Joseph Nofs is a Michigan teacher and event producer. He has put together an upcoming event combining education and entertainment. It will be held at the Black River Country Club in Port Huron, Michigan on August 3, 2017 There is a full dinner and "Las Vegas style" entertainment featuring a popular Elvis impersonator. Mr. Nofs is a big friend and supporter of one of my favorite causes: RIGHT TO LIFE! He has asked me to be the speaker for the educational end of the program. I will be giving information on the ins and outs of publishing and self-publishing as well as explaining my own work for the past 35 years. I am honored to be asked by Mr. Nofs. A close relative of his is a Michigan State Senator also by the name of Nofs -- Mike Nofs (Republican, Battle Creek, Michigan). Mr. Nofs tells me that there is a hotel adjacent to the Country Club in case there are visitors coming in from out of state. I don't want to end the discussion on my last post, but wanted to pass this information along to you.
Constance
291 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 291 of 291Craig said in his 2:20 Pm post: Have scientists gone all the way back to the "big bang" and traced "evolution" all the way through the millennia to today?
The universe is 13.8 billion years old. Life on earth began 3.5 billion years ago.
Craig, scientists do not have to go all the way back to the "big bang" to prove that Bible scriptures and Christian doctrines based on them are wrong/false. There was no life on earth until 3.5 million years ago. So, whether the universe was corrupt or not before life began on earth is irrelevant. Corruption was in the world when life began. Death was a part of life on earth from its origins. That's what is relevant. Did death begin 3.5 billion years ago or did it begin when the first human sinned 200.000 years ago.
St. Symeon wrote: "Neither Eve nor Paradise were yet created, but the whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible."
St. John of Damascus wrote: "The creation of all things is due to God, but corruption came in afterwards due to our wickedness. For God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things" (Wisdom 1:13). But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam's transgression."
St. Basil the Great wrote: "...it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet [before Adam's transgression] corpses, nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But [before Adam's transgression] all [animals] followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows."
Genesis 1:30 reads: "...and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so..." The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says: "Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins" (CCC, n. 2336). A Bible scripture states that "the creation itself," will be "delivered from its bondage to corruption" (Romans 8:21). Isaiah 65:25 says: The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox,..."
According to the scriptures, "Adam" ("the first human") sinned and the creation consequently "fell into a state of corruption," causing many animals to become carnivorous. However, the truth is, the first human beings from which we are all descendants came into existence around 200,000 years ago and violent complex carnivorous animals came into existence hundreds of millions of years before the first humans came forth on earth. The creation cannot be "restored to the purity of its origins," because it was never pure, or "very good." More on this topic can be found at http://www.towahkon.org/FoxTheology.html and also at http://www.towahkon.org/ScienceReligion.html
OK, Thomas Dahlheimer: Assuming your understanding/assertion, have scientists really been able to go all the way back 3.5 billion years and/or 200,000 years? (Time travel?) On what unequivocal proof do you base your assertion on? The bottom line is that you have no proof, and the "Theory of Evolution" is a THEORY and not established FACT. It's its own religion. Sure, on a micro-scale, intraspecies evolution is evident. But on a macro scale? Nope.
Craig, Wikipedia's definition of a scientific theory: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
The U.S. National Institute of Sciences says evolution is a "scientific fact." This institution wrote"
"In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence."
"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."
Thomas Dahlheimer,
Let’s put it this was way: A scientific fact is just that, while a “theory” may or may not be fact. Evidence is only fact relative to its absolute provability. I contend that there’s no way to prove, even relatively, the age of animals and humans. Could a great flood—as spoken of by many different religions— or other natural calamities, have skewed scientific analysis? I’d think it possible. And macro evolution has not been proven.
Read here: Objection Overruled
OBJECTION #6: Darwinists and the media regularly confuse Intelligent Design [ID] with traditional creationism. Why? To discredit it. In their minds, creationism has no intellectual credibility. To refer to ID as creationism is thus meant to ensure that ID likewise will be denied intellectual credibility. This is why Leonard Krishtalka, professor at the University of Kansas, famously referred to ID as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”[13] Creationism and ID, however, are distinct.
Creationism holds that a Supreme Being created the universe. Creationists come in two varieties: young-earth and old-earth creationists.[14] Young-earth creationists interpret Genesis as teaching that creation took place in six twenty-four-hour days, that the universe is between six- and ten-thousand years old, and that most fossils were deposited during Noah’s global flood.
Old-earth creationists, on the other hand, allow a wider range of interpretations of Genesis. They accept contemporary scientific dating, which places the age of the Earth at roughly 4.5 billion years old and the universe at 13.7 billion years old. They accept microevolution as God’s method of adapting existing species to their changing environments, but they reject macroevolution (the large-scale transformation of one species into a completely different species).
ID, though often confused with creation science, is in fact quite different from it. Rather than beginning with some particular interpretation of Genesis (as young-earth and old-earth creationists typically do), ID begins with investigating the natural world. ID looks for patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. Given what the world reveals about itself, ID proponents reason that a designing intelligence best explains certain patterns in nature.
The great difference between ID and creation science, then, is that ID relies not on prior assumptions about divine activity in the world, but on methods developed within the scientific population for recognizing intelligence.[15] Even Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial mentioned earlier recognized that ID proponents do not base their theory on “the Book of Genesis,” “a young earth,” or “a catastrophic Noahic flood.” Despite incessant comparisons in the media with creation science, ID is actually quite different from it (although the majority of ID proponents believe in some form of creation, and, indeed, many of them are Christians).
Thomas Dahlheimer FYI:
CREATION vs EVOLUTION
How Old Is The Universe?
This article gives us a new look into the age of the Earth and Universe controversy. Are evolutionists right? Is the Universe billions of years old? What proof do they have? What is the evidence? Is there evidence for a relatively YOUNG Earth and Universe? You may well be surprised at the answers! Let’s take a fair, unprejudiced, unbiased look at this old, hotly disputed controversy and BEWARE of “oppositions of science falsely so called” (II Tim.6:20).
Introduction
Is there any solid scientific basis for considering that the age of the Earth and even the whole Universe, may not be the billions of years, that almost everyone now seems to accept without question? Make no mistake, that if such evidence exists, then it would be ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING for the Theory Of Evolution.
...
There is a scientific battle going on at present between Evolutionists and Creationists. On the one hand the Evolutionists assert that the entire Universe, including all life on Earth, has evolved over millions and billions of years, with no design or purpose behind it, merely blind chance. On the other hand are the Fundamentalist Creationists, who dogmatically teach that the whole Universe, including life on Earth was created by GOD in six literal 24 hour days, about 6,000 years ago. Somewhere in the middle are those who hedge their bets and compromise, for example Theistic Evolutionists, who believe that GOD "creates" through the process of Evolution. Many so-called "mainstream" churches accept Theistic Evolution, while "Evangelicals" accept the Fundamentalist approach.
Others accepted neither of these stances, while at the same time not compromising with the Word Of GOD. They taught that the Scriptures clearly show that the "creation week" of Genesis Chapter One was actually a RENEWAL and NOT the original creation.
"In The Beginning, God Created The Heavens And The Earth. Now The Earth Was (Margin - Possibly ‘Became') Formless And Empty." Genesis 1:1-2.
"He Did Not Create It To Be Empty." (Text Note On Isaiah 45:18 – ‘Empty = Formless or Chaotic’).
The earth was created so beautiful that:
"The Morning Stars Sang Together And All The Angels Shouted For Joy." Job 38:3-4.
But then something disastrous occured, a great rebellion bringing chaos and catastrophe in its wake.
"How Are You Fallen From Heaven O Morning Star, Son Of The Dawn. You Have Been Cast Down To The Earth, You Who Once Laid Low The Nations. You Said In Your Heart:
‘I Will Ascend To Heaven; I Will Raise My Throne Above The Stars Of God; I Will Sit Enthroned On The Mount Of Assembly, On The Utmost Heights Of The Sacred Mountain. I Will Ascend Above The Tops Of The Clouds; I Will Make Myself Like The Most High.’" Isaiah 14:12.
Christ Himself testified that He personally witnessed Satan being cast out of Heaven.
“I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning From Heaven.” Luke 10:18.
When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, he became Satan, the Adversary. The book of Revelation indicates (Rev. 12:9) that about one third of the angels followed him in his rebellion. The whole Universe including the Earth, was in tremendous upheaval. The Earth became an utter desolation. It was sometime after this, scripture doesn't indicate how long, that the Great Creator God put His Mighty Hand to restoring and renewing the Earth in SIX Literal Twenty Four Hour Days, and creating the Sabbath by resting on the SEVENTH Day.
...
{CONTINUED}
{CONTINUED}
Seven Strong Indications Of A Young Earth/Universe System
(#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 @ link below.)
...
Conclusion
There are very strong indications that the Earth and even the entire Universe are much younger than most people assume. At the lower end somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 years, while at the upper end a few million years. Satan's rebellion, the wrecking of the Universe, and the re-creation, can still fit neatly into either timeframe without any great problem. The ONE scenario which CANNOT possibly in any way fit into this timeframe, is the Theory Of Evolution. Even now there are howls of anguish from the Evolutionist camp, who are desperately trying to discredit Creationist research. Even though the Creationists have produced much valuable evidence indicating a relatively "Young Universe", they do themselves a great disservice by rigidly clinging to a Universe age of 6,000 years, when even the evidence from their own research is contrary to this. If we simply have faith in God's Word, and let the scientific evidence speak for itself, then they both neatly fit together, without having to twist, bend and contort anything.
"Then You Will Know The Truth And The Truth Will Set You Free". John 8:32.
...
http://www.triumphpro.com/earth-and-universe-how-old.htm
Never mind Johannine Comma, how about Jesus' baptism, where The Son, the Father Speaking, and The Holy Spirit descending on Jesus in the form of a dove, are all present and clearly distinct Beings.
For Trump to be the antichrist requires too many unbiblical presuppositions.
"He did not create it empty" more accurately vain or for no reason, context adds but to be inhabited. Gap Theory unnecessary.
Church fathers on immaculate conception - none of these quotes are clearly this, rather they speak of her personal sinlessness. if someone seems a bit in this direction it is just the precursor of this error. It is not part of Orthodox doctrine.
Dynamic equivalence is useful sometimes, but a lot of the time it has to involve interpretation more than translation.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/first-woman-to-lead-gis-in-combat-8212-and-look-at-the-thanks-she-got/ claims she didn't do anything are made up by superiors who were incredulous when they heard of her action.
