians began to think of their faith in strictly personal terms, dominion over society became an unnecessary -- even repugnant -- idea.
To be continued
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Network of Public Opinion
The network that shapes and influences public opinion includes the media and the school systems. Noam Chomsky recognizes that the tools of propaganda were developed by the liberal left. He seems to think that they are wielded by the conservative right.
What Prof. Chomsky does not seem to realize is that the ruling class uses the network to further its purposes. He sees the commercial media as essentially conservative, while conservatives see the media as liberal.
I see the media as the public face of the the Establishment. At any rate, I hope you find the following excerpt thought-provoking.
What Prof. Chomsky does not seem to realize is that the ruling class uses the network to further its purposes. He sees the commercial media as essentially conservative, while conservatives see the media as liberal.
I see the media as the public face of the the Establishment. At any rate, I hope you find the following excerpt thought-provoking.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Elite Ruling Class: Milieu for Conspiracy
A "social class" is a network of interacting and intermarrying families who perceive each other as equals and have distinctive lifestyles and attitudes which differentiate them from other classes. (G. William Domhoff, Who Really Rules? (1978 edition), p. 12)
There is, then a ruling social class in the United States, and this sociological fact should be the starting point for economic and political analysis at any level. This ruling class includes about .5 to 1 percent of the population, owns about 20-25 percent of all privately held wealth, receives a highly disproportionate share of the yearly national income, controls major banks and corporations, formulates economic and political programs through a series of policy networks, and dominates -- at the very least -- the federal government in Washington, D.C. and city government in New Haven, Connecticut. (Domhoff, op. cit., p. 175)
G. William Domhoff's sociological works reveal a truly empirical study that defines and traces the power inherent in America's upper class. He shows that they sit on boards of large banks and corporations and thus exercise control over even more wealth than they actually own.
You can find a summary of Domhoff's research here: Power in America
Other authors, like Stephen Birmingham, E. Digby Baltzell and the Konoliges have chronicled one aspect or another of the upper class. Domhoff has produced the empirical evidence that the upper class constitutes a true ruling class in the USA.
His book, The Powers That Be: Processes of Ruling Class Domination in America exposes the processes and institutions that provide the upper class conduits of influence and power. Campaign contributions represent only one of those channels.
Academician Noam Chomsky also sees that an elite class rules America. While I do not agree with either Domhoff or Chomsky in their leftist/liberal perspectives, I do appreciate their observations of the present state of affairs.
Here is Chomsky's assessment:
There is, then a ruling social class in the United States, and this sociological fact should be the starting point for economic and political analysis at any level. This ruling class includes about .5 to 1 percent of the population, owns about 20-25 percent of all privately held wealth, receives a highly disproportionate share of the yearly national income, controls major banks and corporations, formulates economic and political programs through a series of policy networks, and dominates -- at the very least -- the federal government in Washington, D.C. and city government in New Haven, Connecticut. (Domhoff, op. cit., p. 175)
G. William Domhoff's sociological works reveal a truly empirical study that defines and traces the power inherent in America's upper class. He shows that they sit on boards of large banks and corporations and thus exercise control over even more wealth than they actually own.
You can find a summary of Domhoff's research here: Power in America
Other authors, like Stephen Birmingham, E. Digby Baltzell and the Konoliges have chronicled one aspect or another of the upper class. Domhoff has produced the empirical evidence that the upper class constitutes a true ruling class in the USA.
His book, The Powers That Be: Processes of Ruling Class Domination in America exposes the processes and institutions that provide the upper class conduits of influence and power. Campaign contributions represent only one of those channels.
Academician Noam Chomsky also sees that an elite class rules America. While I do not agree with either Domhoff or Chomsky in their leftist/liberal perspectives, I do appreciate their observations of the present state of affairs.
Here is Chomsky's assessment:
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Common Problems with Conspiracy Theories
People on the fringes of society tend to gravitate toward movements critical of the established order. That explains why you find so many obsessive and unstable people among the ranks of conspiracy theorists.
