(Above, the King and his pimp)
HenryMakow.com – Sept 10, 2022
Jimmy Savile (1926-2011) was a Satanist. The Queen of England awarded him the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 1971 and subsequently conferred a knighthood upon him…. Savile supplied children to elite members of British society for their sexual satisfaction.
by Michael Hoffman – (henrymakow.com)
Knighted by Queen Elizabeth and protected by her top police officers, and co-conspirators Prince Charles and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, for years Sir Jimmy Savile (1926-2011) headed a vast VIP child molestation network among Britain’s ruling class. He was never arrested or prosecuted. He died an honored multi-millionaire.
What did Queen Elizabeth know about her son Charles’ close friendship with Sir Jimmy Savile, the organizer of a huge child molestation ring servicing the aristocracy and elite of Britain? Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the queen’s MI5 and MI6 secret police were in on it. But Her Majesty was not?
The following information is excerpted from:
Twilight Language ©2021 by Michael Hoffman, pp. 310-314
Sir Jimmy Savile wearing the ribbon and medal conferred upon him by Queen Elizabeth. Click to enlarge
Jimmy Savile (1926-2011) was a Satanist. The Queen of England awarded him the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 1971 and subsequently conferred a knighthood upon him…. Savile supplied children to elite members of British society for their sexual satisfaction.
In 1984 Savile was accepted as a member of the Athenaeum, a high society gentlemen’s club in London’s elite Pall Mall district, after being proposed by Church of Rome Cardinal Basil Hume.
Another clerical member of Savile’s pederast ring was the Anglican Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt. Rev. Peter Bell, who had deep connections to the royal family, including Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles. Sir James Savile met Prince Charles through “mutual charity interests.”
The prince reportedly conveyed to Savile gifts on his 80th birthday, along with an enigmatic note reading: “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country, Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.”
No mention in the article that Savile was a Jew.
But what did you expect to happen? This is what the Allies fought/won WWII for. They liberated the Jews, homos, Commies, pedos & trannies from the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, & now people are wondering why Jews, Commies, pedos, homos & trannies are ruling your nation & world…cause & effect. If dysgenic, unfit wretched lunatics govern the State then you’re going to live in an insane degenerate society. Its that simple. But hey, remember you ‘won’ the war…lol
Surely the “Royals” know that the truth is known. Savile is but one, but there are many, many others.
What about Janner? To mention just one. The bottom line is this: The British monarchy should be razed to the ground. All lands/castles/houses owned by the “Royalty” should be seized. However, judging by Truss, the British people will never be free. By the way, I have read that Mountbatten was a pedo. True or false?
back in the day an old lady rang the police saying the house next door had loud moans and silenced screams coming from it
A policeman i knew said they went to investigate and he stood by the back door.
It turned out it was a homosexual A and M party Dennis Neilson was there before he did his murders and 2 members of parliament
It turned out the men were gathered round a table and sewing their balls to the bedsheet spread acroas the table. The policeman told us it was the weirdest sight he ever saw.
He inferred one of those present was the queens cousin Sir Anthony blunt who supplied small boys to high flyers before Jimmy saville
Michael Gove is said to do it now
Jimy savilles first protector was israeli politician menachem begin.
The jewish whistleblower in london emanuel valance was part of the stern gang and he showed authorities were approx 20 bodies of young palestinian boys were buried, he said menachen begin was a serial kidnaper rapist and killer of these kidnapped boys
It all comes from the top of the top-down order utilizing the intelligence agencies for the control of people in high places. On one hand to assist in population reduction the eugenic centre of this order over 60 years ago ordained that sexuality should be diverted from procreation as much as possible and that therefore the sexual taboos had to go and even protection for the family system. At the same time, and apart from the official policies in the works, the same order found the illegal proclivities and of the rich, powerful and influential highly “useful” to channel their loyalties into their grand designs and to stifle any opposition.
You can be sure that to maintain this order there is not one person with money or power whose proclivities are not known and utilized by that order. How else do you explain their blind obedience all the way through the Covid crimes. It is certainly has not been maintained just through money or the threats of not getting their local government not getting the IFM money to ensure such “loyalty”.
Of course these wretches in high places also want to do away with all taboos related to human sexuality and child exploitation and to make their practices legal. How else can they be free tp practice their depravities while at the same time being able to assert their will in other political and social matters?
The only way to clean up the mess is mass arrests of everyone involved including all of those involved in the “order’s” and their agencies’ blackmailing operations and then put them all together in interment camps. Just a thought.
These are fake “royals”.
Both Edward the 4th and Richard the 3ed were illegitimate not the sons of the Plantagenet Prince who’s wife bore them.
This means from that point on all English or British Monarchs, “kings”, “queens”, “princes” and Princess” have been frauds, fakes in a bad soap opera.
Nico X box makes THE OBVIOUS POINT….no mention that the distilled scum Saville was a Catholic Marrano Jew…..this is stone cold FACT.
WHY NOT?.
The upper levels of English society are riddled with these weirdos….usually they come from inherited wealth.
The Windsors maybe Shape Shifting after all….wacky Pwince Charles appears to have changed colour…he is now red in complexion……all you would need is a headdress of feathers and you wouldnt recognise him emerging from a teepee.
According to the Aangirfan website Saville visited Israel at least twice (like the hook nosed trollop Katy ‘Opkins).
The manager of the beatles Brian Epstein also managed singer Cilla Black
he told her he would make her rich and famous if she did as he said
She was used by him and other jews to befriend men in the homosexual arenas of hollywood
and the UK and report back
Homosexual men dislike women
she knew this but went round with several perverts including Cliff Richard, and Jonathan King this info was used for mossad to blackmail same as jimmy saville
The BBC was rotten to the core with homosexuals Pete Murray complained that almost all the DJs were homos and after the androgynous poofy mod boys on their little scooters
Pete Murray lost his job.
Simon Dee the most popular DJ ever was murdered to silence him as he kept telling BBC higher-ups
Not many know this but since the 1930s its been the Rothschild BBC
@kelvin ballsaker
Interesting…Do you have some info about Pete Tong, he hosts the most famous DJs and artists every friday night on BBC Radio 1…He seems a nice guy, i hope he’s not one of those perverts of higher echelons.
There is a wall plaque in israel thanking and commemorating the work of Jimmy Savile for the Jews
and yes both lord mountbatten was a shirtlifter as was Sir Anthony blunt
Blunt used to take boys aged 10 and 11 to tea with the queen mother every tuesday
she knew what was going to happen to them.
Blunt spied on the royals for long after he was exposed
Looks like the Jew Savile is chastising ‘Prince/King Charles’ for something in the above photo : ‘Don’t forget that us Jews are the real royalty Charles.’
@John Carleton…power supersedes ‘legitimacy’…
Yeah, “Charles The Turd”. For many, many years I’ve called him “Jug-Ears”. Maybe another interesting revelation of the end times, watching King Charles III in action, hahaha!
@ John Carleton. While the British institution of monarchy has existed since 1066 not all the royals are from the same family or House. The longest serving royal family were the Plantagenets who ruled for about 300 years, until Richard III was deposed by Henry Tudor (Henry VII, father of Henry VIII) after he defeated Richard in the last battle of the Wars of the Roses, the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.
When trying to track down a descendant of Richard after his bones were found under a Leicester car park, I think the man they traced was a descendant of Richard’s sister, and when he provided the test which proved it was Richard he was working as a car mechanic. Had Richard won at Bosworth that bloke might have been an aristocratic toff not working class, and we wouldn’t have had the Tudors. Our history would have been so, so different.
The jig was up a loooong time ago, lol.
Why should such an unsophisticated radio disc jockey and so conspicuously a flimsy early-evening, light-entertainment celebrity, have wielded so much power among the most powerful?
I’m aware of all the usual arguments. Clearly, as the Lord Provisioner of Little Children to paedophilic royals, clergymen and ministers of state, he would have had some considerable clout and could surely have whitened a knuckle or two upon a threat. If he were just an up-market child trafficker, however, it would be him doing the worrying.
MI5 could have taken Savile out at any time, without anyone ever suspecting that it could have been anything other than a cardiac arrest, suffered during a charity marathon run.
Yet, we know that he had MI5 clearance. You don’t get to casually pop by Buckingham Palace for a quick hello otherwise.