Women have been in more primitive combat for centuries incl. Civil War both sides, their sex discovered after death or when wounded. a large number of viking warrior burials turned out to be female. "shield maiden" is a term from Germanic peoples for this. Byzantine warriors stripping dead Varangians of armor were surprised to find some were women. Deborah Sampson in American Revolutionary war. probably others. These women weren't the barbie doll dainty "feminine" weaklings we are used to now. Capt. Bray in those days would probably have had an extra 20 pounds of muscle.
"back to the text of the Bible as if there were no history or tradition at all, would we still have a doctrine of the trinity? " YES if you did as the coucils and fathers did, bring ALL scripture to bear on this.
Anonymous said...
"Hebrews 4:9
"..a Sabbath rest for the people of God,"
etc. etc.
context shows this is NOT about the weekly sabbath rest, but about the rest the people had from their wandering and homelessness when they entered the promised land, into which rest those who were disobedient were not allowed to enter but the next generation plus a few who were obedient,
AND LIKEWISE
there is a rest we haven't received yet the entry into the kingdom of Heaven on earth when Jesus comes ad heaven in the meantime, so we must not rest or take sabbath from our works for God but keep at it all our lives.
"for we have become partakers of Christ IF WE HOLD THE BEGINNING OF OUR CONFIDENCE STEADFAST TO THE END...." Heb. 4:14 which BTW shows that OSAS is false, verses for it presuppose you hold onto Christ and keep repenting and quitting sin if you fall and get closer to Christ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yRVhOCw3LY
Roy Cohn homosexual and John Birch Society and Bible about this
sort of thing, the devil's methods, and blackmail and control of political figures by exploiting pedophilia.
"The writer makes some of the MOST PATHETIC defenses of Christians observing pagan holidays that I've EVER seen: ....
"As for Easter, it falls close [to] the Jewish Feast of Passover."
(He or she missed the boat on that one! They didn't think to say:
"As for Sunday, it falls close to Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath"!)
...have a great 5th of July!"
biblically illiterate idiot did you never notice that Christ's Resurrection was right after Passover? Or that He rose on SUNDAY aka THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK (its not Moday but Sunday that's first day of the week).
Sabbath keeping was part of Mosaic Law, and is rescinded and eror of ignorance of the Bible details caused a local souncil to call Sunday the Sabbath, when it NEVER WAS the sabbvath and we are not to keep the sabbath at all, sunday is THE LORD'S DAY (of HIS RESURRECTION) and worship the first day of the week is mentioned twice in the NT.
◄ 2 Peter 3:16 ►
New Living Translation
speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction.
New International Version
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
English Standard Version
as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Berean Study Bible
He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Young's Literal Translation
as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, among which things are certain hard to be understood, which the untaught and unstable do wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own destruction.
Good News Translation
This is what he says in all his letters when he writes on the subject. There are some difficult things in his letters which ignorant and unstable people explain falsely, as they do with other passages of the Scriptures. So they bring on their own destruction.
The theory of evolution is not scientific. Science studies things that can be observed that already exist.
To theorize about how things came into existence is metaphysics.
Natural selection within species can be observed.
Evolution of new species cannot be observed.
The theory of evolution has led to an expectation of continual human progress. This is a religious idea. It has been taken up by Transhumanists, of whom Barbara Marx Hubbard is one.
As we go along we see the occult aspects of the theory of evolution coming to the forefront and no longer being occulted.
It was never about science vs. superstition. It was about superstition vs. religion all along.
Christine,
Jesus’ baptism, in and of itself, does not explicitly affirm three ‘separate’ ‘Persons’ as Deity. In isolation, Jesus’ baptism can be construed as God’s Spirit—not a ‘separate’ entity distinct from the Father—coming down as a dove, and God also making the statement referring to “My Son” in specific reference to Jesus, but not that Jesus was God’s only Son in a particular, unique sense. In other words, with this construal, God the Father is one Entity, and it is His own Spirit coming down as a dove (that is, the Spirit here is not to be distinguished from the Father but is ‘God’s Spirit’), while His Son is special in some sense, but not necessarily deity. In Jewish thought, righteous Jews, and appointed kings functioning on earth as God’s agent, were considered sons of God (see Psalm 82). Thus, it’s only by taking the other passages that more definitively speak of Christ’s deity, plus the Scriptures that illustrate the Holy Spirit’s uniqueness apart from the Father, in addition to other associated NT passages, that one can determine that Jesus’ baptism is about three ‘Persons’, each of whom are “God”.
I suppose you were referring to my statement that the Johannine Comma is “only one of two explicit mentions of the Trinity (the other Matthew 28:19)”. I stand by that, though certainly John 15:26 does so implicitly (Jesus can only send the Spirit/Paraclete from the Father if the Spirit is ‘separate’ from the Father, and Jesus must be Deity Himself if He has such authority).
The understanding about the Trinity is not overtly spoken by Jesus but very much implied in Scripture that bears out in His teachings. Jesus leaves no doubt that the Spirit is God as well and He and the Father are One, so no need to extensively parse it out. We must get out of the way to let the Spirit (the Teacher) do that to let the Lord's sheep hear His voice.
Sometimes the more people mince God's Word it soon appears that tedium can set in, and create static when the Holy Spirit can make it clear enough for us to "know" (by faith).
A New Look at the "Trinity":
THE TRINITY DOCTRINE - Is It Biblical?
The TRINITY doctrine claims that God is a monolithic "Three-in-One" Godhead composed of three Personalities, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where did this doctrine come from? Is it Biblical? Why is the word "Trinity" NOT ONCE found in the Scriptures? If God is a "Trinity," then which one is really the "Father" of Christ -- the Father? -- or the Holy Spirit which begot Him? (Matt.1:18, 20.) It's high time we take a careful look at this strange but well-nigh universal doctrine among Catholics and Protestants!
Your own salvation could very well be at stake!!!
In the gospel according to Matthew, we read of the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Matthew relates, under divine inspiration, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit (Matt.1:18). Joseph, her husband, feared the worst -- that she must have been with another man, so he decided to cancel the nuptial agreement and cancel the betrothal, but an angel of God appeared to him in a dream, saying to him, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (verse 20).
This matter-of-fact statement of Scripture poses a mind-boggling conundrum for believers in the Trinity doctrine, who profess that God is a divine "Trinity." If that is true, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons or Personalities, which together combine to form ONE "God," then how could God the "Father" be the Father of Christ when he was conceived by the HOLY SPIRIT?
If the Holy Spirit is a Person, the "Third Person" of the Trinity, and "HE" begat Christ, then HE would have to be the FATHER!!!
What a mystery! What a mind-twisting, head-wrenching, brain-teasing spiritual HEAD-ACHE for all believers in the "Trinity"!
A New Look at the Trinity Doctrine
...
Years ago, around 1962-63, I wrote an article proving and showing that the verse in I John 5:7 is spurious, was not in the original manuscripts of the Bible, but was added by a monk or copyist in the Middle Ages, first appearing in a Latin text! All Bible scholars are agreed upon this point, today -- it is not even controversial -- and modern translations of the Bible leave this fake verse out!
Isn't it strange -- if the Trinity is such an important concept, as Catholics and Protestant churches believe, who claim it is a major tenet and article of their faith -- then why doesn't the Bible refer to the "Trinity" concept clearly, and why is the word "Trinity" NOWHERE found in Scripture?
The doctrine of the Trinity is so important to mainstream "Christianity," that according to some theologians "The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who would try to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind. But he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul" (Harold Lindsell and Charles J. Woodbridge, A Handbook of Christian Truth, p.51-52).
{CONTINUED}
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits, "It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and the theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat unsteady silhouette".(vol.XIV, p.295)
Asserts The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "The term 'Trinity' is NOT A BIBLICAL TERM, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine" (article "Trinity," p.3012).
This fact has caused no end of embarrassment to Trinitarian theologians over the years. Search as you might, you will NOWHERE find the concept or doctrine of the "Trinity" delineated or discussed in the Bible. The apostles NEVER heard of it. Jesus Christ NEVER referrred to it. The apostle Paul not so much as mentioned it even ONCE, in passing! It is simply not there. The word isn't there, and the concept of three divine Persons being "one God," "Three-in-One," each one being co-equal, and co-eternal, simply cannot be found stated or clearly implied in Scripture -- not from Genesis to Revelation!!!
Doesn't that sound strange, that such a cardinal "Christian" belief and tenet of modern Churchianity is NOWHERE taught in Scripture?
In a book entitled The Trinity, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner confesses that theologians in the past have been ". . . embarrassed by the simple fact that IN REALITY the Scriptures DO NOT EXPLICITLY PRESENT a dcctrine of the 'imminent' TRINITY. . ." (The Trinity, p. 22, emphasis mine throughout article).
Theologians have long puzzled over the first few verses of the gospel of John. We read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us . . ." (John 1:1-3, 14).
This passage clearly delineates TWO Persons in the God-head -- the Word, or "Logos" of God, in the Greek language, and the One whom we refer to as the "Father." But if the Holy Spirit is a Third Person of the Godhead, then WHY ISN'T HE MENTIONED in this verse?
Says Dr. William Newton Clarke about this passage, "There is no Trinity in this; but there is a distinction in the Godhead, a DUALITY in God" (Outline of Christian Theology, p.167).
As we explore this subject further, the mysteries only deepen and intensify. For example, the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all co-equal and co-eternal -- none is superior to the other -- each and all three are equally "GOD" in every respect. But if this is true, then this very belief makes Jesus Christ Himself out to be a LIAR, for He said plainly, "My Father is greater than I".(John 14:28)
...
http://triumphpro.info/2011/06/is-god-a-trinity/
http://www.triumphpro.com/trinity-1.htm
http://triumphpro.com/trinity-disproved.htm
12:03 and 12:06 AM,
You are not the Holy Spirit for the rest of us.
Anon 10:52 PM and 12:20 AM,
Perhaps now you see why it's important to "to extensively parse it out". There are ways to interpret passages differently than we Christians understand them, so it's important to know arguments those others use. This actually makes our faith more secure, and it makes us much better apologists in order to reach others. And it's wrong to impose our own biases upon individual texts in order to make them into what we'd like them to say--no better than 12:03 & 12:06 above.
----
Anon 12:03 and 12:06 AM,
What do you do with Matthew 28:19?
What About Matthew 28 verse 19?
Matthew 28:19 is a biblical passage sometimes misunderstood with regard to the Trinity doctrine. Jesus is quoted as telling His disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in [‘into,’ Greek eis ] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Remember the important principle that the Bible interprets the Bible. What this particular passage shows us is that the process of baptism and entering God’s family involves the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is not a description of the nature of God.
Notice Acts 2:38: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” After real repentance and being baptized, the example from Scripture is that a minister lays his hands on the repentant person and he or she receives the Holy Spirit directly from God (Acts 8:14-17).
