Legally and logically, the whole question hinges on the difference between selling pre-manufactured widgets or wombats or donuts and selling special-order items. It concerns work for hire. If you are just cranking out hundreds or thousands or millions of similar items, then you can't claim you are too picky about your projects. But if you are someone like me, producing very small numbers of one-of-akind items (paintings, in my case), you can. I can't possibly serve all comers, so I can pick my projects. There is no way the government could force me to paint for everyone who offers to pay me. So I can easily refuse work, without even having to give a reason. I will have a reason, but I don't have to state it. It could be that I am too busy, or it could be that I am just not interested in the project. And that is just how it should be. You shouldn't be able to force people to do work they don't wish to do. Forcing people to work is slavery, not civil rights.
The other big issue here not being addressed is your right to work with whomever you want, and not to work with whomever you want. You shouldn't be forced to spend time with people you don't wish to spend time with, for whatever reason. You shouldn't even be required to give a reason. It is your private affair. If you are selling pre-made donuts, you don't have to “work with” the customer to any degree. You take their money and they go. You don't have to know anything about them, and in most cases wouldn't know if they were gay or not. But if you are making a special-order cake, you do have to work with the customer. You have to spend some time talking to them: finding out what they want, and so on. If you are just selling donuts, you don't have to care what the customer wants. You can make the donuts you like, and if the customer doesn't like them, so what? Yes, you won't make as much money that way, but you are free to do that if you wish. And you know what, everyone who works for themselves works that way to some extent. They make the things they like. That is why they chose that business instead of another business: it appealed to them. That is the way it should be.
If I were a gay guy getting married and some baker said he didn't wish to make my cake, I would go find someone else to do it. Do you know why? Because that baker would be sure to do a lousy job, and I want a great cake. I want to find someone who is excited about making my wedding cake. I don't want to force some poor guy to make a cake he doesn't want to make.
No, the baker cannot put a sign in his window saying he doesn't serve gays, and he can't refuse to sell a premade donut to someone who “looks” gay. But he can refuse work-for-hire, for any reason or no reason.
An artisan has a list of things he or she does, which is basically a list of “things I enjoy making”. Most things aren't going to be on that list. The menu is limited, and a customer has no unalienable right to order off-the-menu. The artisan may agree to work off-the-menu, but he isn't required to. In fact, this would apply even to mass-produced items, like pancakes at IHOP. IHOP can't refuse to serve pancakes to gays or blacks or women, but it doesn't have to offer off-the-menu items to anyone. Say this gay couple came into IHOP and demanded a pancake in the shape of a phallus. Would IHOP be required to provide that pancake, as a nod to civil rights? Of course not.
So let's look at houses, to show this isn't a matter of luxury items, specialty items, or art. Houses already on the market can't be refused to gays, for obvious reasons. In that case there is no possible argument for not selling to them. But if a gay person came to a builder with plans for a house, and tried to hire him, the builder automatically should have a right to say no. The builder may not wish to build that house for any number of reasons, including the reason that the design didn't appeal to him. And yes, maybe the design was “too gay”, whatever that might mean to the builder. In any case, the builder has the right to like what he likes and dislike what he dislikes, without having to justify it in court. -- Miles Mathis
The rich see a revolution coming, and they want to prevent any manifestation of it on any level. In the past century, they have become less afraid of a violent uprising and more afraid of broad consumer boycotts, bank runs, and such things. So they are revamping the laws in answer to that fear. -- Miles Mathis
The Fascists were hiding behind Socialism from the beginning. -- Miles Mathis
We are told Socialism or Communism appealed to intellectuals, artists, and the working class, but it never did. It appealed only to planted and paid pseudo-intellectuals, fake Modern artists, and a few working-class dupes who couldn't see through the paint. -- Miles Mathis
Mass is defined as density times volume. In other words, it is a density in a volume. So if your volume goes to zero, your mass must also go to zero. You cannot have mass in a zero volume, by definition of mass and volume. But a point must have zero volume, by definition. Therefore you cannot have mass at a point.
If you cannot have mass at a point, you cannot have energy at a point, either. This is basic logic. If you cannot have mass or energy or time or volume at a point, then you cannot have an event at a point. -- Miles Mathis
The famous Flemish mathematician Simon Stevin showed in about 1600 that the point must be assigned to zero, not to the number one. The number one is the unit in all modern math, by definition. That is why we use the word “unit”: it comes from the Latin “unus, una, unum” which means “one.”
This is of utmost importance in modern physics because these modern mathematical spaces treat the point as the unit. In trying to create a field as the generator of the motions of mass points, Einstein was trying to assign zero to the unit in his math. His mass points are his units, you see. The numbers we find in solutions apply to them, so they are the units. But points as units is a pre-Stevin idea: it is a 16th century idea. Modern physicists and mathematicians are not more sophisticated than Galileo and Copernicus, they are less sophisticated.
The same can be said of QED, which does the same thing. As in GR, QED lets mass act as a unit. When QED finds mass at a point, it has assigned zero to its unit. This is why its equations have been rebelling from the beginning. This is why QED requires renormalization. When you assign zero to the unit in your math, your math will implode. It will start spitting out zeros and infinities, and this is what causes the need for renormalization. Renormalization is the getting rid of these pesky zeros and infinities, by a sort of mathematical conjuring.