Where did Savile derive his authority from? How does a cheap numbskull come to advise Prince Charles on matters of state, as well as sidelining vicariously as royal marriage guidance counsellor? Most peculiar indeed, Watson.
The name Savile is said to be of French derivation but this is an obfuscation. Savile refers to Seville (Sevilla) a city in the southernmost region of Spain, Andalucia. Seville was where the Inquisition began; upon the petition of the Dominican Order to Queen Isabella of Castile. The Dominicans sought the crown’s permission to root out the elements among the jewish conversos who were so obviously and brazenly insincere in their embrace of Christianity. The Dominicans wanted to end the charade of jews, with crosses stitched into their gowns, spitting on poor Christians and uttering blasphemies, as if they were the words of the Lord Jesus. Isabella consented.
Seville (along with Cordoba) was the rabbinical stronghold of Judaism in Spain and so, appropriately, that’s where the mendicant friary of poor monks met them head on.
The history of the jewish dispersal from Andalucia is the history of the misery of the Sephardic subversion of the Netherlands, Britain and France.
The Seville Cohenim are of elevated status among jews because of their historical impact in advancing the messianic cause.
Jimmy Savile professed to be a Roman Catholic but remember – all the Ladino converts, the marranos of Iberia, made the same claim. Bear this in mind too – Jimmy Savile, the shitey, wee, low-rent “entertainer,” upon invitation, addressed the Israeli Knesset. Now, Savile’s ties to Mossad have long been known but that doesn’t explain the VIP status accorded to him by the Israeli parliament. If he were just any old spook, that wouldn’t have happened.
Does any of this, anyway, adequately explain why Jimmy Savile should have been Margaret and Denis Thatcher’s guest at Checkers, every single Christmas Day, for eleven consecutive years?
Some researchers have focused on Savile as an adept of the black arts. Whether he really was or not, he certainly fancied himself as some kind of satanic wizard, with superior mesmeric powers. I tend to think that he was more of a weekend diabolist, who liked to use the accoutrements of sorcery in his public act.
The cigar was his wand; his magical incantation, “now then, now then, now then…”
You’ll notice the characteristic threefold repetion of spellcraft but perhaps you might have missed the redolence of the phrase, which is an affirmation of the Luciferic principle of “turning time backward.” Now. Then. The cod-warlock, if you remember, sat in a magical throne as well, from which he conjured trinkets to enrapture children.
When I was twelve years old or so, I wrote to Jim’ll Fix It, asking if Jimmy Savile could fix it for me, to visit Moonbase Alpha in Space 1999. Honestly, I really did. I guess that the BBC didn’t like the logistics of it, especially considering that the Moon had spun out of the Earth’s orbit and was pretty far away by then. Anyway, thankfully, I wasn’t chosen.
Where does all of this leave us? Why was Savile so demonstrably powerful?
Here’s a possibility that I have never heard anyone else suggest: Bend Sinister. Savile was a royal.
@ waw…
The main reason that Mountbatten was selected and targeted by the lRA was his outrageous (even by establishment standards) noncery (something Mi6 was acutely aware of… as with Edward Heath and and the Profumo crew and well…all of the others.. iunsurprisingly) and the fact that this predator hunted little boys in lreland…
lncidentally he was very close to jug eared and rubber faced ‘prince’ charlie…
his mentor no less….
Most of ’em (establishment nonces) are ‘created’ ‘fagging’ and by ‘secret societies’ in the public schools..this is why they refer to them as ahem…’Spartan’…
Monarchy, aristocracy, cleptocrachy, technocracy, dictatorship, democracy – it appears that every form of government eventually fails as a result of our own internal corruption.
There are many people who respond on this site who appear to have high standards of right and wrong. They are very good at distinguishing between good and evil and especially when it comes to child abuse and child trafficking. For example, I recall asking Yukon Jack in an exchange with him on this site that if he rejects God then precisely on various issues where if fact his very high standards of right and wrong actually came from. Were his Anunnaki atheists and if so by what authority could they pronounce right or wrong on anything except that of their own interests and will. What in his new creed was really objective and not relativistic? He did not answer. From this efforts I gathered that many people have high moral standards but have never bothered to determine their source and what actually sustains them.
Is it then not the root of all of many evils in our human behaviours, that the root lies in asserting our own wills contrary to some other moral authority? Do we not live in a world in which most people profess some theistic belief but in the general practice most of them have rather relativistic views of good and evil? Is it that most people have abandoned their religious roots that enabled to take their morality into the public square?
As much as the meaning of the word ‘morality’ has gone out of taste and replaced by with etiquette of use of the word ‘ethics’ in polite circles, just study law and you will soon discover that our criminal codes are simple the official pronouncements of the moralities of our nations – what we allegedly hold in common to outlaw as evil and use the power of the state in order to protect what is regarded as good. But of course we have to remember the lie of the 1960s’ imposed on us by the media, our elected representatives, high church prelates, that in a pluralistic society we had no right to impose our “morality” on others.
Natural law theorists have always sought to prove that imbedded in nature and in our human natures is the very authority for standards of universal right and wrong. However, that view took a great tumble in the Age of Enlightenment (the 1700’s) after people began waking up from their alcoholic stupors of the 1600’s with the introduction of tea and coffee to the masses in that century. Hume, who was most likely a homosexual, in the 1700’s struck the fatal blow to the Scholastics propounding natural law by saying that “you cannot get from an ‘Is’ to an ‘Ought’, which translated that just because of the nature of something, or that it was made in a certain way, that was no basis to say that it ought to behave in that way.
However, the problem with his thought was that despite being an avowed empiricist challenging others to prove on those grounds the existing of God, which of course without revelation was impossible, his proposition of the disconnect between the nature of things and how we ought to behave strangely became authority for a liberalism where we ought not look to the nature of things when it came to our will of doing what we wanted to do.
In any case, natural law without the faith and authority of the all-good, and all-loving God of the universe simply translates into something as reprehensible as moral relativism. It is in this respect we can ask exactly what other than some natural-law revulsion many have against the abuse of children and other heinous sexual crimes that is to sustain our sexual mores so that these evil practices are curtailed and prosecuted in any circle, high or low. There seems to be no real authority from natural-law theory or from Yukon Jack’s Anunnaki aliens, and I seriously suspect that outside of Christianity there is any real authority, which makes any condemnation of Sevile or any of the Windsor clan very shallow stuff. Shuck off traditional Christian morality are there seems to be no real moral standards or even the idea of “sin” to sustain any objective standards to interfere with the impugned moral conduct of anyone.
In Canada the only remaining standard in our courts in its practice of striking down all old laws in relation to sexuality is that if they regard the forbidden practice as “harmful”. Of course, great scope can be allowed for that word but in the view of the judges it ought not to incorporate either natural-law human revulsion and most particularly, Christian-based morality, or any religious morality for that matter except that of the prevailing establishment-generated version of secular humanism.
In 1988 the unborn had no chance in our courts with a Charter of Rights enacted in 1981 with promises to be neutral on the abortion issue. The courts saw more harm being done with the law they struck down to the choice of mothers than to their unborn children who simply did not rate as persons to them. You see that they were very selective with respect to their harm principle. So too for every other law enacted in our legislatures which have fallen with the blank-slate Charter handed to Supreme Court judges by the the very social liberal Trudeau government which appointed them exactly for that purpose.
No the NAMBLA people have not gone away. They are simply now more entrenched in all of the corridors of power and need not be so obstreperous as they were some 40 years ago to get their way. They have become more Fabian. As for the harm principle, it being devoid of God and his true nature as well as any spiritual ends for us, on analysis it now has turned from the ensuing chaos of being neutral and relativistic, to something for more objective and dictatorial, where it is now envisioned by many that with respect to children who are presently being bought and sold, abused and killed, all to the blind eyes of our justice systems, that our courts will sometime if the foreseeable knock down even those remaining laws for their protection on the basis that like everyone else they really have no innate or inalienable rights other than what state and the courts deem them to be. As for the alleged “harm principle” it no doubt is getting harder and harder for the courts to see that there is anything really harmful in child sex or having sex with a child, just as they can see there is nothing really harmful in having sex with a pig or marrying one for that matter. After all, is not prostitution a recognized and taxable industry which is legal and good, and should not women be free to engage in that trade? So what about children if they give their consent and if they can be taught to enjoy it?