Important as it is, baptism alone is not sufficient. It must be followed by the biblically mandated laying on of hands for the receiving of the Holy Spirit—the seed of eternal life (Acts 19:1-6). We cannot partake of God’s nature (2 Peter 1:4) without first being begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit, which imparts that divine nature.
Christ’s instruction in Matthew 28:19 presumes that, before being baptized, believers will learn of God the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit. At baptism, they enter into a personal family relationship with God the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit, thereby receiving the name of God (compare Ephesians 3:14-15).
Note again that all three—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are acknowledged as being involved in this process. But that does not mean all three are divine persons in a Trinity. To claim that Matthew 28:19 establishes one God in three persons goes far beyond the actual words of the verse. And other verses show such a notion to be utterly false.
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/who-is-god/what-about-matthew-28-verse-19
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity
Does Matthew 28:19 Prove the Trinity?
Some see the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 as the only direct statement of the Trinity in the Bible. But does this verse really prove the Trinity?
Our article “The Trinity: What Is It?” examines the biblical teaching about the nature of God and shows that the idea of the Trinity did not come from the Bible. The Trinity doctrine developed over hundreds of years and was influenced by the teachings of pagan Greek philosophers.
However, Matthew 28:19 is frequently used in attempts to prove that the Trinity is a biblical teaching. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003 edition, “The only direct statement of Trinitarian revelation is the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19.”
If the Trinity doctrine rests its biblical claim on this verse, what happens if this verse doesn’t actually prove the Trinity?
Examining Matthew 28:19
At first glance, Jesus Christ’s words in this account may appear as validation of the Trinity. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
But notice: This verse does not actually make any statement about equality or about three persons in one Being. It does not describe the Holy Spirit as a person or as having personality. The instruction is about baptism, not about the nature of the Godhead. Had Jesus wanted to establish Trinitarianism, He could have been much clearer.
The New King James Version uses the words “in the name.” The American Standard Version, the English Revised Version and the Weymouth New Testament use “into” instead of “in.” In the Greek, the word is eis. It is defined as “into, to, towards, for, and among” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). We believe “into” is a much better translation than “in” and that it better describes the marvelous transformation that begins in a Christian’s life when he or she receives the Holy Spirit.
Greek lexicons and dictionaries emphasize that eis shows movement toward something. Translating eis as “into” with regard to going toward something gives a much clearer sense of the meaning. Being baptized thrusts us powerfully toward God the Father and Jesus Christ, and we are given the Holy Spirit to impart to our minds a beginning portion of the divine nature.
We are baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ, who, by His awesome sacrifice, paid for our sins. And we are baptized into the family of the divine God, who is Spirit (John 4:24). We must worship Him in spirit. His Spirit comes into our mind and a new spiritual life begins. It is in this sense that we are baptized “into” the Holy Spirit, becoming younger brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ and children of God the Father (Hebrews 2:10-12; John 1:12; Romans 8:14).
{CONTINUED}
Being baptized into the Holy Spirit reminds us of John the Baptist’s words in Matthew 3:11, “I indeed baptize you with [Greek en, primarily translated as “in,” which is appropriate here since baptism is by immersion in water] water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with [Greek en, “in” again] the Holy Spirit and fire” (emphasis added). John likens being immersed in water with being immersed in the Holy Spirit.
Also, realize that just because something has a name, that doesn’t automatically equate it with personhood. Even inanimate objects—mountain ranges, for example—have proper names.
The Holy Spirit helps us to be like Jesus Christ, but this does not mean it is a person. It is the nature of God, the power of God, the way He extends Himself in the universe. Please see the article “Is the Holy Spirit a Person?”
Baptism
Acts 2:38 also discusses baptism, but it has a different purpose. It gives an overview of the steps involved in baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
What does he mean here by being baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ”? If we do something in the name of someone, we do it by his authority. So Peter told us to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ.
Also consider that Peter describes the Holy Spirit as a gift. If the Holy Spirit were a person, how could it be a gift? Earlier in Acts 2 he quoted the book of Joel where God said that He would “pour out My Spirit” (verse 18). If the Holy Spirit were a person, how could it be poured out?
God the Father’s goodness leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4), and He is the One from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named (Ephesians 3:15). The Son is the One who died for our sins. The actions of the Father and the Son make it possible for us to receive the power of Their Holy Spirit into our minds upon conversion and baptism to impart the divine nature of God.
In Romans 8:16 we read, “The Spirit Himself [“itself,” King James Version] bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” (The reason the New King James Version translators incorrectly used “Himself” is explained in our more comprehensive article on the Trinity.)
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all essential to the ceremony of baptism. God imparts the Holy Spirit to our minds to begin a new spiritual life in us. It binds Christians together and empowers them, granting them some of the divine nature of Almighty God. But this in NO sense proves the Trinity.
For more on this subject, see the related articles at:
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/holy-spirit/the-trinity/does-matthew-28-19-prove-the-trinity/
Anon 1:38 AM and 2:09/2:11 AM,
Yes, Scripture should be understood by other Scripture. With this in mind, the triadic formula of baptism in Matthew 28:19-20 is not at odds with the usual “in the name of Jesus” formula found in Acts. Should we think that baptizing in the name of Jesus necessarily excludes the Father and the Spirit? There’s a late first century Christian document called Didachē, which means “Teaching”. One section (7:1-3) contains this triadic formula, while later (9:5) the singular “in the name of Jesus” is used.
Grammatically, Matthew 28:19 specifies only one name (not “names”), and one name only (“in the name”) governing the triadic formula “of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. This indicates ‘separate’ entities having one common “name”; this is indicative of the Tri-unity of the Godhead.
You (2:09) wrote: If the Trinity doctrine rests its biblical claim on this verse, what happens if this verse doesn’t actually prove the Trinity?
It doesn’t rest on this one verse.
Craig 8:01 AM,
Aside from anything else, I noticed that you did not address each of the specific points in 12:03 AM & 12:06 AM.
I don't think I need to go point by point
So in other words, you'll pick and choose, avoiding those things that you can't come up with some legitimate-sounding rebuttal for.
That says it all.
Case dismissed.
"Anonymous Craig said...
I don't think I need to go point by point.
9:02 AM"
Yes!
Tada. That is what I was saying at Anon 10:52 PM and 12:20 AM...
Those who are taught by the Spirit can spot the errors of the parsing, mincing types who strain at gnats and swallow camels just like 12:03 and 12:06 AM is doing....what this one, of the spirit of the pharisee in their own particular darkness, does not want to see from the Spirit Himself.
Job 38:2 makes us understand that God can and does speak for Himself and we can get in the way,big time.
Leave them to their darkness. Jesus told his disciples not to argue with pharisees. He threw the pharisees questions right back at them, He gave them short, point blank answers that summed up the point He wanted taken--thus says the Lord--and walked away.
The Lord's Spirit can bring the blind His light--when and only when--ready to submit to it.
"Case dismissed.
10:03 AM"
You never made your case.
Good day.
Anon 8:37 AM and 10:03 AM,
Unless and until you refute my 8:01 AM comment, anything else is quite unnecessary.
False Right Exposed: Alt-Light Queens Lauren Southern & Brittany Pettibone Promote Dugin & Russia
https://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2018/06/false-right-exposed-alt-light-queens.html
From the blog of "Tradcatknight", who has interviewed Constance.
"Southern and Pettibone recently made a trip to Russia where they interviewed satanist Alexander Dugin, an anti-Western nihilist who wants to bring about the end of the world through chaos. No doubt Dugin will unravel his usual yarn about liberalism, the West, Atlanticism, etc., without actually revealing his true agenda of bringing the West to ruins so a resurgent Russian-Eurasian empire can take its place as the global superpower."
Rejecting the concept of the Trinity means rejecting Christianity itself. If you don't think Christ was really the son of God incarnated, and you don't think he left the Holy Spirit behind and it came upon his apostles at the Pentecost, then you have no reason to be a Christian. You may as well go to the synagogue or the mosque.
Or even a Freemasonic lodge. I was just reading that in a Freemasonic lodge, you can have any holy book you want on the alter, and you can pray to God all you want, as long as you don't pray in the name of Jesus. Mentioning Jesus in a Freemasonic lodge is taboo. I found that interesting.
Lauren Southern posing beneath a picture of Stalin.
https://i0.wp.com/alt-right.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Southern-Stalin.png?resize=477%2C657
J,
In all fairness to Southern and Pettibone, interviewing someone is not tantamount to endorsing them either in part or en toto. I think the tradcatknight article exposes that author's own biases.
I've seen videos by both Southern and Pettibone individually, and while I may not agree with everything they say, I don't think they've ever come across as endorsing Russia, Dugin, Communism, etc. In fact, the opposite is true.
That article was a hit piece--and lazy journalism.
Craig,
I suspect Southern and Pettibone are controlled opposition. But I am open to both confirming and dis-confirming evidence of that suspicion.
Trump does not fit the Bible prophecies as somebody else pointed out. He is, however, a front man who is good at political theatre. And I still hope we get a good Supreme Court out of him. I understand that it's natural to see him as good when he opposes bad people. But bad people can oppose bad people. Gangs do it all the time. They do it all the time on reality TV, too.
Craig,
You said Tradcatknight exposed his biases without stating what you thought his biases are. Could you elaborate?
J,
I think this speaks for itself:
…This shows her [Southern’s] ultimately Jewish sensibilities, where Communism and its tyrannical practitioners are seen as harmless and inoffensive, but Nazism the epitome of evil. On free speech Southern cries when alt-light frauds like Tommy Robinson are suppressed, but shows no support for the dozens of people currently languishing in prison for offending the chosenites. She hasn’t made a single video about anti-Zionist political prisoners nor has she called for their release, like she does with the Jewish operative Robinson…
Besides the portion bolded, which speaks for itself (and false equivalences much?), calling Tommy Robinson a “fraud” and a “Jewish operative” would be laughable, if it weren’t so sad. Robinson is paying a dear price for standing up to the powers-that-be.
And this sounds like jealousy: Southern and Pettibone are little more than attention whores who cling onto quasi-controversies and pseudo-controversial figures, like Tommy Robinson and Dugin, in order to garner attention for themselves, which translates into lots of beta bucks.
If he wants to call the impending land-grab in South Africa (and the anti-white racism that attends it) and the UN’s “refugee” smuggling quasi-controversies, then I give him no credibility whatsoever. I think Southern did an excellent job on the South African “Farmlands” documentary, and I think they both (along with members of Generation Identity) did a great job in exposing the UN’s illegal ferrying of “refugees”.