As I have shown, GR has equations that rebel in the same way. The field equations often implode, giving zeros or infinities as solutions. This is precisely what is happening in the math applied to black holes or to the big bang. The math is imploding, just as in QED. But rather than renormalize the field equations, physicists prefer (for some reason) to accept the infinities and zeros, giving them mystical interpretations. In QED, they don't like the singularities and infinities, so they renormalize them away. But in GR, they have found a use for them. In GR, they have made a physical object out of the mathematical failure, selling the singularity as the nut of all massive objects. Singularities are now found all over the place, in many new theories. They are said to explain magnetic monopoles, cosmic strings, domain walls, and even “fuzzballs”. The singularity is even given various dimensions! A domain wall is a two-dimensional singularity, for example. That is somewhat like a three-dimensional line, a unicycle with three wheels, or a ten-armed octopus. -- Miles Mathis
Plastic surgery is not returning a face to normal; it is making the face doubly abnormal, but attempting to match the double abnormality to the original normalcy. -- Miles Mathis
I have a question for you: why would anyone trust these jerks to tell us the truth about anything? When have they ever told us the truth about anything? But I think the possibility exists that no one has ever read anything by these people. It's just a big circle jerk: they all promote each other, but no real person has ever believed a word of it. The encyclopedias tell us they are all famous and important, but if Langley didn't buy all their books and recycle them into toilet paper, the total sales would be near-zero. -- Miles Mathis
Russian physicists were doing the same thing American physicists were doing, and are doing: draining the treasury with fake projects and fake math. -- Miles Mathis
But back to Wilfried Pareto. We are told his family was enthusiastic about the 1848 German Revolution. You have to be kidding me. They were wealthy nobles: why would they be enthusiastic about their own destruction? The only thing they could have been enthusiastic about was the knowledge that the revolutions had been successfully infiltrated and detoothed by people like Marx, Engels, Owens and so on—other crypto-Jewish nobles like themselves.
Everything Pareto did or said was fake or false. In his famous 80-20 rule, he said 20% of the population of any country could be expected to own 80% of its wealth. That sounds bad, but we can be sure he knew it was much worse. We have since come to know that the top 400 families own pretty much everything of value. If you own anything, it is because they don't want it. They don't want your troll doll collection, so the fact that it is valued at over $1000 by someone on ebay doesn't really count. If we correct the faulty 80-20 math, the real numbers would be something like 99.999-.001.
Pareto pretended to be appalled at the predatory nature of society, and pretended to support Mussolini's pretend solution: reduction of the state by total top-down control. Sort of like Reaganomics, without the checked shirts and horses. But of course the whole idea is an absurd contradiction. You can't make government smaller by making it all-powerful, can you? In hindsight, it appears the solution accidentally exacerbated the problem, but it was no accident. Socialism didn't just accidentally morph into Fascism, and Fascism didn't just accidentally make the wealthy even wealthier. Evermore fantastic levels of wealth hoarding were always the longterm plan and goal, and all the rest was just talk and bluff.
For instance, Pareto's bio admits the minimal state was desired “to liberate pure economic forces”. But how would that solve the wealth distribution problem he claimed to be so concerned about? Wouldn't pure economic forces just make it worse? Of course, and that was known by everyone. That is what deregulation has been about, and it has always made things worse. Wealth inequality has spiralled out of control since 1999, when deregulation in the US went into ultra-high gear. Don't tell me no one saw that coming. Of course they saw it coming: that was the whole point. And it was the whole point going back to Pareto and long before. Not one of these fake liberal economists ever really wanted to solve that problem or any other. They were all cloaked industrialists working for themselves. Which is why I could never stomach any economics. I could see from the beginning that both sides were just spouting a lot of nonsense.
Now I understand that they were both spouting nonsense for a reason: they had been hired to create a massive diversion, as in every other field. They wanted everyone arguing about Keynes versus Friedman or something, to keep everyone's eyes off the truth. The truth being that none of the promoted economic theories since the beginning of time have anything to do with reality. None of them have even the slightest contact with reality. That reality being that everything is controlled and often faked by the top families for their own enrichment. These people lie all the time about everything, and always have. But in the 20th century they gained a full-spectrum control of society via the media, allowing for unprecedented levels of lying and manipulation. So, if you want to know anything about real economic forces, the best thing you can do is throw all mainstream economics in the garbage and start over from scratch.
We see that again in Pareto's famous quote that “history is a graveyard of aristocracies”. That is supposed to mean that rulers are not overthrown from below, but are replaced by another set of elites. Again, it sounds cutting-edge and revelatory, especially coming from the son of a Marquis, but it is more misdirection. As we have discovered, the revolutions have been faked and we appear to have the same aristocracy we always had. The same families are ruling now that were ruling a thousand years ago.