So, I ask you. What then is to stop the trend? By what authority? What morality? In order to set things right, are we to continue to rely on a totally-compromised, broken-down, silenced, inept, and likely-blackmailed Church hierarchies to revive us with something other than the establishment-ordained Starbucks coffee, liberal ecumenism, and the UN sustainability brew of pretexts for a totalitarian NWO? Of course not, and it would seem that the greatest hypocrisy and failing we ought to be busy exposing is the silence and inept opposition of our religious leaders to all of these evils and heinous crimes which we expose and complain about on this site and others such as Henry’s. Without beginning with those who hold themselves out as the moral and spiritual leaders in our lives and in our nations, it will be impossible to mount any real leadership to end the abuses and harms to children, or to anyone else.
It is not that the silence of the lambs or even the sheep which is the problem. It is the silence of the shepherds, whom with Covid appear to be more in league with the wolves than with their flocks.
NB: Or at least they did (create them in public school)…. before it became aspirational and deserving of a twatter blue tic and the admiration of deviant social media miscreants who work in ‘education’…
Nowadays the creeps in the regime have turned their nasty habits into government policy…
Lest we forget, who told the world the elites were all pedophiles 3 decades ago and was completely ridiculed?
David Icke.
Icke also says they are shapeshifting reptilians. Which even I find hard to believe, and actually I do not believe it because I have no evidence to believe some outrageous claim – but I do think humans are alien hybrids.
In fact I have criticized Icke for leading the gullible away from the Jewish conspiracy, with tales of blood sucking reptiles. Jews are at the center of the conspiracy against mankind, and there is NO EVIDENCE that the queen shapeshifted or was reptilian.
https://coronatimesnews.substack.com/p/david-icke-explains-why-he-will-not#details
But there is loads of evidence that humans are not primates. See Lloyd Pye’s video and book “Everything You Know is Wrong”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8
Humans have NO FUR. All primates have fur, even in the hottest jungle. You can not evolve out of fur during an ice age. All of human evolution is in the last 2.5 million year ice age, and we are still in the ice age, at the tail end of an interglacial. In fact I bet many Germans will wish they had fur this winter because Russia turned off the gas.
See Ellis Silver’s book Humans Are Not From Earth:
https://www.amazon.com/Humans-are-not-Earth-scientific/dp/0955011698
I suggest anyone who thinks humans evolved on earth go try to explain how humans got 46 chromosomes while all other primates have 48. There is no logical explanation. The only way is intervention.
Any variation with 46 would not be able to breed with existing 48. And there are no humans with 48.
The 46 Chromosomes Smoking Gun of Alien Intervention
ON AUGUST 23, 2017 BY YUKON JACK
https://i.imgur.com/cbWEnZU.jpg
Waw
It was Lord Mountbottom,who introduced Saville into Public Life in 1958! This was reported in the MSM when the scandal became public. He has always been a Spook Asset.
@dungkopf
They traced this guy’s linage back to Richard III via mitochondrial DNA, which is a mother to child signature. I recall the guy was Canadian and was something like a cabinet maker or a furniture restorer.
***
Ancestry is a peculiar thing. I’ve heard it said that everyone with English ancestry is a descendant of Edward III. This is said to be a mathematical certainty. I’ve also heard that all Europeans can count Charlamagne as our ancestor too. So, if you consider the likely crimes committed by our ancestors, the idea from the Christian religion of being “Born into sin” makes a lot of sense.
There never has been a “rightful” king. It has always been about force of arms together with the necessary finance. The faction behind the throne always concoct some reason why their candidate is the rightful one. And of course after the Stuarts, monarchs became puppets whose strings were pulled by the bankers. This dovetails with Andyay’s passage about the migration of (Marrano) Jews from Italy, to the Iberian Peninsula, to the Netherlands, and then to England. This roughly corresponds to the international importance of these countries. The Jews from way back understood the science of money and taxation. And here, it must be said, the greedy and war mongering of monarchs gone by, gave the International Jew, their foot in the door:
Deuteronomy 15: 6
For the Lord thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.
Deuteronomy 23: 20
Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
What an absurdly garish repulsive ghoul Savile was, and that’s not even considering him having been a utterly disgusting child rapist. and I’m sue many of the children that depraved degenerate Savile provided for the monsters in the ruling class ended up murdered after they were raped and brutally sodomized by those sick f*cks.
That Savile somehow escaped being force-fed his own genitalia, beaten senseless, viciously disemboweled, and fed into a wood-chipper many decades ago is testament to how sick and broken our countries are.
“Prime Minister Thatcher is suspected of having concealed a child-rape ring operating among high officials of the British government.” .. Ya think? That hag Thatcher was in on it. Not only did she clearly cover it up, Thatcher probably strapped on a rubber dong over her syphilitic sludge bucket of a snatch and brutally sodomized children while smashing away at their digits with a hammer.
‘There’s a killer on the road
His brain is squirmin’ like a toad
Take a long holiday
Let your children play
If you give this man a ride
Sweet family will die
Killer on the road, yeah…’
JIM’I FIX IT
I am handicapped and spend several hours each day on the internet
It was this website the day after jimmy savilles death that exposed him lord mountnatten
and General montgomery
David icke like henry makow searches the net and puts it out as his own work
David icke then put the news about savile and others into new editions
Never forget child rapist and killer Sir Anthony blunt said the royals were jews
perhaps the biggest fight between diana and the royals was she refused to have her boys sexually mutilated in the jewish circumcision rites
quoting Fred B:
“For example, I recall asking Yukon Jack in an exchange with him on this site that if he rejects God then precisely on various issues where if fact his very high standards of right and wrong actually came from. ”
—————–
Fred, I do not remember what I told you back then but the answer is always the same, men determine what is right and wrong. Men write the holy books, not some “god”.
That is a standard answer many very smart people and philosophers have said over the centuries. But, of course, if your only source of information about where our morality comes from, is the Holy Bible, or the priest, they will tell you what they believe, they will say God is the source.
THERE NOT A CHANCE THAT GOD IS THE SOURCE OF OUR MORALITY AND IT IS EASILY PROVABLE.
For one, morality depends on which holy book or culture. In one culture you can marry a 12 year old, and in the next you go to prison for life. And both of these cultures get their morality from the same Bible you read.
And if you are a Christian, this god of yours in the Holy Bible is neither holy or moral. Yahweh, the Jew god in the Bible, is the most unfair, unholy, judging, godly predator in all of holy fiction. So you make me laugh outloud as I type this, how can Yahweh be the source of any morals at all?
Now I am not the only one who says and knows this, take the most learned Richard Dawkins, who wrote ‘The God Delusion’, said this about your god:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
So obviously such a character would not be a good source for our morality. And in fact we no longer stone women to death for adultery. And over in Israel, a nation born from the Bible, the proudly advertize themselves as the gay capital of the world, when their Torah god condemn such disgusting behavior in the harshest of terms.
And I know the priests don’t really believe in this god or his afterlife punishment, because if they did, they would not be raping little boys. So it is obvious to me the religion of England is a big sham, and when was the last time any Anglican priest go public about the massive pedophile cult running the country? Obviously those with power use the holy book to control the little people who are unable to figure out the scam of being controlled by frightful tales of an angry sky god.
So where did my high standards of right and wrong come from? Certainly not from the 10 commandments and not from religious indoctrination. From reason and fairness. And I certainly don’t lavish praise on some fake god of the Bible, and suck up to this fake god who wants us on our knees because I know that no god of love would ever demand such idiocy. In fact I can not believe any adult could believe the primitive mythology in the Bible as some holy revelation.
https://www.evilbible.com/
The Bible is a very sick book and it needs to be banned because of the great harm it does to people’s minds. The Bible tells you to be obedient to God like Abraham, who was going to knife and kill his own son as a proof of loyalty. Such a story makes for soldiers who obey illegal and immoral orders, like all those who raped Iraq as good little Christian soldiers.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=where+does+morality+come+from&ia=web
But you may object and claim Jesus is the new god, but that logic is full of holes because Jesus and his father are one in the same. And Jesus did the most immoral thing by allowing himself to become a blood sacrifice to change the immoral father god’s judgment on us.
Of course no one can die for your sins, and their ain’t no such thing anyways. No one can prove the existence of sin, it is not a physics law. Sin is only a religious concept, sin is only possible if there was some thing called morality, which there is not. Morality is just another one of our human inventions. We make the rules and we punish those that break the rules. It is all about us and what we think and that is based on our prejudices.