Craig,
The message seems to be that Nazis killing Jews was worse than Communists killing Christians. Also that anti-Semitism is worse than anti-black bias.
Also, you yourself said that if you want to know who is in control, look at who you cannot criticize. Is it okay to criticize Zionists under any circumstances?
You found some things you disagree with in this blog, so you're not giving anything any credibility. Yet you say you don't agree with Southern and Pettibone about everything but still insist they have valuable talking points and raise relevant issues.
Am I wrong to see double standards in play? Because that is exactly what I perceive. Please explain to me if I am wrong to perceive double standards here?
I've been noticing some people lately who have been heavily promoting IQ research showing the racial IQs with Jews at the top, followed by Asians, then Caucasions, then Latinas and finally Africans. I notice that the guy behind the isgp-studies.com web site does this. I also noticed Milo doing it in TV interviews before he became disgraced. Now Jordan Peterson does it, too.
Jordan Peterson criticizes all things PC, with the exception of never saying one word that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. On the contrary, he seems to be promoting racial supremacism with Jews at the top.
The true alt-right is disgusting, because it really is full of self-styled neo-Nazis. But the alt-lite and some controlled oppo type people seem to be promoting a different form of racial supremacism with Jews at the top.
This is just a pattern I think I am observing. I'm open to being shown where I'm wrong about it.
Just for the record, this is my opinion about IQ testing and pretty much every other kind of test of human beings. I am not claiming what anybody else's opinion is. Just stating my own.
I haven't specifically researched IQ testing in any great depth or detail. But as the mother of a child with ASD, I have been through a number of tests with professionals, including IQ. And they were more worthless than toilet paper.
The only professionals who have ever done a good job assessing my son have been those who worked with him over a span of time and revisited their evaluations after getting to know him very well. Professionals who didn't know him and tested him in a few hours were worthless.
Even his teacher said in a meeting in front of everybody that his latest neuropsych eval was useless.
Because of my experience, I am doubtful about the spectrum of data obtained from standardized testing of either psychology or IQ. I'm also doubtful of the expertise of professionals who claim to know how to test people.
I think most of these professionals treat mothers like annoying amateurs. And I resent them a great deal. I certainly don't trust what a self-claimed expert has to say about the IQs of everybody on the whole planet.
Also I don't care about studies until there have been hundreds of them accumulated over decades. Half the studies end up being proven false.
J,
I really don’t wish to get into a long, drawn out discussion on this. The guy makes lots of false equivalences, and from there he imposes false dichotomies (communism “harmless and offensive” vs. “Nazism the epitome of evil”) and dubious connections. Southern doing an interview with Dugin hardly makes her automatically a communist sympathizer, and her focus on some areas as opposed to others does not mean she is not sympathetic to those she’s not spoken about (yet). I mean, some call her a white nationalist and even a Nazi based on how they (mis)perceive her work!
On my blog I’d written many posts about Bill Johnson of Bethel Church. I have no articles at all on Joseph Prince or other hyper-grace teachers, while I have spoken out a bit against John MacArthur’s hyper-dogmatism. Does this necessarily mean I’m sympathetic to hyper-grace over against hyper-dogmatism? Well, no; I’ve just not focused on either of them, though I’ve touched on the latter.
Tradcatknight has done such a horrible job with that article that I cannot take him seriously. I don’t care to read anything else he’s put out because of it. Southern and Pettibone have put out largely quality material from what I’d seen (the serious material, that is), though I don’t agree with everything they say—but I don’t agree with everything anyone says! I think they’re a bit naïve, but they’re young, and I’m willing to cut them slack because of it. It was probably a bad idea to interview Dugin—and I didn’t watch it.
I’ve no idea how old this Tradcatknight cat is, but I don’t care for his tone at all. And his brush is both coarse and broad. I’ve skimmed a few of his other articles, and his position on some things I can agree with; but, I won’t bother reading further because of his style. Your mileage may vary.
^"harmless and offensive" in 2nd line (within first parenthetical comment) should be "harmless and inoffensive".
Anon 2:09 AM / 2:11 AM,
I’d like to provide a more complete response to your statements regarding Matthew 28:19 and the Trinity. To begin positively, I don’t disagree with the statement about eis meaning “into” here. In dynamic contexts with verbs of motion “into” is the proper rendering; and, when used metaphorically as is the case here (see Thayer “εις” [eis], B.II.3.γ / “βαπτιζω” [baptizō], II.b.aa.) “into” still works, but “in” works just about as well for English translation. In fact, in the NT eis and en (“in”, “among”, “at”, “near”, “with”) overlap quite a bit; and, the Gospel of John, e.g., uses the terms synonymously, interchanging them. But, had I wanted to convey this in the Koine Greek of the time, I’d have used eis.
You wrote: But notice: This verse does not actually make any statement about equality or about three persons in one Being. It does not describe the Holy Spirit as a person or as having personality. The instruction is about baptism, not about the nature of the Godhead. Had Jesus wanted to establish Trinitarianism, He could have been much clearer.
And, you wrote: The Holy Spirit helps us to be like Jesus Christ, but this does not mean it is a person. It is the nature of God, the power of God, the way He extends Himself in the universe….
Actually, it’s very clear. According to Sharp’s rule (VI) of grammar, when the conjunction kai is between two or more nouns of the same case and each noun is prefaced with the article (ho) (and the nouns are not plural or personal names like Peter, e.g.)—as we have in our subject verse—the nouns are all distinct from one another. And they are all in parallel (and none are personal names), given equal weight. This negates your assertion that the Holy Spirit is merely an aspect of God. But there’s more.
[cont]
[cont]
The Greek word for “Spirit” is neuter—and nouns are either masculine, feminine, or neuter—and any pronoun or article (to = ~ “the”) used for “S/spirit” must match the gender. But this gender match does not hold true in a number of Scriptures.
In John 14:16 “another paraclete” is introduced. This noun is masculine. In the next verse the paraclete is also called “the Spirit of truth”, so the attendant article here is neuter, and the relative article “whom” which follows “the Spirit of truth” is also neuter. So far this is proper grammar. In John 15:26 we find the same basic format as 14:16. The paraclete once again is with an attendant masculine article, and “the Spirit of truth” is once again with the neuter article, and once again the relative article “whom” is in the neuter; however, a bit later in the same verse is the masculine demonstrative pronoun ekeinos, “that one”, (the neuter would be ekeino). The closest antecedent is the neuter relative pronoun “whom”, which refers to the neuter “the Spirit of truth”; thus, the masculine pronoun refers to “the Spirit of truth”, illustrating personality. A similar thing occurs in John 16:13-14. And that’s not to mention the other Scriptures describing the Holy Spirit as a Person—see here.
As I’d written earlier, since “name” in “in[to] the name” is singular it must govern the entirety of the series of nouns following it, which are all in parallel, implying equal weight (that is, “the name” is not more heavily weighted to the Father, as opposed to the others). While the most natural reading is that “the name” functions as a collective for all three, grammatically, it could be understand individually: “in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit”. But, then we must go back to the fact that the Holy Spirit is clearly a ‘Person’ (and the three carry equal weight in parallel), and we can scarcely think tritheism (three gods) here. Thus, either way, it still promotes the tri-unity of ‘Persons’, i.e, the Trinity.
The bottom line is that Matthew 28:19 explicitly affirms the Trinity.
1 John 4 makes so much clear of the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead.
Verse 4 says succinctly, HE. (And, yes, many other affirmations besides).
God the Father sent (to the world) Jesus His Son of Whom the Spirit imparts to the believing (by faith) unto everlasting life. This is the encapsulated, (in a nutshell) understanding of John 3:16.
And this is the either/or, simply put in 1 John 4.
And if HE, the Spirit of God, is in you this is a settled issue. No need for argument for God's Spirit resides and abides in those who surrender to the Person of Christ Jesus, calling Him Lord, by the Spirit of God.
But if not, then it is the spirit of antichrist from whom a person is thinking, speaking, living.
Ye know not what spirit ye are of, 2:09 and 2:11 AM.
Craig and J,
FYI
Tradcatknight is Eric Grajewski - a so-called "traditionalist" catholic, but in reality a traditionalist schismatic (not in full loyal communion with Rome) who, according to other more rational traditionalists, allegedly believes he is the Catholic “Great Monarch” of the end times and is waiting for God to give him the order to rise up.......an indication that hints he is not quite playing with a full deck.
Gajewski is also known for his opposition to organized Jewry. He allegedly talks frequently with David Duke and the two are said to be in complete alignment when it comes to the Jews - regarding them as "evil" and "pernicious.".
The David Duke Show: Interview with Eric Gajewski of TradCatKnight
David Duke
May 25, 2016
http://dailystormer.name/the-david-duke-show-interview-with-eric-gajewski-of-tradcatknight/
_______________________________________________
And just a few months ago...
TCK RADIO: Dr. David Duke “Six Steps To Communist Slavery”
EYE OPENING TALK COVERING THE "HAND BEHIND THE SCENE" PULLING ON THE STRINGS IN THIS NEW WORLD ORDER
By Eric Gajewski -
March 29, 2018
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/03/29/tck-radio-dr-david-duke-six-steps-to-communist-slavery/
________________________________________________
The Father Denis Fahey mentioned in the March 29, 2018 interview was an anti-Semitic priest who, in the 1950's edited a book entitled Waters Flowing Eastward a book written by Leslie Fry which "authenticates" the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.Father Fahey and his organization Maria Duce were beginning to run afoul of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid of Dublin back in the 1950's but Father Fahey died before any disciplinary action against Fahey hisself was taken. However, the Maria Duce organization was ordered to change its name by the Church authorities in 1955, a year after Fahey's death, by the Archbishop McQuaid in order to make it clear that the organization known as Maria Duce did not have official Church approval.
MARIA DUCE
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Maria_Duce
_____________________________________________
The "Great Monarch" ( Eric Grajewski ) is also allegedly a con artist and a fraud who apparently got caught redhanded buying followers, falsifying the number of visitors he claims his website receives, and posting it on his homepage - (a “half a billion” viewers with an additional 10,000 every ten seconds!)
Grajewski's "guru" ("spiritual director")is one Father Paul Kramer who is himself fixated on the Sedevacantist notion of Pope Francis’ illegitimacy and has reached the point that he now claims God "took" Fatima priest Fr. Nicholas Gruner for recognizing him (Pope Francis) as Pope. In other words, according to Fr. Paul Kramer, God killed Fr. Gruner as a punishment for publicly recognizing Francis as Pope.