That fact alone makes it easy for those with a stake in the established order to dismiss and/or discredit conspiratorialists as weirdos and nut-cases. Ad hominem attacks are easier and more effective for influencing the masses than research and reason.
Although I know that -- should I become important enough to be noticed -- those spokespeople will tar me with the same brush, I want, for clarity's sake, to differentiate my position from that of a significant portion of the conspiratorialist community. I will give the three most grievous errors that I believe one will find in conspiratorial presentations.
Here they are:
1) Seeing "THE Conspiracy" as Jewish. I suppose "Worldwide Jewish Banking Conspiracy" makes for better pamphleteering than, say "Worldwide Episcopalian Banking Conspiracy". I, however, think the latter is much closer to the truth of the matter than the former.
Jews are neither more nor less given to conspire against others than Sicilians, Irish Catholics or Saudi Arabians. The fact that Jews are disproportionately represented among international bankers is an interesting product of historical development, but not necessarily indicative of some broad plot of Jewish design.
2) Seeing "THE Conspiracy" as centered in one, all-powerful organization with historical continuity (Illuminati, Freemasonry, Papacy, etc). There are three parts to this view, which I deal with as follows:
---- One organization -- Whether the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the CFR or any other group, I do not see the powers-that-be confined to any one group. My research indicates that power is distributed among a distinct network of individuals and institutions (more on that later).
---- Historical continuity -- Here you find the conspiratorialists' view analagous to the Papists' apostolic succession. Since power is not confined to just one organization or institution, the argument that there is a discrete, coherent organizational conspiratorial continuity from ancient times to the present is moot.
Individuals and institutions, however, may borrow ideas and principles from contemporary and historical organizations because of a commonality rooted in philosophy and exercise of power.
---- All-powerful group that plans & controls all events of significance -- Conspiratorialists commonly attribute near omnipotence to the inner circle of the cabal. Although the power networks of this world wield a vast amount of power, they cannot and do not control all the details of all world events.
Observers conclude that insiders micromanage world affairs when they see the power brokers profiting and consolidating power in the midst of national and international events. , However, the reality is that their wealth, influence and their access to information allow them to turn even unexpected situations to their favor.
3) UFOs, Area 51, space (or interdimensional) aliens and the like. These are way outside the scope of my worldview. I heard an interview of one researcher who performed a background study of all the people who had claimed to be abducted by aliens. He said the list included people from all walks of life & religions, EXCEPT what he referred to "walk-the-walk born-again Christians". 'Nuff said.
So, if I reject these commonly-held aspects of conspiracy theories, what does my theory look like? That's a topic for another post.
That fact alone makes it easy for those with a stake in the established order to dismiss and/or discredit conspiratorialists as weirdos and nut-cases. Ad hominem attacks are easier and more effective for influencing the masses than research and reason.
Although I know that -- should I become important enough to be noticed -- those spokespeople will tar me with the same brush, I want, for clarity's sake, to differentiate my position from that of a significant portion of the conspiratorialist community. I will give the three most grievous errors that I believe one will find in conspiratorial presentations.
Here they are:
1) Seeing "THE Conspiracy" as Jewish. I suppose "Worldwide Jewish Banking Conspiracy" makes for better pamphleteering than, say "Worldwide Episcopalian Banking Conspiracy". I, however, think the latter is much closer to the truth of the matter than the former.
Jews are neither more nor less given to conspire against others than Sicilians, Irish Catholics or Saudi Arabians. The fact that Jews are disproportionately represented among international bankers is an interesting product of historical development, but not necessarily indicative of some broad plot of Jewish design.
2) Seeing "THE Conspiracy" as centered in one, all-powerful organization with historical continuity (Illuminati, Freemasonry, Papacy, etc). There are three parts to this view, which I deal with as follows:
---- One organization -- Whether the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the CFR or any other group, I do not see the powers-that-be confined to any one group. My research indicates that power is distributed among a distinct network of individuals and institutions (more on that later).