Not a century a go you could kill an Native Indian or a Black and not be punished for murder. In fact the American settlers killed Indians by the thousands and never sinned according to their own preachers. So as a truthful objective writer, I say Christians are not a very good source for morality.
CRIMES OF GOVERNMENT
involving the people in its racist wars on foreign folk
Allowing 50 carcinogenic additives in supermarket foods
( the word carcinogenic means cancer causing)
Putting chemicals like Chlorine Fluoride and aluminium in our drinking water
( see Camelford tragedy)
Chemtrailing dangerus toxins and heavy metals being sprayed into the atmosphere
from aircraft.
Allowing the Rothschild BBC to extort milions from us in licence fees while hiding up child abusers like jimmy saville
People trafficking in millions including criminals and the sick from around the world
and giving them priority over there own electorate.
Endangering our children by legalising and encouraging homosexual perversion
to be taught to our pre schoolers and school children.
Government allowed Bad-Boris ” the dirty jew ” stealing from the people
huge sums last one was £ 300 million and giving it away to Ukraine.
Allowing the royal family of secret jews to swan about and spend millions
while many of our own people are on the poverty line.
Agreeing to Tony Blair’s killing of Princess Diana Dr David kelly and Robin Cook.
Surely its time now to be rid of the royals and hang the government traitors
Sorry for the diatribe above which is also filled with numerous typos and grammatical errors taking up space it did not deserve.
It is not that the silence of the lambs or even that of the sheep which is the problem. It is the silence of the shepherds, who appear to be more in league with the wolves than with their flocks. We have seen this both with the Covid crimes against humanity and child abuse.
Essentially, I am asserting that there is no moral authority with any motivating power to curb child abuse and trafficking or any other real evil without the authority of God and religion underpinning our laws. No, not even a return to natural-law theory will restore the desired protection from our justice systems. Most certainly the drift will continue towards even more heinous atrocities over the lives of all human beings as we continue to base our moral standards and laws on those in positions of authority who are essentially moral relativists and/or secular humanists.
The child predators are not in decline. The heinous crimes against children are escalating and the predators are now more entrenched than ever in all of the corridors of power. As for the secular “harm principle” as a guide for our lawmakers to stop such abuse, it also is devoid of God and our true natures, as well as being devoid of any spiritual purpose in life, and in effect by itself, it has furthered the moral chaos by essentially being relativistic. As the trend continues it is foreseeable that the courts will knock down even those remaining laws for the protection of children and even our own protection based on our God-given basic and inalienable rights.
It is getting more and more difficult for the courts or anyone in authority to see that there is anything really very harmful in having sex with a child, just as many can see there is nothing really harmful in changing the gender of child, or having sex with an animal or marrying one for that matter. The consent of a child hardly matters and if it did then without parental or religious interference no doubt they would simply use lollipops to obtain the desired consent. Indeed, that is the very direction in which the ruling establishment wants to take us. Prostitution now has become a recognized and taxable industry which practice is legal and alleged to be a respectable occupation. So, what about children if they give their consent and if they can be taught to enjoy the same experiences? What then of the harm principle as a barrier? Of course it must fail like it has with everything else.
But let us not be overly concerned about how our legislators and judges ought to behave in the absence of an external and higher moral authority to guide them, for it is our religious leaders who have failed to challenge them and to properly guide us. It seems that we cannot rely on totally-compromised, broken-down, secular-controlled, inept, and likely-blackmailed religious leaders to set things right. Yet, that is their function despite the ridicule and persecution to follow from properly guiding us and reasserting their moral authority in the public square. Presently, it would seem that the greatest hypocrisy and failing in our time falls with them, and to change them, we ought to be much more busy exposing their silence, neutrality, and inept opposition to all of these evils and heinous crimes we are aware of and want to end. We must expose their weaknesses not to push them deeper into hiding and obscurity but rather to goad them or their replacements into the daylight to assert that missing positive moral leadership which is their duty. In any case, without beginning with those who hold themselves out as the moral and spiritual leaders in our lives and in our nations, it will be impossible to mount any real leadership to end the abuses and harms to children, or to anyone else.
THE ROYALS ARE DIRTY JEWS
read it here
https://birthofanewearthblog.com/the-truth-about-the-british-royal-family-they-are-all-jews/
another jew child molester close to charles and andrew
see here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178403/Bruce-Roth-Prestigious-public-school-housemaster-jailed-sexually-assaulting-boys-20-year-campaign.html
What is a monarchy: Multigeneration trauma. Bloodlines. Obsession with genetic traits. Child abuse through and through. Crypto-Hebrew actors doing the bankers’ bidding.
No one ever performed at royal do’s who wasn’t a programmed-multiple, dissociated sex slave à la Kylie Minogue. All these OBEs for “services to drama and charity” = trained assassins and drug/intel mules.
Just about the only university HM loved to visit was the LSE, a Fabian/Tavistock hotbed for all if the above horrors.
And now the Brits are weeping. For a cruel German woman who for 70 long years gave them nothing at all.
@Fred B – asking why are people in power evil?
Power is the answer, Fred. Too much power corrupts a person. Always. It’s humanity’s intractable problem and requires vigilant, highly educated citizens keeping the leaders in check. Some will argue that “nothing would get done” because everyone has a say and it’s “inefficient”. But you can see what the alternative is – this much power makes men mad and genocidal. It’s similar to what happens to people who become famous, but on a much more psychotic and “I am God” level.
To Simon smith.
These alleged royals use the same excuses as the Yorkshire ripper .
“God told me to do it.”
Please stop refering to these things as “royals” and “majesty”. They are scum, not people to look up to. And stop referring to the “gov” as “minister of this or that”. They are your jailors. No one chose to have any of these people controlling them or their country. Britain is a fascist dictatorship, controlled by perverts and foreigners.
Even as a child, those in “High Places” – the “toffs” if you like – seemed a bit “strange” (strange as in “Helloooo… Sailor!”) – to me… just judging by their peculiar looks and odd mannerisms.
It was only later, of course, that I realised that being inducted into the Royal Order Of Arse Banditry was an absolute reQUEERment for social “progress”… which, since the default alternative was throwing my hat into the ring on behalf of The Benighted Order Of Thick Brits, left me with no alternative but to get a one-way ticket to fairer climes.. as soon as I’d scraped together enough “loose change” that had escaped the attention of the tax-man…
@Pan
I have to underline your take on power.
The first power grab occurred when a man with a certain combination of strength and intelligence persuaded his community that their neighbours were a threat to them and that they needed to provide him and his friends resources to allow them to weapon train etc. In the next village the same dynamic occurred.
From the “leadership group” perspective they needed to continually prove the need for this setup, ultimately sanctifying it, and elevating this “class” has being more divine – “anointed by God etc,.” Their skillset became the holding and brokering of power while others scrubbed a living off the land.
Leaders could go shopping for the “best” state religion that served their political goals. This of course was all cover for the legitimisation of the status quo and the appropriation of goods/slaves, both home and away.
And so it still is…
Arnold Leese wrote a book tracking the gradual Jewification of British Aristocracy especially in the Nineteenth Century. As a royal Savile will have been part Jew. At his death we heard he was one of them. He called his mother the Duchess. The blond hair was a disguise and celebration of Hindley; it is rumoured that he helped both the Moors Murderers and the Yorkshire Ripper with their crimes. Another aristocrat befriended the Moors Murderer in prison. (Jack the Ripper, I think, symbolised British Freemasonry going Satanist in 1888)
The Satanic Paedophile known as Sir Jimmy Savile (Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile), was the Royal Usher into the sewer of demonic perversity for the British Elite, who are also covert Jews or Crypto-Jews. Over many decades Sir Jimmy Savile would drive his Rolls Royce from Scarborough, in North Yorkshire, down to Central London, where Royal Guards at Buckingham Palace would allow him entry into the driveway. Savile would then drive his Rolls Royce around to the ground floor kitchen door entrance, at the side of Buckingham Palace. He would take a little boy or girl from his car, and walk them up the steps in Buckingham Palace.