As of at least June 4, 2016, Fr. Kramer was posting Eric Gajewski's ("TradCatKnight") material on his Facebook page
According to National Catholic Register contributor Mark Shea:
Fr. Kramer is notable for his theories of a vast “They’re tunneling under your house” conspiracy involving Rome in some sinister plot to hide the Real Third Secret of Fatima. He also feels himself called to hold forth on how the Second Vatican Council (a valid council of Holy Mother Church) was “satanic.”
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/good-for-cardinal-burke
___________________________________________________________
As the famous saying goes...."CAVEAT EMPTOR!"
Susanna,
Thank you for revealing who Tradcatknight is and what he is about. He could be psychiatric, or he could be a provocateur. It's hard to say. It seems he has enough intact mental faculties to make some money off it, anyway. It looks like he is now charging for subscriptions to his blog.
It looks like Mr. Gajewski is also spreading the claim that the Noahide laws, when fully applied, will result in Christian beheadings, because the Trinity is considered idolatry under those laws.
Susanna,
I picked up that he was probably a "traditionalist" by the anti-Vatican II post I saw. Since I don't know enough about it, I decided to drop it. But, I sure wasn't aware that he esteemed himself as "the Great Monarch". Alriiiiiiighty, then...
Where does the "the Great Monarch" thing come from, anyway? Is it just something he made up? I'm not aware of any Biblical teaching about it. Is there any traditional Catholic prophecy about it?
Craig and J
Independently of Eric Grajewski, it has been reported by the BBC that Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone along with white supremacist Martin Sellner have been denied entry into the UK "for racism."
Pettibone was one of the most prominent online voices spreading the "pizzagate" conspiracy theory which falsely claimed that top Democratic officials were keeping child sex slaves underneath a Washington, DC pizza restaurant.
Southern says she was questioned under the Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, on her political views and her opinion on right-wing terrorism. She tells BBC Trending that she was refused entry on the grounds of her involvement "in the distribution of racist material in Luton".
In February, the Canadian activist displayed flyers saying "Allah is a gay god" outside a restaurant in the town centre. Southern, who has nearly half a million subscribers on YouTube and regularly posts politically charged stunts, says this was part of a "social experiment" video.
..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43393035
________________________________________________
After the UK denied them entry, Australia followed suit.
Australia takes advice of far-right ‘strong borders’ advocate, kicks her out
After being banned from the U.K., Lauren Southern runs into trouble Down Under.
Casey Michel Jul 9, 2018
In early March, Lauren Southern, a Canadian darling of white supremacists, learned that she had been barred from the United Kingdom on account of her history of thinly veiled racism.
Now, Southern can add another country to the list of places she can no longer visit.
…….Australia’s denial is the latest embarrassment for Southern. Not only was she booted from the U.K., but a few weeks ago she and Brittany Pettibone — another conspiracy theorist who once referred to herself as “one of the leading authorities on Pizzagate” — conducted an “interview” with Russian neo-fascist Alexander Dugin.
https://thinkprogress.org/australia-and-new-zealand-bar-lauren-southern-and-stefan-molyneux-a5fb5e4afb87/
___________________________________________________
Why is this Pizzagate truther meeting with a Russian neo-fascist?
Far-right darlings Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone head to Russia to meet with Alexander Dugin.
Casey Michel Jun 10, 2018
……Southern and Pettibone — the latter of whom has described herself as “one of the leading authorities on Pizzagate” — announced the trip late last week, and have already released their first video from the visit. Instead of speaking with local politicians or opposition activists however, they settled on sharing the thoughts of one of Russia’s most well-renowned neo-fascists, Alexander Dugin.
cont.
cont.
Dugin has gained a fair bit of coverage over the past few years. Much of that attention stems from his advocacy of the geopolitical theory of “Eurasianism,” positing Russia — which he describes as “Eternal Rome” — not only as a country entitled to control all nations that made up the Soviet Union, but as one eternally at war with the West, which he refers to as “Eternal Carthage.”
Southern, though, claims that Dugin isn’t actually a fascist, but merely a misunderstood philosopher. As she wrote on Twitter, “It’s incorrect to call him a fascist.”
.....Not only have other Russian fascists referred to him as the “St. Cyril and Methodius of Fascism,” but Dugin also initially made his name at Pamyat, described by one analyst as the “most significant anti-Semitic organization during perestroika.” Or as one of Dugin’s friends said, he was “looking for any sort of elevator to the top, and [he] found it in fascism.” He even named his alter ego after the former Nazi official in charge of paranormal research, and helped introduce a number of prominent anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to Russian audiences.
Dugin further acted as one of Russia’s primary supporters during its invasion of Ukraine, calling for Moscow to annex more territory throughout Europe. As Dugin memorably said a few years ago, Ukrainians were a “race of bastards” who needed to be “cleansed.” He also urged the killing of antiwar demonstrators in Russia.
Along the way, Dugin — whom former KKK higher-up David Duke referred to as “one of the leading intellectuals of Russia’s patriotic movement” — has built up a number of ties with American fascists. Not only has his site previously published ramblings from white supremacists like Richard Spencer, but in 2015 Dugin filmed an address for the launch of white supremacist Matthew Heimbach’s Traditionalist Worker Party, issuing a “common message” to his “American friends.” Shortly thereafter, Dugin also worked with American neo-Nazi Preston Wiginton to deliver a taped speech at Texas A&M University.
Softball supremacists
Predictably, Southern and Pettibone failed in their first video to ask Dugin about any of his fascistic beliefs, or any of his proposed policies of Russian revanchism, of support for Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, or his calls for a new “Eurasian Empire.” (Southern also referred to him as “Professor Dugin,” even though he was fired years ago for his genocidal rhetoric.)
....
https://thinkprogress.org/why-is-this-pizzagate-truther-meeting-with-a-russian-neo-fascist-b84eb73aa549/
_________________________________________________________________
Dugin is not a Communist. He is a FASCIST!!!
Via Rene Guenon and Julius Evola, who was a supporter of Mussolini and Adolph Hitler, Dugin is a disciple of the pagan neo-gnostic Traditionlist School founded in the 19th century - NOT to be confused with the Traditionalist Catholic Movement, although at least one Traditionalist Catholic has been exposed by the late blogger Carrie Tomko for trying to merge the two. His name was Rama Coomaraswamy and his father Ananda was one of the co-founders of the Traditionalist School. He was a very good friend of the late Father Malachi Martin.
By the way, Alexander Dugin has his own ties to David Duke.
Exposing Putin’s Propaganda
Cliff Kincaid
March 7, 2014
…..The David Duke connection with Dugin came to light after I wrote my article, “Putin’s Big Lie Against Ukraine,” noting that Duke had traveled to Russia and had written a book, The Secret Behind Communism, claiming that Jews brought Soviet communism to Russia.
Zubrin’s National Review article documents Dugin’s history of controversial associations, including “mystic neo-Nazi groups,” monarchist and ultra-right-wing circles, the neo-Stalinist Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and the Eurasianist National Bolshevik Party.....read more....
https://www.aim.org/aim-column/exposing-putins-propaganda/
I just found an exchange between Maurice Pinay and Constance. I thought I would share it here in case anybody else is interested.
https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/08/constance-cumbey-responds.html
Susanna,
I know you don't care for Maurice Pinay, but since you are interested in Malachi Martin and you hadn't mentioned this about Martin, I thought you might be interested in this.
More Documentation on AJC Agent, Malachi Martin
https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-documentation-on-ajc-agent-malachi.html
Pinay claims to provide documentation of AJC payments to Malachi Martin for his services.
https://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/06/malachi-martin-american-jewish.html
Susanna,
Have you looked into the KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn? I have just started to research him myself. But my understanding is that Golitsyn revealed that a complicated long-term plan for deception of the West. I can't recall if you mentioned him before or not.
Whatever the case -- whether Dugin is a continuation or not of the plan described by Golitsyn -- Dugin is clearly no friend of Western civilization. And Western civilization is something that both Southern and Pettibone claim to stand up for.
Craig and J,
First of all, to be perfectly clear, The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks only of Christ as the king who is to be manifested in "the last days". It makes no mention of the coming of any "Great Catholic Monarch," whether French or German or of any continent.
That said, I don't think anyone actually knows for sure where these prophecies originated. The concept of the Great King features prominently in mystical and folk traditions, as well as writings of people thought to have been granted gifts of prophecy or special visitations by messengers from heaven (such as angels, saints, or Christ). However, such mystical traditions fall under the heading of private revelations which Roman Catholics are not required to believe.
Not only that, but the catholic Church is very cautious when it come to "prophecies" that wax political.
My own opinion is that these folktales and prophecies may have had their origin in the stories surrounding the historical French Kings of Jerusalem - the first of whom was Godfrey of Bouillon.
King of Jerusalem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Jerusalem
__________________________________________
Kingdom of Jerusalem
The Kingdom of Jerusalem had its origins in the First Crusade, when Godfrey of Bouillon, after refusing a crown and the title of King "upon the plea that he would never wear a crown of gold where his Saviour had worn a crown of thorns",[2] took the title Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri (Protector of the Holy Sepulcher) in 1099 and was inaugurated as ruler of Jerusalem in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
The following year, his brother Baldwin I was the first to use the title king and the first to be crowned king in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Jerusalem
__________________________________________
Godfrey of Bouillon
. After the successful siege of Jerusalem in 1099, Godfrey became the first ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. He refused the title of King, however, as he believed that the true King of Jerusalem was Christ, preferring the title of Advocate (i.e., protector or defender) of the Holy Sepulchre (Latin: Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_of_Bouillon
______________________________________________
Godfrey, who was not crowned king, is described as humbly refusing to wear a crown of gold where his Savior had worn a crown of thorns. His successors, who DID accept the title of "king" and WERE crowned do not appear to have been so humble.
The (purely ceremonial) title of King of Jerusalem is currently used by Felipe VI of Spain. It was claimed by Otto von Habsburg as Habsburg pretender, and by the kings of Italy until 1946.
cont.
cont.
The Great Catholic Monarch was mostly very prominent in popular folklore until the 18th century Enlightenment. He reappeared in 19th century prophecy when French legitimists believed that the count of Chambord, Henry V of France would be the new king.
The Great Monarch is seen as someone who will reign during an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity - after which he would voluntarily give up his power and die, after which the Antichrist comes to power.
After the French Revolution, such prophecies became more frequent. A "lost king myth" evolved around King Louis XVII the son of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
During the French Revolution, little King Louis who was then a child was said to have been imprisoned in the Temple in Paris where he is believed to have died. But there were those who refused to accept this and in the absence of convincing proof of the dauphine's actual death, and some even suggested that a Scarlet Pimpernell - like hero rescued him and carried him off to England.