Also notice Pareto's famous belief in “unforeseen or uncontrollable social factors” short-circuiting his mathematical economics. That misdirection served double-duty, since 1) it acted as an excuse for the failures of his economics—which was really failing because it was crap and for no other reason, 2) it acted to confirm the chaos in social and therefore economic situations. But as we have seen, there is no real chaos, not in that sense. These people have developed a near-perfect control of society via the media, and they can create markets at will. And not only markets: they can control beliefs, desires, fashions, trends, and widespread actions. Yes, we have seen a remaining chaos, but they create that, too, on purpose. Via huge projects like Operations Chaos and Cointelpro, they create fear, anxiety, depression, and helplessless, but once again it is simply to increase profits. Scared people spend more and happily pay higher taxes. So nothing is “unforeseen” or “uncontrollable” there. Just the reverse. -- Miles Mathis
In WW1, Mussolini was pro-war—a curious position for a Marxist to take at the time. How could the workers of the world unite if they joined this war manufactured by the elites? That question is never asked, much less answered. Instead we get a lot of misdirection about throwing off the rule of the Habsburgs in Austria. Sounds good if you don't look too closely, but even in the mainstream story the War was never about ending any oppression. WW1 was not a Republican war in any way, shape or form. We can now see that the main goals were the destruction of Germany, Central Europe and Russia, opening them up to new forms of exploitation by the industrialists. So Mussolini's support has to be read in those terms.
In 1914, Mussolini's philosophy allegedly flipped 180 degrees. He now began calling for a revolutionary vanguard elite to rule society. We are told that the Fascisti were bankrolled from France, but that is clearly misdirection. Mussolini had always been bankrolled by Jewish interests, and those interests simply changed his mission at the start of the war. They now needed to mobilize Italy at any cost, even the cost of philosophical consistency. They didn't care if the words on paper made any sense: that has never been their concern. They only cared that people did what they were hypnotized to do, promptly and on cue.
Remember, we saw above that Mussolini had already hooked up with the wealthy Jewish socialite Margherita Sarfatti by 1911, and her husband was millionaire attorney Cesare Sarfatti of Milan. Her father was the even wealthier attorney of the Venetian republic, Amedeo Grassini. So it is pretty easy to see Mussolini's funding wasn't coming from France. It is also worth returning to Margherita's mother, Emma Levi. She was of the famous Levi family of northern Italy that would produce many prominent spooks of the time, including the fake group-of-six artist Carlo Levi. You may also wish to remind yourself of Paul Levi, who became the head of the Communist Party in Germany after the fake assassination of Rosa Luxemburg in 1919. Since Levi was also active in Italy at the same time, working on the same projects, we may assume he was from the same family as well.
OK, the next clue is a doozy, and it isn't hidden at all. After allegedly being discharged for being wounded, in 1917 Mussolini got his start in politics at the behest of British Secret Service MI5/6. What? They admit that in the mainstream bios now. He was paid around $9000 a week to publish prowar propaganda. Let's see, at 52 weeks a year, that comes out to $468,000 a year in today's dollars. Wow. This payment to Mussolini was authorized by Sir Samuel Hoare, 1st Viscount Templewood.
That is who was funding the Fascisti. They now admit MI5 was funding Mussolini, but of course they play down the import of that. It is reported only as a raw fact, as if it doesn't matter in the least. For instance, Wikipedia includes the raw report, but then drops it immediately. A few paragraphs later, we are told of Mussolini's famous idea of spazio vitale: "Mussolini claimed that Italy's principal problem was that "plutocratic" countries like Britain were blocking Italy from achieving the necessary spazio vitale that would let the Italian economy grow." That's worth a chuckle now, right? Since they just admitted MI5 was funding the writings and career of Mussolini, that claim loses all its punch, doesn't it? England was blocking Italy from real independence, but it was doing that through Mussolini himself. England had infiltrated Italy and was planting these Italian agents to create a believable opposition. Mussolini himself was a covert operation of MI5.
The next thing we find is Mussolini as Prime Minister of Italy. He installed himself on what date? October 31, 1922. Halloween. Always a red flag and marker. We are told that the Italian legislature granted dictatorial powers to Mussolini for one year in 1923. And you believe that? What real legislature is going to grant dictatorial powers to anyone? It is completely illogical. Dictatorial powers mean the legislature is immediately defunct, so we are supposed to believe the legislature voted to kill itself? Why show up for the vote? Why not just quit? Mussolini immediately passed legislation (see how he is doing that by himself, with no need for a legislature) favoring the wealthy and outlawed unions. That sort of puts the lie to the name of his brother's newspaper Il Populo, doesn't it? Same for his Popular Party.
And remember, the German legislature allegedly did the same thing for Hitler a few years later, voting him dictatorial powers. How do you vote anyone dictatorial powers? Again, it goes against the definitions of the words themselves. It is a contradiction.
Mussolini's fall is just as absurd as his rise. In the summer of 1943 Hitler abandoned the south to its own resources—which led to a quick end to Mussolini. Suddenly, King Victor popped up like a Jackin-the-Box and re-asserted his “Constitutional” authority, dismissing Mussolini. But I have news for you, Kings don't get their authority from Constitutions. Kings and Constitutions are opposing beasts. Kings also don't perch invisibly behind dictators, since a country doesn't need both. A King is already a dictator, so he doesn't need to appoint one. Plus, any real congress isn't going to grant anything to a dictator that it wasn't going to grant to a king. If King Victor had enough support to remain king behind Mussolini, he should have had enough support to do all the things Mussolini did, but in his own name. So, on a closer look, the whole story of Mussolini was bollocks from the first word. He was just a puppet in front of a puppet. A mask on top of a mask, a veil over a veil.