Sir Jimmy Savile would then go to the kitchen, and chefs would give him crates of wine, champagne, artisan breads, cheeses, smoked fish, cured meats and condiments. He would load them into the boot of his Rolls Royce. Sometimes the little boys and girls would be returned to him, and then he would drive off back up to Scarborough, in North Yorkshire. What became of the children he left at Buckingham Palace, is not known. King Charles The Third is a Royal Nonce, and most of his Arch Bishop friends in the Anglican Church, are violent homosexual paedophiles. His brother, Prince Andrew Windsor was a close friend of Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, and regularly flew on the Lolita Express to Fantasy Island, and molested and raped underage girls. From psychiatric research, it is well known that Prince Andrew Windsor has an obsession with rough anal sex. Hence, the British Royal Family are pretty much a sodomite paedophile based institution. Sadly, most British People are to naive, and stupid to even realise how evil they really are.
@ Sam,
Another one who has no idea of what real Fascism stands for. Fascism was formed solely to fight against this evil.
Again I put up this excellent book for folk to read:
https://archive.org/details/fascism-100-questions-asked-and-answered-10-points-of-fascism-by-oswald-mosely-z-lib.org.epub/page/n17/mode/2up
No one has mentioned the Brighton bomb which unfortunately failed to take out the shirt lifting pedo filth who were upto their depravity in the basement
all this talk against us jews its just not right
and no one should condemn recreatoinal buggery with a small boy who has not himself tried it
Speaking of pedophiles occupying high places, here is a picture of Mossad agents Jeffrey Epstain and Jizzlaine Maxwell lounging at the queen’s country estate:
https://nypost.com/2021/12/09/jeffrey-epstein-and-ghislaine-maxwell-pictured-in-queens-estate/
———————-
quoting Fred B.
“It is not that the silence of the lambs or even that of the sheep which is the problem. It is the silence of the shepherds, who appear to be more in league with the wolves than with their flocks”
quoting Pan
“@Fred B – asking why are people in power evil?
Power is the answer, Fred. Too much power corrupts a person. Always. It’s humanity’s intractable problem..”
———————
Why do humans seek power? Why is politics always corrupted? I have an answer for you all and you may not like it.
Humans are out of whack with Natural Law. There is a definitive reason for this, and it is obvious, if you only put down that god damned Bible and open your eyes. The Bible is a carefully crafted myth keeping your mind from discovering the obvious, that you the human are not part of the this planet natural occurring ecosystem, you the human lack fur, fangs, and adaptation to the planet that all other animals possess by the fact that they are integrated and evolved here.
Humans did not evolve on earth. THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS THE GIANT FACT STARING YOU RIGHT IN YOUR FACE WHICH DRIVES LUST FOR POWER.
—————-
“This isn’t our proper environment. We feel completely out of place, and we have done since the moment we arrived.”
“We are all chronically ill,” says Silver. “Indeed, if you can find a single person who is 100% fit and healthy and not suffering from some (perhaps hidden or unstated) condition or disorder (there’s an extensive list in the book) I would be extremely surprised – I have not been able to find anyone.”
– Ellis Silver, Humans are not from Earth: a scientific evaluation of the evidence
—————-
Humans are not adapted to living natural lives, unless you are living in a teepee like a Native American, living off of the land with primitive tools like a bow and arrow and flint knife.
Humans are a very weird specie, they have these holy books which tells them God created them in a Garden of Eden, then Genesis says these first humans disobeyed God and were cast out and forced to work for a living. That story reeks as a mind spell.
How totally bizarre is that? Does a Gorilla have a holy book telling them that Gorilla specie are sinners who disobeyed the Creator? No, the Gorilla is completely integrated in the environment, the Gorilla is surrounded by food, it has no job, no car, no house, no heater; the Gorilla is covered in black fur, making it near invisible in the forest, the Gorilla has a robust immune system, is never sick with a cold, it has incredible strength and powerful jaws to eat the natural forage and defend itself against a big cat – which it can crush with it’s jaws and fangs.
But the humans is very fragile, no fangs, no fur, and is easily outrun and taken down by any apex predator. What a human should look like is Bigfoot, a huge bipedal primate with incredible speed and agility. But you can only admire a wild primate because your freedom was taken from you the moment the alien interventionists illegally created you as a slave specie.
So as a result of this immoral alien intervention by the “gods”, humans are like domesticated puppies dumped off in front of Walmart, they are helpless and out of place. So with these unadapted humans, some decide to survive and thrive by manipulating others to be their slaves. And thus government and power is born.
By writing a mythological story, the priest gives the king the intellectual cover to rule over subjects. The king also has an army, so with the church, the king can rule over vast areas. This power becomes very corrupt, because it is unnatural, and soon the power structure is taken over by even more vile corruption, and that is Zionism, the Khazar mafia.
So Fred, if you are wondering why the priestly class is not outing the king pedophile ring, there is your answer. The priest (or church) is given tax free status, it is promoted by the ruling elite to brainwash the masses. The church, Fred, is part of the power structure, to out the king would destroy itself.
That Genesis story which guilt trips humans for disobedience is what blinds you to the truth of your existence, you were conceived in sin and born in iniquity as a slave on a prison planet! From Day 1, humans have been slaves, from Adam and Eve to right now every human was born as a hybrid abomination, a domesticated animal cast to the surface of an ice age planet. We are the damned Fred, we are the most damned specie on all of the earth, which is the reason why we are always striving to get right by god, to purify ourselves with Baptism, etc.
The Bible and the priest has fooled you Fred!
The Real Reason Humans Were Dumped on Planet Earth
On November 11, 2020 By jackyukon
https://ibb.co/sHGp4dS
https://i.imgur.com/YH2UU07.jpg
To Fred B: ‘Sorry for the diatribe above …’
Fred, none of your posts is a diatribe. All are brilliant dramtisations of your just indignation. I am confident that what you have said is manna for the soul, especially for those of us ‘indignants’ who lack the passion and erudition that serves up your brilliant demagogic skills. Thank you for all your posts
@ Ross
Fascism is a gov that dictates everyone’s lives from a central “power” base. A fascist is someone that believes that everyone should do what they say.
It’s the exact opposite of democracy, which has never existed anywhere.
I’m sorry you don’t speak English. Perhaps you ought to go back to wherever you came from?
Yukon Jack–the best I can say is that Caucasians are neotenous Bigfoots, Africans are neotenous gorillas, and the same for Orientals and orang-utans, but how it happened is not clear, ET experimentation seeming likely
There’s nothing wrong with power as long as its in the service of the dominion & profit of one’s cult or race.
@Ross…Adopt ‘The Book of the Law’ as the new white religion.
@ Yukon Jack
You are very good at saying what is wrong with religion, and in particular “the Church” but not very good is describing anything right about it or how it could be better.
You admit you are a lapsed Catholic and blame the Church for many ills and I have repeatedly asked you where your own high moral standards come from in these various matters of right and wrong discussed on this site. That is, what is your authority or basis for any moral position you espouse. Your now say that your foundation is Natural Law which I do not condemn and which in fact the Church has historically leaned on to support its realistic views that what we ought to do is that which is in conformity to our true natures and the way God made us.
However, you seem to want to cut God out of that scenario, and so if it is the case that our human natures with or without power over others is a tendency to self will, error and evil just as much as it towards that which is good, then what objective moral standards can you offer as a guide. One can look at nature and extract from it as Spencer did the idea that nature is essentially the survival of the fittest and from there justify the “law of the jungle” and human ruthlessness in concentrating more and more wealth and power to oneself. On the other hand you can view what actually goes on in the jungle and see symbiotic relationships and other forms of cooperation making for a tremendous richness in abundance and diversity of life. It is not that I am saying that there is no objective reality when considering nature but that our observations are generally subject to our points of view and our interests, and for good or evil it is what is the human heart which really matters.
The problem with natural-law theory is that by itself it does not really guide us on moral matters in an objective sense, and also that it lacks any motive force to lift our souls up from the primordial ooze we were born into, and that is precisely why we NEED religion – both for objective standards for our direction in life and for a motive force to go in that direction.
On a personal level I have suggested to you that perhaps regarding your own moral views regarding the conduct of our governments, and all leading institutions including all of the major religious denominations, that your own sense of serious right and wrong likely came from your earlier indoctrination, and perhaps even with the example of some holy nuns. Those who really reject Christ usually reject all that he really stands for, and it seems that in many respects you are largely throwing out the baby with the bathwater but keeping various things the rest of your philosophy is unable to sustain.