Certain mystical groups formed around the theme of the "lost king" and became collectively known as the "Saviors of Louis XVII." Many of these groups degenerated into gnostic/magical occult groups
Most of these occult groups of the nineteenth century backed a pretender to the French throne who claimed to be the missing Louis XVII.....the son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. His name was Charles Naundorff. Before he started his own church, he was so convincing he nearly fooled the Pope.
Naundorff died on August 10, 1845 in Delft, the Netherlands, possibly of poisoning.
The aforementioned occult groups - especially the one headed by Eugene Vintras - had supported the idea of Naundorff as "The Great Monarch."
His claim as Pretender to the French throne is ongoing even though DNA testing is said to have proven that Naundorff could not be the son of Marie Antoinette. The family claims that the tests were falsified and is conducting its own independent investigation.
Karl Wilhelm Naundorff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wilhelm_Naundorff
As it stands now the Great Monarch prophecies are mostly promoted by the Traditionalist Catholics many of whom are also Legitimists/Monarchists besides also being schismatics.
Incidentally, Eric Gajewski (a.k.a. Tradcatknight) claims that the "Russian Emperor" will aid the Great Monarch. Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
David Duke is likely to be controlled opposition or a disinformation agent. If he's just a self-made white supremacist, why would a man of Dugin's stature care about meeting with him?
White supremacists were infiltrated long ago and mostly destroyed. And that is a good thing. But we need to wonder, if somebody goes on and on remaining financially viable and continuing to have a platform as a white supremacist, why that is.
I'm not saying nobody out there is a grassroots neo-Nazi or white supremacist, but I think if somebody is famous for it and hasn't had his back broken after decades, there is a reason for that.
J 3:25,
This is another Maurice Pinay that has a blogspot. Not the same as the authors of the book but has adopted the name Maurice Pinay.
Whether I like Pinay or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth.
Susanna,
I’m aware of all these things regarding Southern, Pettibone, and Sellner. The latter is unfairly called a “white supremacist” because of his leadership in Generation Identity, a European populist movement, wanting to hold to traditional European culture, and which is also against “Islamization” i.e. political Islam (see here, for an example of the latter). There’s a carefully nuanced argument against “political Islam” that does not oppose Islam in a general sense. Sam Harris is one spokesperson, and Bill Maher has featured him more than once. Of course, we expect the BBC to distort things, just like all MSMs.
I don’t like the way Southern went to the UK and did the ‘gay Allah’ thing, but her point was to illustrate how media can portray Jesus as ‘gay’ (a somewhat recent Vice article, IIRC), and Christians don’t respond in an extreme way, but that when Islam is similarly maligned the response is different.
Predictably, Southern and Pettibone failed in their first video to ask Dugin about any of his fascistic beliefs, or any of his proposed policies of Russian revanchism, of support for Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, or his calls for a new “Eurasian Empire…
If you watch just the first few minutes of the video at tradcatknight, Southern says she wants to document Russia generally. A good documentarian asks a few open-ended questions, then lets the interviewee speak with little interruption. Now, again, I think it was ill-conceived to interview Dugin, but I think it prudent to see where this goes rather than jump to conclusions.
But, notice how tradcatknight called Southern and Pettibone “alt-lite”, whereas the articles you cite call all three “far-right”. These labels are pretty much useless without fixed definitions. And we have to ‘consider the source’.
Unfortunately, some who follow any or all of these three adhere to radical, racist ideologies (or they’re trolls), but it’s not fair to impose that onto these three, of course. My advice is to keep an open mind unless and until any of these three do something more overt.
Craig,
It's not just Islam that can't be criticized. It's also Judaism. But Christians can be mocked and Christ can be blasphemed all day long. That is certainly true.
While angry followers of Islam may threaten people physically, with bombs or knives or acid, the ADL can ruin an individual economically and deny him or her a platform. Sound familiar? It's a bit like the PC culture that Lauren Southern poses herself in opposition to, wouldn't ya say?
Nonetheless, I will not hate either Jews or Muslims. Or black South Africans. But I will keep on trying know the truth about everything and everybody.
Jesus Christ told His followers that if they have hated me, they will hate you for my sake. The servant is not better than the master.
I have not watched the documentary about what is going on in South Africa, and I don't intend to discredit it or any other discrete work.
I would hope that because some work may be quality work (for all I know) that wouldn't allow Dugin to become normalized by association. And I know you personally are too sophisticated a thinker for that. But not all in the audience necessarily are.
Susanna,
Thank you for explaining about the "monarch thing". I would have had no clue! Fascinating information as usual.
Craig,
Thank you for the additional info on Sellner. I am not as informed about Southern, Pettibone, and Sellner as you are, but Southern and Pettibone had better be careful when dealing with Alexander Dugin.
I certainly will keep your info on Sellner in mind when reading other articles about him.
The one I am far more concerned about is Alexander Dugin. It would be interesting to know just how much influence he actually has on Putin.
Dugin has reportedly been forging ties with leaders of the "new Right" all over Europe. So it is not surprising that he has also become acquainted with David Duke who, after being invited to visit the Russian Federation in 1999, rented an apartment in Moscow and remained there for five years. Duke claims that while he was there, his book Jewish Supremacism was a best seller and sold in the Duma book store.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/06/news/mn-9088
J 4:39 PM
Re: Have you looked into the KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn?
Yes. I have his book NEW LIES FOR OLD and have read it at least three times.
The "fall" of the Soviet Union could very well have been a disinformation strategy with Gorbachev's "glasnost" imitating the example of Vladimir Lenin who, in the 1920's, established his "New Economic Policy."
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Gorbachevs-Perestroika-compare-with-Lenins-New-Economic-Policy
__________________________
September 25, 2009
The Perestroika Deception
By John Griffing
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/09/the_perestroika_deception.html
_________________________________
J,
You wrote: It's not just Islam that can't be criticized. It's also Judaism. But Christians can be mocked and Christ can be blasphemed all day long. That is certainly true.
While angry followers of Islam may threaten people physically, with bombs or knives or acid, the ADL can ruin an individual economically and deny him or her a platform. Sound familiar? It's a bit like the PC culture that Lauren Southern poses herself in opposition to, wouldn't ya say?
It depends on location. In Canada, with Bill M-103 Islam is explicitly protected, and the can openly march in anti-Israel demonstrations, with signs and clothes supporting known terrorist organizations. A similar thing occurs in Europe. I think it will depend on individual locale which one is the oppressor vs. the oppressed according to the Cultural Marxist hierarchy of oppression in play. But that’s just a guess.
YouTube has partnered with the ADL (and SPLC) in their bid to stifle ‘politically incorrect’ voices. But, if you’re implying that Southern is some sort of Jewish apologist, I think you’re off-base.
----
Susanna (and all):
Check out this video at the Generation Identity (GI) site, as I think it will go a long way towards understanding what they are about. An unidentified (unknown to me, anyway) press interviews a former Antifa member turned Identitarian. The entire interview is helpful in educating those who don’t know anything about what GI stands for:
I Abandoned Antifa For The Identitarian Movement
Are your goals not racist/extremist?
No. The defence of a patriotic, free and homeplace-loving framework of values is the foundation of every cohesive human society. Identity is the defining factor that creates social support and cultural and moral orientation for people and their environment. The fact that a nation-state is always characterized by spatial, temporal and historical factors is still the basic consensus in any serious debate on national and international law, history, politics and social sciences.
However, the fact that standing for the preservation of ethnocultural identity is today classified by established politicians as unconstitutional demonstrates that our political and social decision-makers do not consider it necessary to develop a self-confident attitude towards their own identity. They try to marginalize and defame critics of mass immigration and those who demand a sovereign border policy and the proper enforcement of asylum laws.
As Generation Identity, we always have a duty of non-violence in every action and in our entire political work. We rely on peaceful and creative protest, without threats or intimidation. Our actions always focus on the love of our own home places and emphasize this right to home, culture, origin and rootedness also for the outsider, who we approach with respect and recognition according to our principles of ethnic pluralism. Our political actions are based solely on the preservation and historical continuation of a common ethnocultural identity and millennials-old heritage for the whole of Europe. In most other countries, such a commitment constitutes a basic, minimal societal and political consensus. Therefore, we merely demand the same patriotic normality for European people – which has nothing to do with extremism or racism.
Craig and Susanna (and others who may be interested),
One thing that stood out to me was that Lauren Southern said that Dugin made her feel very negative about individualism.
I prefer to counter Cultural Marxism by standing up for individual rights vs. group rights and privileges.
One of the main things I learned from studying the history of Catholic thought was that Christianity was the historical source of the very idea of an individual.
While individualism may go to far unmoored from morality, the solution to immorality is not collectivism, whether that collectivism takes the form of a red sugar pilled neo-fascism or the jagged little pill of cultural Marxism.
Good to remember that we have individual souls, each directly relating to God through Jesus Christ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kbWxA2D_9M
I should have linked to the video in which Lauren Southern reflected on her interview with Dugin. In the video, she stated:
"He kind of crumbled away all of my 100% confirmation that individualism is the best and kind of put some cracks in it…"
And you can get the rest of the context and commentary by watching the video if you wish.
J,
Erring on one side or the other is problematic. I err on the side of individualism, when I know I could benefit more in community. However, to err on the side of collectivism is to lose individuality, to succumb to group-think. There must be balance between community and individuality.
Cultural Marxists want to collectivize into groups, but these groups never actually form a whole, a community. There is just this collectivist group and that collectivist group. We need to refuse their collectivist boxes, illustrating individualism within community. I am my own person, with my own set of beliefs, values (and issues!), within the larger American community, and within the human race as a whole.
And, I agree with Southern (which apparently is Dugin's position in this regard) that the US, and the West in general, over-focuses on the individual. I don't hear Southern as changing her views to the other extreme; I hear her imply we need balance.
Each person has individual agency and is responsible for his/her spiritual life. Yet, as Paul states, each Christian is an integral part of one body (Romans 12:4-5), with different gifts provided through the individual for the benefit of the whole.
Balance is the key--not that I've personally found it.
Craig,
In a sociological sense you are correct about the need for balance between individual and community, and Dugin and Southern are hardly the first people in decades to point that out.
Since you quoted Paul, though, I just want to point out that the only unity taught in the New Testament is unity in Jesus Christ. (With the exception of unity of husband and wife, but I am talking about group unity.)
I just want to add that it was obviously horrifying when Lauren Southern was banned from the UK. Regardless of whether she's a provocateur like she seems to me -- and we'll have to agree to disagree about that -- she proved a point about something very wrong in the present day UK.
Something has to give. But what, when and how?
I've seen writings from Leftists urging some sectors of the Muslim community in the West to be labeled as "right-wing extremists". If that were to happen, any law applying to Muslim "right-wing extremists" could likewise be applied to all others deemed "right-wing extremists". Something to think about.