It is also worth mentioning that the King had basically abdicated when he turned all power over to Mussolini in 1922. A king who has given all power to someone else isn't king anymore, is he? And yet we are supposed to believe the King continued to lurk, maintaining all his potential power despite having given it away. So we have another total contradiction, never commented on. Once the King had turned all power over to Mussolini, why didn't Mussolini and the legislature simply depose him? He was a useless appendage at that point and was nothing but a drain on the country. Mussolini was supposed to be downsizing and streamlining, so why not start with the King—who was the single biggest drain on the national economy? Kings have been deposed and allegedly murdered many times in situations like that. Why not this time? I think you now know why.
Therefore, we can be sure that the whole story of Mussolini's fall is yet another bad fiction. At first he was arrested and taken to a remote location. Convenient, since in such a place there could be no proof he was actually there. It was just a claim in a newspaper. General Badoglio supposedly ended Fascism overnight, and—miracles of miracles—the Blackshirts aren't mentioned at all. I guess they just evaporated. In September the Nazis allegedly rescued Mussolini and reinstalled him in Salo. Since Salo is a small town near Verona, this is very strange. Why would the Nazis install him there? It is about 25 times smaller than Verona. I will tell you why: it is a resort town on Lake Garda, used by the wealthy as a retreat. Mussolini wasn't installed there, he simply retired there.
He was supposedly allowed to stay there unmolested for a year and a half, and didn't think of fleeing the country until April 27, 1945, two days before Hitler's fake death. Convenient. He and his mistress Clara Petacci were allegedly spotted on the Swiss border and were shot the very next day without trial. Those who carried out the execution are unknown. Of course no local doctor or coroner confirmed the deaths. Clara Petacci was 33 at the time of death. Her father just happened to be the private doctor of Pope Pius XI. What an astonishing coincidence, eh? Petacci's sister was actress Miriam di San Servelo. She was in 14 films between 1942 and 1954. She was also known as Miriam Day. Clara was also a sort of actress, since all this is a stageplay. In suppport of that, we find there are Petacci nameholders in Brazil, which tends to confirm my reading. Clara probably relocated with Mussolini to Brazil with his fellow actors from Germany. Her brother would have needed to go with her, since he too was allegedly killed. That's how the name got to Brazil.
So where did Benito go? Here is a big clue: Mussolini's second son Vittorio became a film director, working with Fellini, Rosselini, and Antonioni. But before that, right after the war, Vittorio went to Argentina. Hmmm. I wonder why? It appears Benito may have gone to Argentina rather than Brazil. Vittorio was later connected to Hollywood, where he partnered with Hal Roach (famous for Our Gang, Laurel&Hardy, etc.). Curious, eh? Tends to support my thesis that Benito was an actor, doesn't it? More support comes from another son of Mussolini: Romano, who married the sister of Sophia Loren. Mussolini's daughter Anna Maria worked for Radio Rai, interviewing artists, musicians, and entertainers.
Mussolini's granddaughter Alessandra was also an actress. She is now a member of the Italian Senate. That doesn't really jive with what we are told about the fall of Mussolini, does it? You would think the family would be permanently disgraced and out-of-favor. In fact, we are told her aunt Anna Maria had to perform under a pseudonym and was driven off the radio when her identity was discovered. But Alessandra is now in the Senate and no one blinks an eye? It appears that nothing we are told about the Mussolinis is true. But isn't that always the case? -- Miles Mathis
Both the Communists and Anarchists were paid stooges of Intel, like Mussolini. In reality, they were just a small set of crypto-Jews in offices publishing a lot of unpopular literature. No one joined these organizations except other Jews and paid informants. We saw that in the US when we unwound Eugene Debs. The Socialist and Communist parties in the US folded every year or so and had to be renamed. This was due to a total lack of interest from real people. Every time a group folded they would import some more Jewish intellectuals from Europe and try again. -- Miles Mathis
In fact, we have seen that World War 1 was a joint effort to further subjugate all the countries of Europe, though the plan varied somewhat from country to country. After the War, it was found that all the ducks had still not been cooked. So the projects were tweaked and extended. It was found that without an ongoing war, things were not moving as swiftly as possible, so they called for another World War. That one was also vastly enriching, so they called for another and another and another. Fortunately, the two World Wars had worn everyone out, so the subsequent wars had to be smaller and off-premises. But they found a way to make up for that as well: “Cold” Wars—that is, wars that were even faker and more manufactured than the Hot Wars. But because they were in far-off lands, they were far easier to fake. They still drained the same amount of money from the treasuries. -- Miles Mathis
Italy joined Germany in June 1940, but that just means that Italy, like Germany, was a predetermined loser. Like WWI, the entire War was managed, with the outcome known from the first day. Once you know this, all the absurd things Italy did in the War begin to make sense. The first of those absurd things was joining Germany. No reasonable person would have ever thought Germany could prevail against the rest of Europe, fighting on many fronts at once, both East and West, especially considering that it had just failed to do that in the First World War. That reasonable person would have also taken the US into account, since in no rational universe would the US have joined Germany in the War. Yes, the US had many financial ties to Germany, but it had far more ties to England. The US had tipped the scales in WWI and it would be predicted to do the same in WWII, should the need arise. All the early signs pointed to another big German defeat, with Germany making sure to piss everyone off in the most conspicuous way and forgetting to make any useful alliances. Italy was about as useful to Germany as Greenland would have been, and we saw that in the event. As with WWI, the Second War made absolutely no sense from the first shot, which is why they had to sell Hitler as insane from the early stages. No one would have bought the War as an even remotely sane enterprise on any level, so it had to be sold as mass insanity. It appears incredible now and had to appear incredible then. By which I mean “unbelievable”. It strained all credibility from the first word and still does. -- Miles Mathis
How do we meet this challenge of a mood which makes society evil and the person guiltless? The answer must be: the courage of the few. “If the trumpets give an uncertain sound who will prepare for battle?” Courage is to some extent the foundation of all virtue for without it there is no security for preserving any other virtue. -- Archbishop Fulton Sheen
People think Uranium is rare, but it isn't. It is more common than Mercury or Silver. Caesium exists at three parts per million in the crust, but Uranium exists as high-grade ore at 200,000 ppm. That's as common as Tin or Zinc. Just from that, I would assume scientists have discovered some way to generate cheap power from Caesium, via electron production, and the entire nuclear story is just a cover.