My point is that the leadership in my Church in many respects has to be changed. It is the biggest organization in the world and more than every before appears to be controlled by secular forces. Its authority with its members is with respect to faith and morals. In my view and despite its worthy teachings, it has repeatedly failed to be a proper exemplar of God’s moral order mainly because it is run by very imperfect human beings such as myself, and it constantly needs reform. The way it could reassert its stature, at least for its many own members, is to clean house and take a strong stand not only against all forms of child abuse but also against the very evil methods being employed to usher in the NWO and its various diabolical and totalitarian ends. There is no other organization out there that has the teachings and the potential for such resistance. Any persecution from the secular state to follow should be welcomed as it would lead to more and more people waking up to the truth and in bringing down the evil order running things, be it a cabal of secular humanists, Illuminati, Masons, Jews, WASP’s, Americans, or Jesuits, or all of them.
Incidentally, I recently viewed the movie “Fr. Stu” on Prime Time. It presented in a very vivid way what the faith is really about. It does not matter if the Anunnaki exist if they are indifferent to you. What matters is the presence of God and his kingdom in your life and the purpose of your life. If you do not have a higher and more eternal purpose than self-aggrandizement, personal pleasure, wealth or power then I fail to see that you will have any real motive force to change anything in the world for the better.
Chromosomatic count isn’t a taxonomical rank of course, Yukon. Even if it were, it would describe the same divergence between men and apes as already given by the taxons distinguishing Family and Genus. There is no intrinsic value in having more or less chromosomes anyway. Genes have multiple specificities. It’s the range of physical functions genes endow, which tells, not their quantity. For example, like the great apes, the common potato also has 48 chromosomes. A potato can’t even peel a banana.
It is not uncommon for people to have 47 chromosomes, either. If you are born with an additional 21st autosome, you have Down Syndrome.
One in every thousand women, it is said, have Triple X Syndrome and therefore, with the additional gametes, a 47 chromosome count also. There are genetic disorders that limit humans to 45 chromosomes and even a male-only genome rarity called 49XXXXY Syndrome. That’s more chromosomes than Urco’s got.
Taxonomical rank and classification is all a bit messy, anyway. There seem to be at least ten or more variant models of classification, each with greater or lesser degrees of sub-set complications.
Rank is more standardized but also allows for varying degrees of subdivision. In classical zoology, there are eight ranks of taxonomy. This is a useful enough tablature for the laymen’s purpose. The eight ranks can be readily memorized with a simple mnemonic. The one I favour is, “Do Keep Ponds Clean Or Fish Get Sick” = Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. I hope that tip’s useful to someone, somewhere.
The traditional ranking system is, unsurprizingly, replete with anomolies. I remember, years ago, reading a stimulating essay by Isaac Asimov, called “Hole In The Head” which has stayed with me. Asimov’s challenge to himself was to formulate a scientifically valid definition of the term, “mammal” – a definition which must accurately describe and encompass all known mammals.
It’s well known, of course, that the customary definition of a mammal isn’t appertaining to all mammalia. Mammals, it is given, give birth to live young and wean their infants on milk produced by a specialized gland in the female mammal. There are aquatic and terrestrial mammals.
Yet, everyone’s heard of the Duck-billed Platypus, which is an egg-laying animal that feeds its young on milk from a mammary gland.
Equally, the mighty Anaconda gives birth to live young but is a reptile, despite that.
Is it having hair that defines mammals? This isn’t as stupid an idea as it may sound because as Asimov explains, mammals can have greater or lesser amounts of hair but only one species of mammal is completely hairless. One exception is nonetheless a fail.
If you guessed “dolphin” for the only hairless mammal, then hard luck, you got it wrong. Apparently, all dolphins have a residual clump of fine hair above their mouths, like dainty cetacean moustaches. Only whales are hairless.
Can warm-bloodedness define a mammal? No. There are two warm-blooded animal families; mammals and birds.
Finally, Asimov managed to pare down his possibilities to a single, scientifically satisfactory definition of a mammal: “Animals of the order of mammalia have a thoracic diaphragm.”
(Other animals; birds and reptiles, for example, have similar breathing apparatus but, in birds, they are biologically redundant and are organized differently in reptiles.)
Reptiles, compared to mammals, need only relatively low levels of oxygen to sustain themselves. And it is this, ultimately, that delineates all reptiles from all mammals. In order to maintain body temperature at an optimal level, the mammal requires the constant oxydation of foodstuffs, which generates heat internally. That’s where the diaphragm between the chest and abdomen comes in. It works like a flue in a fire place.
Having a thoracic diaphragm was the only viable definition that Asimov could conjure. Mammals have a peculiar function of their respiratory systems that allows them to regulate their body temperature, via continuous digestion of foodstuffs. A snake doesn’t have such a need which is why you can see the perfect profile of an undigested squirrel in its gullet, several hours after feeding. It’s digestive system isn’t thermostatically specialized.
Although Asimov doesn’t touch upon the question, homo sapiens is distinct from all other mammals in having a diaphragm which is parallel to the ground, even while in motion. Some zoologists argue that man’s diaphragm should be classified distinctively. They use the terms “diaphragmal” to describe all mammals, except for humans, whom they classify as “horizontal diaphragmal” or Homo Cantale (because the human diaphragm allows for song.)
Unfortunately, in which case, Asimov’s “diaphragm” definition no longer holds. Can “mammals” therefore be defined by a uniform feature of biology or by a characteristic phylogeny? No, not in the all-encompassing sense that Asimov was striving for.
If the term “mammal” is not strictly scientific, then the taxons, “primate” and “hominidiae” are redundant measures by which to quantify association between apes and men.
None of this implies necessarily that man is the product of genetic manipulation by demiurges, ill-intending or otherwise. Neither does it negate the hypothesis. I believe that there are higher intelligences, delegated creative responsibilities and I personally accept that such interventions are more probability, than possibility. We should still try to keep grounded though.
It wasn’t that long ago that rhesus negative blood factor was discussed, quite openly and seriously, as firm evidence of a reptilian genetic legacy.
The function of the D antigen was unknown until recently and where science is wanting, naturally enough, speculation abounds. Intelligent speculation can prove rewardingly explorative and educational. I don’t object to it.
It has now been determined that the D antigen is responsible for transporting carbon dioxide away from red blood cells and into the lungs for expiration. I don’t know, honestly, if this describes an immune system process or not. I guess that it must do because an antigen trigger is involved. (The information available on-line, covering this subject, is still scant.) CO2 is produced naturally by metabolic processes within the human body and it plays an important role in pH regulation by breaking down as cationic acid. The more CO2, the less O2, however, which is why it’s expelled when breathing out.
The loci of populations with high rhesus negative blood factor are all at the extremities of Western Atlantic-leaning lands.
From the Canary Island Guanches, to the North-West African Amizigh, to the Basques of Biscay, to the Irish, the Britons and the Norweigan Islanders. All are people of the Western Atlantic fringe, with longevity of settlement there and vouchsafe the highest concentration of rhesus negative blood in the world.
The Atlantic Ocean is a great Carbon Dioxide Sink and produces vast quantities of O2. It’s little surprize, then, that a people who do not process carbon dioxide efficiently, yearn for oxygen rich air and point their noses seaward into the bracing and briney westerlies.
Considering that reptiles require less oxygen that men to function healthily and that individual’s with rhesus negative blood are better suited to an atmosphere with greater O2 density, then that would tend to mitigate against, if not negate, the “rhesus-negative-reptilian-bloodline-nexus” attenuation. That rhesus negative blood is best suited to a mid-Atlantic air quality, should not be lost to us. The D antigen wasn’t required in Hyperboria. Mankind befits the Earth and the Earth is befitting to mankind. History is under the oceans, though Eden is somewhere beyond the mapped perimeters of the Earth.
When you begin writing a comment, without much of an idea of what you actually intend to say, or of how you might say it but go ahead with abandonment anyway, you can too easily end up with a post like this one.
…. there are some long paragraphs in this comments section…
The writer should drive the readers’ eyes as if they was following the graceful movements of a beautiful woman, unable to turn aside his glaze until there is no more to view; not have the reader climb up steep mountain slopes of text.
We’re all readers and writers. No one is perfect, but if what anyone has to say is worth reading other than being a private cathartic release, please place yourself in the position of the reader and make your language accessible. I certainly believe what most of you have to say is worth more than the BS of many of the regular featured article writers but IT’S NOT ACCESSIBLE.