We probably need to try to think in dialectics, just as a matter of self-defense.
Could it become any more of a pretzel? I really shouldn't raise the question, because I'm afraid the answer will probably prove to be, yes.
Here are some examples of Leftists attempting to associate right-wingers and conservative Christians with Muslims -- or even saying liberal Muslims are safer than conservative Christians.
Islamic Terrorism Is Right-Wing Terrorism
We’ve never come under attack by liberal Muslims, but conservative Christians have drawn plenty of blood.
https://www.thenation.com/article/islamic-terrorism-is-right-wing-terrorism/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another:
How Right-Wing Extremists and Islamists Are the Same
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-similarities-between-right-wing-extremists-and-islamists-a-832294.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the Taliban and Christian conservatives have in common
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/pakistani-talibanchristianconservativesshariabancampaign.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoopi Goldberg: Christians Are Just Dangerous As Muslims Because Hitler
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/whoopi-goldberg-christians-are-just-dangerous-as-muslims-because-hitler/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservative Crusade For Christian Sharia Law
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-conservative-crusade-for-christian-sharia-law
To be fair to Israel and to the Jewish people, though, the only Christian communities in the Middle East to have grown in number since the end of the Ottoman Empire are the Christian communities inside of Israel.
Also it is ISIS which has been beheading Christians and not Jewish people, although some anti-Semitic spreaders of propaganda want to spread fear that under the Noahide laws, Christians could be beheaded.
As I pointed out, though, Armenian Christians have often formed imperfect but real alliances with Shia Muslims in the Middle East historically.
Many Armenian Christians have found safe harbor in Israel.
As for unity in a secular American sense, America was historically called a melting pot. Those of us with recent European immigrants in our ancestry know that. My maternal grandfather came from Berlin and lived in an ethnic German neighborhood in Milwaukee at one time. But all his children and his younger siblings and their children stopped considering themselves German and just consider themselves American. I don't even know how to cook German food, although my maternal grandmother (whose ancestors came from France and Belgium) learned to serve up some German recipes.
We didn't used to have an American idea called "multiculturalism" or "diversity". I don't think there is anything wrong with those ideas, though, as long as they are not weaponized. It is their weaponization that is harmful.
I just can't conjure up any profound feelings in myself about my whiteness or my European-ness. I can barely feel a lukewarm patriotism, mostly because of feeling threatened by globalism. In my childhood I always thought America would be exceptional and number one, and because of that lack of feeling threatened, I felt really little to no patriotism.
I do feel compassion for the white farmers of South Africa who are losing their lands, and even though this land loss may be motivated by historical racial conflict, it is also Communistic.
I think we need to be careful as Christians not to make our faith about entitlement to earthly things that are due us because of our race or culture. If we do this we are like the ancient Pharisees who didn't want the type of Messiah that Jesus Christ was but who look for a materialistic and militaristic messiah. Maybe it could make political sense at times depending on economics and foriegn policy, but it should not be mixed up with our Christianity IMO.
Craig,
It wasn't just a pretty, young blonde woman who was censored in the UK and banned for perceived anti-Muslim agitation. There was also an old woman in Germany who also speaks out against the massive immigration into Germany, but this old woman was not just censored. She has served several prison sentences in her old age, and this is because she has been accused of holocaust denial, which is a crime in Germany.
Her name is Ursula Haverbeck. She does not have a huge YouTube following, nor does she pose in miniskirts to adorn book covers. But she also has a story, one that has never become a cause celebre and is unlikely to ever become so.
She does also have YouTube videos, though, and in at least one of them, she speaks of the migrant crisis. I'm actually surprised YouTube allows her videos to remain up, especially since her husband was an actual Nazi back in the day (a fact that I admit horrifies me as an American). Here is one of her videos, with all of its 344 views:
Ursula Haverbeck: August, 2016 The Hooton Plan And The Migrant Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TNubGmz5w0
No matter what you may think of her claims (that she has citations for, from the horse's mouth) she did make one good point towards the end.
She said that German taxpayer dollars could be used to resettle the migrants in their home countries.
One has to wonder why such an obvious idea is never discussed. Resettling migrants in their home countries, which is cheaper than having them on the welfare rolls in a host country. Hmmm...
Well, I should rephrase it. She said if a fraction of the money that is spent in Germany on housing, education, health care, and the whole ball of wax -- if a fraction of that money were to be spent in the immigrants' countries as an investment, rather the refugees to Germany, the refugees and their home country would be better off. Because it's their young men who have at least some money and at least some education and who are able to work who are mainly coming to Germany. So their home countries are being drained of them in the process, too. Making it less likely that their own countries will be able to rebuild and prosper.
Redice.tv does actually have a story about Haverbeck. I'm surprised. But no links to any of her YouTube videos. Nor any exposition of what she said in her video that I linked to above. Not a mention of any of her ideas besides her holocaust denial.
Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel Convicted of ‘Holocaust Denial’ In Hiding
https://redice.tv/news/ursula-haverbeck-wetzel-convicted-of-holocaust-denial-in-hiding
I need to correct my statement that Ursula Haverbeck served several prison sentences.
Redice.tv story about her above is correct for its date but is outdated. The story on Redice is incorrect to state that Haverbeck has successfully appealed all her sentences.
Wikipedia states that Haverbeck has been sentenced several times but has unsuccessfully appealed all her sentences. She was in hiding for a time but was found and is currently serving a two year prison sentence.
I guess her cause will not become a cause celebre like that of Tommy Robinson, though.
South Africa’s New President Receives a Rabbi’s Blessing
The Rebbe’s assurance of safety and prosperity is recalled
https://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/3943405/jewish/South-Africas-New-President-Receives-a-Rabbis-Blessing.htm#utm_medium=page_tools&utm_content=desktop&utm_source=twitter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rivers Church pastor's bigotry exposes SA's big black Christian whitewash
https://mg.co.za/article/2016-07-01-00-south-africas-big-black-christian-whitewash/
Craig and J,
Regarding the subject of communism, fascism and individualism vs. collectivism in general, an excellent book to consider is Dinesh D'Sousa's book THE BIG LIE.
Among those D'Sousa quotes is Jonah Goldberg's book LIBERAL FASCISM.
The gist of D'Sousa's book is that while many have been duped into thinking that fascism is of the "right," it is actually of the radical left. Fascism and communism are both forms of socialism. The dichotomy that has morphed out of the two "isms" is an artificial one.
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/the-big-lie/
______________________________________________________________________________
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
by Jonah Goldberg
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189
_________________________________________________________________
“In the greatest hoax of modern history, Russia’s ruling “socialist workers party,” the Communists, established themselves as the polar opposites of their two socialist clones, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (quicknamed “the Nazis”) and Italy’s Marxist-inspired Fascisti, by branding both as “the fascists.” Jonah Goldberg is the first historian to detail the havoc this spin of all spins has played upon Western thought for the past seventy-five years, very much including the present moment. Love it or loathe it, Liberal Fascism is a book of intellectual history you won’t be able to put down—in either sense of the term.”
—Tom Wolfe, author of A Man in Full and I Am Charlotte Simmons
https://jonahgoldberg.com/liberalfascism/
___________________________________________________________________________
Just for the record, Alexander Dugin, a fascist, is an advocate of "traditional communism" of the Stalinist species.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was dissolved on August 29, 1991 on Soviet territory soon after a failed coup d'état and was completely outlawed on November 6, 1991 in Russian territory. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation was founded on February 14, 1993 as the successor organisation of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union by Gennady Zyuganov along with senior former Soviet politicians and with the help of Alexander Dugin. Unlike the CPSU after 1956, the CPRF celebrates the rule of Joseph Stalin, ignoring the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Political Repressions automatically
cont.
cont.
Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ге́льевич Ду́гин; born 7 January 1962) is a Russian philosopher, political analyst, and strategist known for his fascist views…..
…..Dugin in the 1980s was a dissident and an anti-communist. Dugin worked as a journalist before becoming involved in politics just before the fall of communism. In 1988 he and his friend Geydar Dzhemal joined the nationalist group Pamyat. He helped to write the political program for the newly refounded Communist Party of the Russian Federation under the leadership of Gennady Zyuganov.
In his 1997 article "Fascism – Borderless and Red", Dugin proclaimed the arrival of a "genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism" in Russia. He believes that it was "by no means the racist and chauvinist aspects of National Socialism that determined the nature of its ideology. The excesses of this ideology in Germany are a matter exclusively of the Germans ... while Russian fascism is a combination of natural national conservatism with a passionate desire for true changes." "Waffen-SS and especially the scientific sector of this organization, Ahnenerbe," was "an intellectual oasis in the framework of the National Socialist regime", according to him."
Dugin soon began publishing his own journal entitled Elementy, which initially began by praising Franco-Belgian Jean-François Thiriart, supporter of a Europe "from Dublin to Vladivostok". Consistently glorifying both Tsarist and Stalinist Russia, Elementy also revealed Dugin's admiration for Julius Evola. Dugin also collaborated with the weekly journal Den (The Day), a bastion of Russian anti-Cosmopolitanism previously directed by Alexander Prokhanov….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin
_________________________________________________________________
Thousands pay respects to Stalin
March 6, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2822029.stm
__________________________________________________
Thursday, 14 January 2016
A Review of Dugin's "Last War of the World-Island"
….Dugin interprets the entire Soviet era not in terms of Marxism-Leninism, but of Eurasianism against the “civilization of the Sea,” and declares Joseph Stalin to have been a hero of Eurasianist ideology:….
https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/22324-a-review-of-dugin-s-last-war-of-the-world-island
___________________________________________________
Susanna,
I thought at first Dugin tried to square the circle by saying his Russian fasicsm is comprised of both nationalist conservatism and a passionate desire for true changes. But after thinking about it for a moment, I think I got it. Emotionally it's about changes that are supposed to bring back a mythologized past of national greatness and power. To idolize Stalin implies that the ends justify the means. It also implies endorsing a cult of personality. But nationalist doesn't make sense when you're talking about Eurasian.
He is a chaos magic thinker, though, so I suppose he doesn't need to make complete sense. He's probably out to be confusing.
J 10:50 PM
You are spot on in regarding Dugin endorsing a cult of personality. That is what Hitler did. That is also what Stalin and Mao did.
Regarding chaos magick, Cliff Kincaid sees an Aleister Crowley link in Russian politics insofar as the National Bolsheviks and their main ideologist Aleksandr Dugin tried in the early 1990's to bring Aleister Crowley’s ideas to wide popular masses in Russia with persistence.