Along with most people, I hadn't understood until today how prevalent Uranium is in the Earth's crust. Discovering that made me suspicious once more, because it doesn't make any sense, given the current theory of element production. Elements are said to be produced by fusion in stars. But most stars don't fuse past element number 2, Helium. None fuse past iron. Since Uranium is element number 92, it could only be produced by the very largest stars in collapse. It would spread out across the galaxy when they went supernova. But given how diffuse the galaxy is, you wouldn't expect planets to contain so much Uranium. I will be told that the galaxy is very old, so we have Uranium left over from eons of big stars going nova. Yes, but the half-life of Uranium is about 4.5 billion years, which is about half the lifespan of a star like the Sun. So while the Sun is alive, ¾ of the existing Uranium will break down. So you see, Uranium doesn't persist to be recycled through several star-cycles. We can't get that sort of buildup over time. Plus, since the Earth is said to be exactly that old, it would have originally had twice as much Uranium as now, doubling our problem.
This indicates to me that larger elements like Uranium may be created continuously in the galactic core, being ejected in large quantities into the galaxy from its center. Either that, or celestial bodies— even small ones like the Earth—must have some way of attracting Uranium. Since I have shown that all celestial bodies recycle the charge field, it may be that large elements are channeled very strongly to celestial bodies on the ambient charge field, being deposited constantly as the charge moves through the bodies from their poles. -- Miles Mathis
The President's advisers had given it a name – they called it “perception management” and it became a central part of the American Government during the 1980s. The aim was to tell dramatic stories that grabbed the public imagination, [...] and it didn't matter if the stories were true or not, providing they distracted people [...] from having to deal with the intractable complexities of the real world. Reality became less and less of an important factor in American politics. It wasn't what was real that was driving anything or the facts driving anything. It was how you could turn those facts or twist those facts or even make up the facts to make your opponent look bad. So, perception management became a device and the facts could be twisted. Anything could be anything. It becomes how can you manipulate the American people? And, in the process, reality becomes what? Reality becomes simply something to play with to achieve that end. Reality is not important in this context. Reality is simply something that you handle.
What we have seen is that these “nobles” are all or mostly Jewish and that they are lying to you all the time about everything. If that doesn't concern you, OK. They are stealing trillions from national treasuries worldwide, and taxing you for things they aren't delivering. If that doesn't concern you, OK. They have faked most of recent history, and they have done it to control and confuse you. If that doesn't concern you, OK. Many of the things they are delivering, like fluoride, vaccines, pesticides, “health” care, chemtrails, wireless radiation, pollution, sex de-education, pharmaceuticals, PEDs, fake science, modern art, and 24-hour propaganda on all topics are toxic. You are being forced to pay for your own disempowerment and your own destruction. If that doesn't concern you, OK. Go on as before. -- Miles Mathis
“Critics are often men who have failed. There are no monuments in the world built for critics. There is not a critical person in the world who is not in need of criticism.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Thoughts for Daily Living)
So shalt thou feed on death, that feeds on men,
And death once dead, there's no more dying then.
— Sonnet 146, William Shakespeare
Once America embarked upon the road to empire, it committed itself to the trajectory of rise and fall that The Book of Daniel described as the law of all human empires. St. Augustine said much the same thing about the Roman Empire which collapsed in his day. We are now witnessing something similar. The American Empire has reached a point of maximal overextension.
Instead of fulfilling his promise to return to the vision of America First and disengaging from foreign entanglements, Donald Trump has allied himself with the most extreme Zionist faction in Israel in a way that guarantees future conflict and has alienated the United States from the rest of the world, as evidenced by the recent UN resolution repudiating his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Trump did this to save his presidency from the Deep State's attempt to unseat him, but God is using his recklessness as a way of bringing about the dissolution of the very empire he wants to preserve, in an example of what Hegel called the cunning of reason.
Let us pray that the American Empire can pass from the stage of history peacefully, and that America can return to being the Republic that its founders intended.-- E Michael Jones
“That anyone could doubt the right of the holy Virgin to be called the Mother of God fills me with astonishment. Surely she must be the Mother of God if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, and she gave birth to him!”