And at the risk of having every possible dropped apostrophe and spellchecker error I subsequently make, highlighted, I would like to recommend this book: “The Elements of Style” by William Strunk and E White. Knowing when to use a semi colon is as satisfying to a reader as a husband knowing where the clitoris is to a woman, and insisting someone read a zillion line paragraph is like making your old mum climb the stairs when there is easy access to a lift.
@ Fred B
“You are very good at saying what is wrong with religion, and in particular “the Church” but not very good is describing anything right about it or how it could be better. ”
I don’t believe the church can be made better, because the basis of the church is a giant falsehood, that god ordained governments and authority. See Romans 13. It is obvious the State wrote such text, not some “god”. God gives us freedom and man takes it away with government and religion.
The problem with the church/state/king/priest is the assertion of authority, that some men have authority over other men. No such thing exists except in the minds of men and holy/law books.
So how can you reform an institution that should not exist in the first place? You can not, you can only hope it collapses and goes away.
Once again you assert I reject Christ. How can I reject that which does not exist? If a priest says you must believe in the Flying Sphaggetti Monster, I will say I will believe in it when I see it. Same for Christ. I do not see Christ (or god) running things on this god damned planet.
I was taught about God and wish I had never heard of it. In fact, I often say would I know about God if I had never been taught it? The answer is, of course, no. God only exists in a book and people’s minds. It is a mind virus that is being transferred to each generation by indoctrination, it is not a real thing, it is a mental thing.
Memes replicate, a collection of religious memes is called a religious memeplex. The Bible is a collection of religious memes, and none of them are proven. Here is a funny story how the Bible was formed:
One day, in Caveman land, Trog was hunting wild pigs up on a hilltop when a thunderstorm approached, Trog had speared a wild pig and was returning to camp, but a bolt of lightning instantly killed him,.
Caveman Fred – “Did you see Trog get killed by God’s lighting bolt?”
Caveman Lewis – “Yes God was very angry today!”
Caveman Fred – “Trog was judged and killed for killing one of God’s pigs”
Caveman Lewis – ” Yes we better not kill any of God’s pigs because if we do then God will strike us dead!”
Caveman Fred – “Let it be known, that from this day forward no person may eat pork”
Caveman Lewis – “Yes, I agree, and let us sacrifice a virgin to appease God’s mighty wrath”
Caveman Fred – “Yes that is a very good idea, but where will we get a virgin?”
Caveman Lewis – “We will go over the mountain to the next tribe, and tell them to sacrifice one of their virgins for us, and if they don’t then we will kill them all”
Caveman Fred – “Yes, that is a good plan, surely they will sacrifice a virgin for us when we tell them about what happened to Trog”
Caveman Lewis – “Yes, we will witness to them about our all powerful God, who is merciful and only strikes down pig hunters” “We should give our most high God, who lives in the heavens high above a great powerful name!”
Caveman Fred – “Yes, we shall name our God “I AM REAL””
—————–
The tribe over the hill did not believe in I AM REAL and kept hunting pigs. So the tribe of Fred and Lewis formed an army and went over and killed them all, all of the men, all of the women, all of the children, all of the dogs, cattle, sheep and goats.
They celebrated their great victory by doing daily blood sacrifices to the great sky god “I AM REAL” who loved the smell of burning flesh.
Fred and Lewis became great heroes of the tribe, they were elevated to priestly roles, they no longer had to do any real work, they only had to preach about their god “I AM REAL” and they wrote down all of their victories over the non-believers. Hundreds of years passed, and their writings were eventually adopted by many and became a sacred holy book, and people still believe in it today, and they say say from this book came man’s morality.
Yes Virginia, cave man morality is our morality still today, that is if you believe in the Jew holy book.
Fred B says God is good (to us) and Yukon Jack says he is bad, but this is like hymns at junior school: Creation is really about tension, hybridising, escapes, opposites, impossibilities, inevitabilities, and no gap between the creator and the created. You will need to see two Gods in a fight, which is why religions bring Satan into the proceedings even while officially denying the second God
@ Yukon Jack
In your condemnation of religion and us cavemen you resort to value judgements regarding right and wrong. In your examples it appears that the source of your very highly-principled morality can only be what you referred to as Natural Law – which as I have tried to show is helpful in some respects but by itself is a very wobbly thing subject to various human interests and interpretations, and by itself lacks any real authority for the unity and governance of any group of people without some ideology or belief system, religious or otherwise. In the name of freedom it appears that you would rather have chaos, and can offer us no motive force which would promote universal justice, personal responsibility, and at the same time maximize personal freedom – a balance which only Christianity has sought in earnest despite its failures due to our corrupted human natures. In any case se still pray for that kingdom of heaven to reign on earth.
Fred B and Yukon Jack don’t seem to be engaged in the same topic of discussion. They often seem to arrive at a premature impasse, when they converse.
Yukon isn’t prepared to concede what he knows to be true and has learned from his own personal experiences, nor surrender what he’s learned during his years of research.
If your heart refuses to casually put aside the historical magnitude of the evils committed by the Roman Catholic Church, you’re unlikely to have too much patience for earnest philosophic entreaties about the source or sustenance of public morality.
If it’s your honest assessment that religion is an impediment to goodness, then the ultimate derivation of both law and social contract, is unpertaining.
However, from my point of view, the question as to whether societies can endure without religious underpinning, is a rather interesting one. It’s a staple of ethical discourse, really.
I’d say, that the times in which we live, are peculiarly fraught and rarified. Constitutional law is failing across the Western World; no matter where its codices derive. The Vatican is an active participant in this subversion. Imagine, if you’re a Roman Catholic, what that says to Yukon Jack and others like him. Their contempt would seem to be founded on a solid morality. The Lord Jesus, I think, would not have spared Saint Peter’s Church his condemnatios..
I say that there are way too many laws. If laws function to constantly adjust the citizen to the minutiae of ordenances, is there time enough left to receive the guidance of the numinous? Fred B argues that laws based upon religious precepts, ultimately, derive their authority from divine revelation. Such laws, as permutations of epiphany, provide for an otherwise elusive societal durability.
This is a brave position to take because it implies that faith prefigures law and is the determinant of its validity. (I take it that no reference was implied to the ascendency of Canon Law.) Moral stricture is bourne of supernal interpolation, by this argumentation. This is a predicate of faith, however and it isn’t usually very constructive to bring rational disputation to someone’s faith.
You can’t easily debate ethical confections with a hardcore atheist either. I know: my dad was a lifelong atheist and a blaspheming scourge of all things Roman Catholic.
The ancient Britons only had three laws. Everybody learned the laws by rote and the laws were abided by. These laws may have originated from the holy injunctions of the Druids of Anglesey – I’d only be guessing – but they make no actual religious appeal.
Close your eyes, draw your breath and try to imagine what it would be like to live in a country again, where these were the only three laws;
1. You will not breach the peace.
2. You will bring no harm or injury or loss.
3. You will not indulge mischiefs in your business affairs.
God and King Arthur!
@ Fred
Thank you for a timely response. My caveman story was meant to be funny, I am trying to get you to see how “God” and belief were formed from primitive man’s faulty observations of nature.
God did not kill Trog. God did not judge Trog. God was not angry. And, in fact, the god of caveman never existed – except in the imagination of the the cavemen who lack science and correct understanding. Trog was simply struck by lightning, because Trog made a mistake being on top of a hill in a thunderstorm.
Every year Fred, since caveman’s time, men have been killed by lightning, and when they killed in the year 2022 no one says god did it.
But you Fred, you still believe in this caveman god. Your Old Testament is a description of an angry sky god who judges man – but like caveman’s god, he never existed. Likewise, sin doesn’t exist, and if you think so, then prove it. So how can anyone have a savior who takes away sins when no such thing as sin exists?
And in your New Testament, Fred, Jesus has to die to stop Caveman’s gods judgement on us. BUT THE JUDGEMENT WAS NEVER ANYTHING BUT AN ILLUSION, THERE WAS NEVER AN ANGRY SKY GOD, THERE WAS NEVER A GOD HURLING LIGHTNING BOLTS, ETC.
Thus, Fred, there can be no new god, called Christ, who comes to earth to stop Jehovah’s judgment on us! There was never an angry judging god, it was only an illusion, and thus the entire basis of the Old and New Testament is utter caveman rubbish, and not to be believed.