BLACK MAGIC ON RED SQUARE
...Back in Moscow, Valeriya Karat, the sorcerer I had hurried to keep my appointment with, was telling me about her secret visits from government officials. “They come in the middle of the night,” she confided. “So that no one will see them. I can’t name names, of course, but Russian government officials always consult sorcerers before taking major decisions.”
Oddly, she wasn’t the first mystic to “reveal” to me the importance of the occult and the paranormal in Russian political life. “Whenever there are big international talks going on, Russia always brings a psychic or witch along to influence things,” Marina, a psychic sorceress based in southeast Moscow, told me when I visited her busy magical centre. “Look at Rasputin: he was the greatest magician we have ever seen. Russian leaders have always employed occultists. This is our country’s great secret.”
Given that a sorcerer’s stock-in-trade is making things up, we should be sceptical about these claims. Obviously, short of hiding out near a sorcerer’s office late at night, there is no way I can prove or disprove them. But there is at least one Kremlin-linked ideologue with an established interest in the occult, a man whose international profile has risen to unprecedented heights since the beginning of the Russian-backed insurgency in east Ukraine in April 2014.
Alexander Dugin, a 53-year-old bearded Moscow-born philosopher and political analyst dubbed “Putin’s Brain” by the US-based journal Foreign Affairs, predicted with eerie precision the events in Crimea and east Ukraine years before the 2014 Maidan uprising in Kyiv. Dugin – until very recently a professor at the prestigious Moscow State University, and a staple on state-run television – has also called for the mass slaughter of Ukrainians and the “destruction” of the United States. He has expressed his admiration for elements of the ideology of fascism.
Although these days he refuses to speak publicly about such matters, Dugin has a long and documented involvement in the occult. In the 1980s, he is reported to have been a member of the Moscow-based “Black Order of the SS”, a group of intellectuals fascinated with both mysticism and Nazism, as well as – according to former members of the circle – experiments with drugs and sex magic. Later, Dugin took his interest in the occult to a new level. In the early 1990s, he became editor of the Eurasian magazine Elementy. The front cover of the magazine’s second issue featured a portrait of Baphomet, the goat god who is also the symbol of the US-based Church of Satan. Dugin frequently wrote about the occult within the pages of Elementy, as well as praising the “spiritual and transcendental side of fascism”.
In 1995, during an unsuccessful attempt to get elected to parliament, Dugin took part in a pre-election concert – described as a “black mass” by participants – in memory of the British occultist Aleister Crowley, notorious for his sex “magick”. During the performance, Dugin’s supporters read aloud from Crowley’s Book of the Law (“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”). Dugin is also reported to have met with figures from the Ordo Templi Orientis, a worldwide occult organisation that once boasted Crowley among its ranks.......read entire article.....
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4862/black-magic-on-red-square
_____________________________________________________________________
Susanna,
That's very interesting about Dugin messing around with Crowley-ite stuff.
Dugin also teaches that the United States is the center of the expansion of the kingdom of the Antichrist. He says a final conflict will come between the kingdom of the Antichrist and Eurasia. He advocates and predicts that the "American empire" will be destroyed.
He shares with Hitler an extreme anti-Semitism. Again he seems confusing in this, because he is Putin's brain, and Putin is close to his Chabad rabbi and his many Jewish Russian oligarchs.
But Dugin is after all a believer in "chaos magick". Maybe Putin also believes in it. If you practice "chaos magick", you don't need to be consistent. It's not really about ideology. It's about using chaos to gain power.
Although I don't believe in double standards for Jews and gentiles, I am dismayed by true anti-Semitism, and it's always jolting when somebody really seems to deeply feel it, as Dugin seems to.
Once more there is a pattern of anti-Semitism in an occultist, as there was in the writings of Alice Bailey.
I don't know what to say about this article and picture, other than it is just weird. It shows Lauren Southern wearing a blue bodysuit just before her interview with Dugin. Pettibone is dressed up in a very strange way with a very strange hairdo and a blank stare on her face. It really seems like the whole tone, along with the picture, is toying with the reader. Is this supposed to be more "chaos magick"? Maybe we are supposed to be disoriented, because in a disoriented state, one is also much more suggestible.
Alexander Dugin Interview with Alt-Lite Fake Blonde Lauren Southern (Video)
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/alexander-dugin-interview-alt-lite-fake-blonde-lauren-southern-video/ri23910
This -- from the same publication, Russian Insider -- is also very weird in tone. Is this what "chaos magick" does to journalists? Or maybe the journalist is one something.
Prepare for the Sanctioned Russia-Iran-China-Turkey Supergroup to Blow Trump's Solo Act out of the Water
Trump's solo act can't compete with the hard rock presidents from the electric east
https://russia-insider.com/en/prepare-sanctioned-russia-iran-china-turkey-supergroup-blow-trumps-solo-act-out-water/ri24536
"Those were the days, during the Cold War 1960s and 1970s, when the earth was actually ruled by rock supergroups – from Cream and Led Zeppelin to Yes and Emerson, Lake & Palmer.
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends – and the post-truth geopolitical remix of the supergroup. Meet The Sanctioned; a multinational band starring multi-instrumentalists Vladimir Putin (Russia), Xi Jinping (China), Hassan Rouhani (Iran) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey).
As the whole rock universe knows, The Sanctioned run the relentless risk of being outshined – in the form of multi-layered sanctions – by undisputed glitter solo act Donald Trump (US)."
I've been thinking some more about the "Maurice Pinay" blog. I think I have figured out what is wrong with it. The Jewish people are not like the Catholics or Protestants in that they don't have the Pope and Magisterium like the Catholics and don't have Sola Scripture for one book like the Protestants. They might be compared a little more to a university with lots of debate and diversity in their theologies and schools of thought.
Because of all the debate and diversity and prolific writings for three thousand years or more, there is a lot of written material that a gentile critic can go through. It is possible to cherry pick certain quotations and use them to represent the whole people. It's not that the quotations don't exist; it's that the quotes are made to seem completely representative.
It's kind of similar to the way Bill O'Reilly would always pick the most ridiculous Leftist college professors to come onto his show and argue with him regarding the most foolish thing they were ever caught speaking or writing. And people who've never been to college might get the impression scholarship is always like that in a university college class.
One thing that is problematic about a Christian being as profoundly negative about Judaism as "Maurice Pinay" is that you can't do it without undercutting Christianity, because Judaism was the historical tree, with Jewish converts to Christianity being a branch, and gentile Christianity being a grafted-on branch.
I think "Maurice Pinay" brings out some true stories, but he always comes up with the most negative possible interpretation for all of Judaism and all Jews. It's his cherry picking and his interpretations that are the problem.
Alexander Dugin on the Heartland versus the Heartless: The Neocon and Neoliberal Plan for Russia (and America)
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/02/07/alexander-dugin-on-the-heartland-versus-the-heartless-the-neocon-and-neoliberal-plan-for-russia-and-america/
This is a sympathetically written article about Dugin's ideas that may help somebody understand why a Westerner who is an anti-globalist or anti-neoliberal would find Dugin appealing.
But it made me realize how ahistorical and mythologizing Dugin's thinking is. He is good at building geopolitical and historical mythologies where elemental forces like water and land have a life of their own and determine culture and politics.
Dugin hasn't been Putin's brain for a long time. There is some overlap between his mythical and Russian pragmatic interests, that's all.
"however, we’d think that Satan would ask Jesus for latreia, as opposed to proskyne?sis, if such a strong distinction were to be understood in Scripture."
Maybe satan was trying to argue for just some degree of worship not the whole nine yards so to speak, so as to get Jesus to give in a little, but you can't give in at all, obviously proskynesis has a range of application "kings, Jesus, and other superiors" but satan is to be given no respect at all. no syncretistic main worship to God and allowing a lesser worship to the devil - nothing to the devil. total boycott on the devil.
refuting point by point - not necessary onxce the key issue is established the rest show they support it A diagram addressed to Jehovah's Witnesses shows Bible verses and titles of God, showing that all these titles and descriptions are used about each of the Trinity.
denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit - this is wrong, because He is referred to as taking action "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me." Context shows the speaker is not the prophet but God Who is sent by God and sent by God's Spirit i.e., pre incarnate Jesus.
In the promise of the Holy Spirit, Jesus says "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name—that one will teach you all things, and will remind you of everything that I said to you. " John 14:26.
Notice again action is ascribed to The Holy Spirit Himself. and He is not identical to The Father for He is sent FROM the Father and proceeds FROM The Father (proceeding and begetting are different, Jesus preincarnate is the only begotten Son of The Father).
"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." 1 Cor. 12:11
you can see that actions like a person are ascribed to The Holy Spirit, so He has intent and action.
""But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me." John 15:26 here you see two things, the unbiblicalness of the filioque, ad that The Holy Spirit DOES something in this case testifies of Jesus or about Jesus not about Himself.
The three at Jesus' baptism are shown to be distinct, but it is argued that this doesn't show they are all deity. However, Jesus says
"That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. " John 5:23so Jesus must be deity, also John chapter one makes it clear that Jesus is deity, after all like begets like.
But The Holy Spirit how can He not be deity, since He proceeds from The FAther, and was with the Father and The Son "in the beginning" so present before creation began? Why would Jesus say to baptise in tHe Name of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit if the third were not equal in divinity to the previous two?
that is equality of nature, but The Father is without origin while The Son and The Holy spirit have their origin in The Father but have always existed being coeternal with The Father, and within the Trinity The Father is monarch.
it is asked how can the Holy Spirit be poured out if He is a person? but He is like The Father and The Son an infinite person, without a particular shape. After the Incarnation, Jesus is finite in His humanity but infinite in His divinity.
Christina,
Whether or not Dugin is any longer "Putin's brain", the alt-lite seems to want to pick Dugin's brain.
We don't need him just in order to have an alternative to neo-liberal thought. We already had our own homegrown alternatives.
The alt-lite is not very literate about history or political theory or anything else.
That's not necessarily to detract from every cause a member of the alt-lite has ever spotlighted -- like white peoples' farmland being confiscated by the government of South Africa.
I've suspected for a long time that elite players from behind the scenes are trying to divide Americans along racial lines, though. That's because suddenly the alt-right and alt-lite and BLM exploded on the scene at the same time.
It seems there is a script that involves herding Americans into either the "populist", "deplorable" side with spoon feedings of fascism presented as intellectually nutritious alternatives to the MSM -- or the Antifa, BLM, Trump Derangement Syndrome side.
It seems some people like being spoon fed the most innocuous-sounding and shallow ideas that they can filter out of Dugin. And if they don't know much about history, philosophy or political theory it may sound good compared to Common Core schooling and the MSM media.
Post a Comment