— Saint Cyril of Alexandria
Make no mistake, the Divine Office is at the heart of the monastic life and our civilisation was largely built by monks. Nearly all the institutions we take for granted; law, medicine, natural sciences, agriculture, engineering, architecture, universities, hospitals, the systematic care for the poor, the sick, the elderly, education of children, even intangibles like the ordering of our societies according to a ranking from small towns to local governments, to nation states… all were built on this monastic foundation. Without monks there would simply have been no European civilisation. And without the Divine Office there would have been no monks.
The division of the days by the Church into “Canonical Hours” comes from the Roman method of time keeping. When the Apostles were still living in Jerusalem they already had the custom of praying together at midnight, and from this comes the night Office of Matins. Laudes is sung just before dawn, followed by Prime, so named because it is the first Office of the monk’s working day. Terce is usually around nine am, the “third hour” of the Roman business day. Then follows the “little hours” of Sext, the sixth hour at noon, and None, the ninth hour at our three pm. Vespers, the Latin name for evening, is sung between 4:30 and 6 pm depending on the time of year. The last office of the day, Compline, is usually done around 8pm after which monasteries traditionally observe silence until Matins.
This cycle of regular prayer times makes up the rhythm of the monastic day, and is called in the Rule the “Opus Dei,” the work of God, and the monk is to “prefer nothing” to it, not work, not sleep or food or any other thing. When the monk hears the bell for the Office, he is to immediately put down his pen or tools and hasten to the chapel for his tryst with Christ.
A monastery that observes the full Divine Office as described will be “in choir” singing the prayer of the Church for about five hours a day. The longest Office is Matins and takes between an hour and 90 minutes, depending on whether it is a solemn feast or a “feria,” a regular week day. The shortest is Compline which takes about 15 minutes and is always the same every day. (Monks often get up before 4 am so by 8:30 it’s best to have a short, simple “good night” prayer that is easy to memorise.)
At the start of each of the day’s Offices, bells will be rung and the monks will process into the church in pairs, genuflecting together to the Blessed Sacrament then turning and bowing to each other before entering their stalls on either side. When all are assembled the chant begins (except for Matins) with the same prayer; starting with a cantor intoning, “Deus in adiutorium meum intende,” the entire choir responds, “Domine, ad adiuvandum me, festina.” Then all make a profound bow from the waist at the doxology and response: “Gloria Patri et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper, et in secula seculorum, amen.” After this, an “antiphon,” usually a small snippet of the Psalm to be sung, is first intoned and then chanted by the full choir. Then the Psalm itself is chanted “antiphonally,” meaning each verse, divided up into two sections with a pause to breathe in between, is sung alternating between the two sides of the choir.
Each Psalm is concluded with the doxology and response: “Gloria patri…Sicut erat…” after which the antiphon is repeated. The Offices will have between three and five Psalms, each with their antiphons. After the Psalms, the whole Office is concluded with a brief “chapter” of Scripture, a little responsorial verse, a hymn, the Kyrie Eleison and the Pater Noster and the Collect (from the Mass for the day,) a short prayer for the dead and for the “absent brethren.”
This monastic practice of formal prayer is the main use, outside the Mass, of Gregorian Chant. The antiquity and timelessness of this form of music, and its absolute suitability for the purpose of praise and supplication of the Most High God is probably the reason for the enormous popularity of Gregorian Chant among secular people. It is, in a word, transporting, and once this sublime hint of heavenly reality is tasted, it is almost impossible to continue to ignore or dismiss the culture behind it. Those who participate regularly in it, even in a small way, can never again be content with the assumption that it was merely the hard work and diligence of the post-Imperial monastics that built the infrastructure of medieval European civilisation. In short, it wasn’t the elbow grease; it was the prayer and the response of God to that prayer.
Dom Paul Delatte, the second abbot of the monastery of St. Peter’s of Solesmes – the source of the great monastic revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries – writes in his commentary on the Rule on the distinction between private, personal prayer and the Divine Office... living always in the “gaze” of the lord, that “illumines all human activity”…
“In every place and at every moment we are able… sweet duty binds us to live before Him and do Him homage. This homage, however, is private, not official, and has its source in personal love; it is quite free in its expression and though it ever remains profoundly respectful, yet is it without forms and ceremonial. But the sacred liturgy pays God an official worship; and if God is not more present at the Divine Office than at private prayer, we are nevertheless especially bound to awaken and exercise our faith when we take part in this official audience, wherein all details are foreseen and all gestures regulated by the etiquette of God. God’s audience chamber is always open, but the Divine Office is a solemn levee.”
From this we can certainly see why this highly formalised kind of prayer so fell out of favour in the age of guitars and hand-holding, the “charismatic renewal” and the elevation of the “personal relationship with Jesus”. Ours is not a time when the solemn and courtly rituals of the ancient monarchical culture are considered worth reviving. But at the same time, and certainly for a generation of people deliberately deprived of any sense of historical rootedness there is a longing for this kind of connection with the past, with the higher realities and with the cultural identity it grants us. Too many of us have been the victims of this age’s Orwellian attempt to erase our identity and replace it with something small, cheap, false and manufactured.