---- Historical continuity -- Here you find the conspiratorialists' view analagous to the Papists' apostolic succession. Since power is not confined to just one organization or institution, the argument that there is a discrete, coherent organizational conspiratorial continuity from ancient times to the present is moot.
Individuals and institutions, however, may borrow ideas and principles from contemporary and historical organizations because of a commonality rooted in philosophy and exercise of power.
---- All-powerful group that plans & controls all events of significance -- Conspiratorialists commonly attribute near omnipotence to the inner circle of the cabal. Although the power networks of this world wield a vast amount of power, they cannot and do not control all the details of all world events.
Observers conclude that insiders micromanage world affairs when they see the power brokers profiting and consolidating power in the midst of national and international events. , However, the reality is that their wealth, influence and their access to information allow them to turn even unexpected situations to their favor.
3) UFOs, Area 51, space (or interdimensional) aliens and the like. These are way outside the scope of my worldview. I heard an interview of one researcher who performed a background study of all the people who had claimed to be abducted by aliens. He said the list included people from all walks of life & religions, EXCEPT what he referred to "walk-the-walk born-again Christians". 'Nuff said.
So, if I reject these commonly-held aspects of conspiracy theories, what does my theory look like? That's a topic for another post.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Conspirologist
Conspiratologist is a term coined by the character Jerry Fletcher (played by Mel Gibson) in the movie Conpiracy Theory. As he used it, it refers to people who explain various events in terms of their respective conspiracy theories.
In that sense, I am a conspirologist. I believe that major political and economic policy decisions in the US are made out of public view, by a ruling elite. This is not necessarily conspiracy, it's just power politics.
Within the network of the ruling elite, however, you will find factions. Members within these factions can and do conspire against other factions and against those who might upset the established order of power.
Yesterday, my youngest daughter and I watched the movie Conspiracy Theory, again. It struck me that the writer had more than a passing knowledge of what I think of as the more sophisticated approach to conspiracy.
Gibson's character explained that the conpiracy has two main factions, the investment bankers (IB) and the military industrial complex (MIC). The IB, he continued, want (or say they want) stability, while the MIC want (or say they want) security.
The character concludes by saying that the factions oppose each other, but it's more complicated than that, because on some levels they cooperate. And when there's a war, they both sit back and profit.
At that point, I paused the film and commented to my daughter that this was a fairly good summary of how our country operates. It succinctly, yet accurately describes the true currents of economic power that have run the machinery of government in America -- at least up until the recent banking crisis.
I hope, in subsequent posts to flesh out this bare-bones conspiracy theory, so that you may have an idea of how these powers have affected the flow of our nation's history from the beginning.
In that sense, I am a conspirologist. I believe that major political and economic policy decisions in the US are made out of public view, by a ruling elite. This is not necessarily conspiracy, it's just power politics.
Within the network of the ruling elite, however, you will find factions. Members within these factions can and do conspire against other factions and against those who might upset the established order of power.
Yesterday, my youngest daughter and I watched the movie Conspiracy Theory, again. It struck me that the writer had more than a passing knowledge of what I think of as the more sophisticated approach to conspiracy.
Gibson's character explained that the conpiracy has two main factions, the investment bankers (IB) and the military industrial complex (MIC). The IB, he continued, want (or say they want) stability, while the MIC want (or say they want) security.
The character concludes by saying that the factions oppose each other, but it's more complicated than that, because on some levels they cooperate. And when there's a war, they both sit back and profit.
At that point, I paused the film and commented to my daughter that this was a fairly good summary of how our country operates. It succinctly, yet accurately describes the true currents of economic power that have run the machinery of government in America -- at least up until the recent banking crisis.
I hope, in subsequent posts to flesh out this bare-bones conspiracy theory, so that you may have an idea of how these powers have affected the flow of our nation's history from the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)