Furthermore, Jesus is now proven fiction. Joseph Atwill wrote a landmark book called “Caesar’s Messiah, the Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus”. I suggest you put down your Bible and undo the spell which hold your mind in bondage by reading that book. You can start by watching the movie they made about the book here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Messiah
And Fred, if you wrap your mind around this Christian religion, the entire western culture devoted it’s energy to this massive mind deception, building cathedrals to a god who was never there! And when you say you will still pray for that kingdom of heaven to reign on earth, you do not understand that “heaven” is alien empire in the heavens above, and you are being used by these alien pricks to extend their civilization and laws up there down here.
I also suggest you watch Jupiter Ascending, earth is owned, earth is a resource for space empire, which is using this planet right now as a prison. You are on a prison planet Fred, heaven does not want you back, so just think about that for the rest of your life and how your attempt to escape this hell was all in vain!
Religion Versus Faith
21st Century Britain Has Never Looked So Medieval .
Anyone in the UK who imagined they lived in a representative democracy – one in which leaders are elected and accountable to the people – will be in for a rude awakening over the next days and weeks.
TV schedules have been swept aside. Presenters must wear black and talk in hushed tones. Front pages are uniformly somber. Britain’s media speak with a single, respectful voice about the Queen and her unimpeachable legacy.
Westminster, meanwhile, has been stripped of left and right. The Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties have set aside politics to grieve as one. Even the Scottish nationalists – supposedly trying to rid themselves of the yoke of centuries of English rule presided over by the monarch – appear to be in effusive mourning.
The world’s urgent problems – from the war in Europe to a looming climate catastrophe – are no longer of interest or relevance. They can wait till Britons emerge from a more pressing national trauma.
Domestically, the BBC has told those facing a long winter in which they will not be able to afford to heat their homes that their suffering is “insignificant” compared to that of the family of a 96-year-old woman who died peacefully in the lap of luxury. They can wait too.
In this moment there is no public room for ambivalence or indifference, for reticence, for critical thinking – and most certainly not for Republicanism, even if nearly a third of the public, mostly the young, desire the monarchy’s abolition. The British establishment expects every man, woman, and child to do their duty by lowering their head.
Twenty-first-century Britain never felt so medieval.
WALL-TO-WALL EULOGIES
There are reasons a critical gaze is needed right now, as the British public is corralled into reverential mourning.
The wall-to-wall eulogies are intended to fill our nostrils with the perfume of nostalgia to cover the stench of a rotting institution, one at the heart of the very establishment doing the eulogising.
The demand is that everyone shows respect for the Queen and her family and that now is not the time for criticism or even analysis.
Indeed, the Royal Family have every right to be left in peace to grieve. But privacy is not what they, or the establishment they belong to, crave.
The Royals’ loss is public in every sense. There will be a lavish state funeral, paid for by the taxpayer. There will be an equally lavish coronation of her son, Charles, also paid for by the taxpayer.
And in the meantime, the British public will be force-fed the same official messages by every TV channel – not neutrally, impartially or objectively, but as state propaganda – paid for, once again, by the British taxpayer.
Reverence and veneration are the only types of coverage of the Queen and her family that is now allowed.
But there is a deeper sense in which the Royals are public figures – more so even than those thrust into the spotlight by their celebrity or talent for accumulating money.
The British public has entirely footed the bill for the Royals’ lives of privilege and pampered luxury. Like the kings of old, they have given themselves the right to enclose vast tracts of the British Isles as their private dominion. The Queen’s death, for example, means the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have just added the whole of Cornwall to their estate.
If anyone is public property, it is the British Royals. They have no right to claim an exemption from scrutiny just when scrutiny is most needed – as the anti-democratic privileges of monarchy pass from one set of hands to another.
The demand for silence is not a politically neutral act. It is a demand that we collude in a corrupt system of establishment rule and hierarchical privilege.
The establishment has a vested interest in enforcing silence and obedience until the public’s attention has moved on to other matters. Anyone who complies leaves the terrain open over the coming weeks for the establishment to reinforce and deepen the public’s deference to elite privilege.
CONTINUITY OF RULE
Undoubtedly, the Queen carried out her duties supremely well during her 70 years on the throne. As BBC pundits keep telling us, she helped maintain social “stability” and ensured “continuity” of rule.
The start of her reign in 1952 coincided with her government ordering the suppression of the Mau Mau independence uprising in Kenya. Much of the population were put in concentration camps and used as slave labour – if they weren’t murdered by British soldiers.
At the height of her rule, 20 years later, British troops were given a green light to massacre 14 civilians in Northern Ireland on a protest march against Britain’s policy of jailing Catholics without trial. Those shot and killed were fleeing or tending the wounded. The British establishment oversaw cover-up inquiries into what became known as “Bloody Sunday”.
And in the twilight years of her rule, her government rode roughshod over international law, invading Iraq on the pretext of destroying non-existent weapons of mass destruction. During the long years of a joint British and US occupation, it is likely that more than a million Iraqis died and millions more were driven from their homes.
The Queen, of course, was not personally responsible for any of those events – nor the many others that occurred while she maintained a dignified silence.
But she did provide regal cover for those crimes – in life, just as she is now being recruited to do in death.
It was her Royal Armed Forces that killed Johnny Foreigner.
It was her Commonwealth that repackaged the jackbooted British empire as a new, more media-savvy form of colonialism.
It was the Union Jacks, Beefeaters, black cabs, bowler hats – the ludicrous paraphernalia somehow associated with the Royals in the rest of the world’s mind – that the new power across the Atlantic regularly relied on from its sidekick to add a veneer of supposed civility to its ugly imperial designs.
Paradoxically, given US history, the special-ness of the special relationship hinged on having a much-beloved, esteemed Queen providing “continuity” as the British and US governments went about tearing up the rulebook on the laws of war in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
TEFLON QUEEN
And therein lies the rub. The Queen is dead. Long live the King!
But King Charles III is not Queen Elizabeth II.
The Queen had the advantage of ascending to the throne in a very different era, when the media avoided Royal scandals unless they were entirely unavoidable, such as when Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis in 1936 by announcing his plan to marry an American “commoner”.
With the arrival of 24-hour rolling news in the 1980s and the later advent of digital media, the Royals became just another celebrity family like the Kardashians. They were fair game for the paparazzi. Their scandals sold newspapers. Their indiscretions and feuds chimed with the period’s ever more salacious and incendiary soap opera plots on TV.
But none of that dirt stuck to the Queen, even when recently it was revealed – to no consequence – that her officials had secretly and regularly rigged legislation to exempt her from the rules that applied to everyone else, under a principle known as Queen’s Consent. An apartheid system benefiting the Royal Family alone.
By remaining above the fray, she offered “continuity”. Even the recent revelation that her son, Prince Andrew, consorted with young girls alongside the late Jeffrey Epstein, and kept up the friendship even after Epstein was convicted of paedophilia, did nothing to harm the Teflon Monarch.
Charles III, by contrast, is best remembered – at least by the older half of the population – for screwing up his marriage to a fairy-tale princess, Diana, killed in tragic circumstances. In preferring Camilla, Charles traded Cinderella for the evil stepmother, Lady Tremaine.
If the monarch is the narrative glue holding society and empire together, Charles could represent the moment when that project starts to come unstuck.
Which is why the black suits, hushed tones, and air of reverence are needed so desperately right now. The establishment is in frantic holding mode as they prepare to begin the difficult task of reinventing Charles and Camilla in the public imagination. Charles must now do the heavy lifting for the establishment that the Queen managed for so long, even as she grew increasingly frail physically.
The outlines of that plan have been visible for a while. Charles will be rechristened the King of the Green New Deal. He will symbolise Britain’s global leadership against the climate crisis.
If the Queen’s job was to rebrand empire as Commonwealth, transmuting the Mau Mau massacre into gold medals for Kenyan long-distance runners, Charles’ job will be to rebrand as a Green Renewal the death march led by transnational corporations.
Which is why now is no time for silence or obedience. Now is precisely the moment – as the mask slips, as the establishment needs time to refortify its claim to deference – to go on the attack.
Yukon Jack–for some reason it came into my head that the twin theory of Jesus, something about Didymus, Thomas or Judas being the twin, or more than one of them, was true, and one of them had to really go and get beaten and killed while another bounced in as the resurrected Jesus. It makes sense if Jesus died, Judas is the stand-in and Thomas pretends to confirm the injury. We sense a sacrifice because there was one, and we sense a deception again because there was one