In most of these stories, the mainstream doesn't care if you see anomalies, or if you think there are conspiracies. They don't care who you think might be involved. All they care about is that you believe it happened. The details are superfluous. They don't matter. What matters is the bottom line: that you believe the event happened. All these alternative histories sell the events at least as strongly as the mainstream ever did. -- Miles Mathis
The spooks assume that enough noise can drown out anything, but I have found by long experience that the truth tends to rise above the din by a music all its own. Somehow the truth just sounds different than a lie. It is in a different key, so that no amount of noise can cover it. -- Miles Mathis
Chess players aren't geniuses, since they don't even have the intelligence to see that chess is a completely meaningless skill. As usual, the game is promoted heavily for two main reasons: 1) to promote these children of the wealthy as fascinating when they aren't, 2) to promote a meaningless game to intelligent people as a viable use of their intelligence, to divert them from more meaningful uses.
They don't want intelligent people learning anything that might be useful to them later, or seeing through all the veils, so they have to misdirect them with an avalanche of petty and shallow shunts. Chess and other games are one such shunt. Sports are another. -- Miles Mathis
For those who would lump art in with sport as a meaningless leisure activity, a footnote in the game of life, I simply ask them to name an important sportsman before the 20th century. Most people won't be able to come up with a single one before, say, Babe Ruth. But even the most ignorant can name dozens of famous artists. Do we have any museums of ancient or classical sport? No, but every city has a museum of art, and the big cities have many. That is to say, the importance and power of art is generally recognized.
For that matter, can you name any famous businessmen before 1900, famous for business alone? You may be able to name a few rich guys, famous just for being rich, but most of them were born rich and the others were robber barons, with a totally negative influence on the world. Which is why there are no business museums devoted to showcasing the great work of businessmen. There is nothing tangible to put in such museums, for a start, and if you did have to come up with something you could only dig up all the dead bodies these guys were responsible for in wars and manufactured depressions. The museum would only house a pile of bones. -- Miles Mathis
They set these churches up for spectacular failure, usually with gigantic sex scandals—which blackwashes Christianity like nothing else could. -- Miles Mathis
"The Other Russia" is clearly a manufactured organization, created as a release valve for anti-Putin sentiment, but otherwise intended to be ineffectual. Compare it to the fake leftist organizations in the US like Occupy Wall Street, etc. -- Miles Mathis
We find the Harry Potter books selling many of the same points of other Intelligence projects, including the destruction of the family. Harry has no family, being adopted by “muggle” relatives who don't like him and whom he finds both ridiculous and contemptible. He is glad to leave them and go off to a boarding school where he never sees them. So the books are selling an updated version of Plato's The Republic, where children are taken from their parents by the State, divided into classes, and raised to serve the interests of the Elders. Children today are being taught to look upon their own parents as contemptible muggles and upon themselves as a superior class of magicians, who can potentially get whatever they wish with the proper spell. They will be happy to be taken from their witless parents and placed in fortified castles, as long as they are issued fake wands and are presided over by people in black robes. If you think that is a recipe for a healthy society or homelife, you need to cut your fluoride dosage. -- Miles Mathis
Harry Potter is often compared to The Lord of the Rings, but the comparison could not be less apt. Potter is actually an inversion of LOTR. In LOTR, the heroes are hobbits—short and unattractive common folk living on the land. They are the muggles of their time and place. But Potter reverses this, making common folk less than useless. Without a few high-born wizards like Harry to fight for them, the muggles would soon be wiped out. But in Potter, it is hard to understand why this wouldn't be good riddance. Tolkien made the hobbits ignorant and provincial, but through the actions and explanations of both Gandalf and Frodo, we understand why they are worth saving from the Dark Lord. In Potter, we have none of that, the muggles as described being completely expendable. This is no accident, since it is exactly how the current Elders see it.
This is also useful in understanding muggles: "If, by unfortunate means, non-magical people do happen to observe the working of magic, the Ministry of Magic sends Obliviators to cast Memory Charms upon them causing them to forget the event." [From the Wiki page on muggles]. Just substitute “agent” for “Obliviator”, “non-agent” for “non-magical person”, “Intel hoax” for “magical event”, CIA for “Ministry of Magic”, and “propaganda blitz” for Memory Charm: "If, by unfortunate means, non-agents do happen to see through obvious hoaxes, the CIA sends agents to confuse and misdirect them, causing them to forget the event."
Throughout the entire seven books in the series, “magic” is always just a pointer to Intel. They are the magicians. The agents are wizards in training, and the muggles are civilians. Everything in all the plots has a pretty transparent analogy to something in Intelligence, with Hogwarts being the Intel Academy, and so on. -- Miles Mathis
In the decades leading up to the 1990s, Intelligence had finally realized its centuries-long dream of absolute control of all media. Even after gaining control of “The Mighty Wurlitzer” in the 1960s and 70s, it took a couple of decades for Intelligence and its masters to decide what they wished to do with it. They needed some time to compose their “great songs”. But by the 1990s, they had completed not only the apparatus, but a playlist. Over the past 20 years this playlist has been put into heavy rotation, at first slowly but with accelerating speed. Not only was a vastly enlarged repertoire of faked events made possible, but a vastly enlarged library of manufactured artifacts was as well. Intelligence has dumped an impressive load of pseudo-science, pseudo-literature and pseudo-art on the shores of the world in the past score of years, all of it composed by ghost committees in the bowels and dungeons of the various linked agencies. No “art” or “science” now gets done that isn't imagined, moulded, and promoted to advance some nasty and shallow agenda. That is your New World Order in a nutshell. -- Miles Mathis
Committees do not create real art, have deep or new ideas, or show any independence of thought... because they are not paid to do so. They are paid to cobble together semi-convincing propaganda. And of course this propaganda is going to be written for and appeal to artistically limited people: it was meant to. -- Miles Mathis
Wicca was manufactured by Gerald Gardner in the 1950s, and Gardner was an MI6 protege of Aleister Crowley. Intelligence has been hiding behind the Occult for centuries, as we saw very clearly with the fake Salem Witch Trials. -- Miles Mathis
As I see it, the current Elders aren't Satanists. They are just thieves. They want to steal as much easy money as possible, as far as possible without you noticing. They then use Satanism as another scare tactic, in case you notice. They want you to think they are powerfully evil people, so that you don't even think of taking them on. In other words, it is all a bluff. Yes, they currently control a lot of armed people and may rub you out if they feel they have to. I am not saying they won't. But as individuals, they are not powerful wizards. They are just the opposite.
This is what Frank Baum was telling us in The Wizard of Oz, though few got the message. They are weak and shallow people in a precarious and vulnerable position, and they know that. Their position will always be vulnerable because they are always fighting that innate sense of right and wrong inside everyone, even themselves. You may think you cannot win, but it is they who cannot win. Because they have set themselves against Nature herself, even as they win they lose. As they reach out to take in their hands all they have worked for centuries to achieve, it slips away like mist. What they had thought would taste sweet tastes only bitter. -- Miles Mathis
Why should lasting values tremble if transient things fall? ~St. Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 390 – c. 455 AD)
“The Russian peasantry for centuries has propagated a curious tradition. It is about an old woman, the Baboushka, who was at work in her house when the wise men came from the East and passed on their way to Bethlehem to find the Child. Come with us, they said. We have seen his star in the East, and we go to worship Him. I will come but not now, I have much housework to do and when that is finished, I will follow and find him. But her work was never done. And the Three Kings had passed on their way across the desert, and the star shone no more in the darkened heavens. Baboushka never saw the Christ Child, but she is still living and searching for Him. And though she did not find Him, out of love for Him, she takes care of all His children. The tradition has it that she believes that in each poor child whom she warms and feeds, she may find the Christ Child whom she neglected long ago. But she is not doomed to disappointment, for the Divine Child said ‘he who receives one of these little ones in my name, receives me.” -- Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Rejoice)
Lao-Tze who first put it into words for me, helping me to clarify my intuition. He taught that we only have the right to our labors, not to the fruits of our labors. Most people would read that quote from Lao-Tze and complain that we do have a right to the fruits. That is what a large part of the law is about: getting a fair wage for work done, etc. But if you were a student of Lao-Tze, he would scold you and recommend you study the first part of the quote, not the second. Rather than complain about the unfairness of the second part, notice how comforting the first part is. We do have the right to our labors.
Someone who really understands that is unstoppable, because they will continue their labors even without payment and without recognition. -- Miles Mathis
No, the Protocols are a pretty transparent fiction, and it is clear they were written and promoted by the aristocracy. But does this make the aristocracy the bad guys and the Jewish financiers the good guys? No.
As I have said before, when you get these warring parties, they often tell the truth about each other, but lie about themselves. We see the same thing here. Like almost everything else promoted in the past two centuries, this document is a strange mixture of truth and propaganda, and you have to enter the bog with a pretty good map to make it to the other side. The aristocrats who wrote and promoted this document are revealing a great deal of genuine information about how the world is being controlled, and by whom. This is why when Henry Ford was asked about the Protocols, he said only, “They fit in with what is going on.” True enough.
A reader comes away with the idea—not promoted until then— that the world was being run by a group of powerful and hidden financiers intent upon remolding the world on a master plan. The reader also came away with the idea that this plan included destroying religion, undermining education, quashing liberalism and Republicanism, and hiding behind Marxism. In addition, this plan included controlling the press and all other information, lying as a primary form of governance, and a total destruction of the individual.
All true.
The claim that this document is a white paper from a Jewish meeting is false. And yet many of the facts about world governance leaked in the document are true.
I have said that the aristocrats have leaked a lot of true information about their opponents. But does that mean that everything they say here is true? Of course not.
The entire document is set up as Old World versus New World. They want to expose the New World as a fraud perpetrated by financiers. But once they have convinced you of that fraud, they want you to go back to the Old World, which they ruled. So they repeat all the Old World myths about mob rule, about the majority of people being bad, and so on. They mix this with some half truths about hierarchies, and the reader is expected to give up on liberalism, Republicanism, freedom, and individualism once and for all.
Remember, the aristocrats are blackwashing GOLD and GREED, because they know those two words are easy to connect to the Jews. But how did the aristocrats get where they were? That's right. GOLD and GREED. Blue blood is just blood that has had GOLD for many generations. It is OLD MONEY instead of NEW MONEY. But still, it is all about money. Blue blood is no guarantee of ability of any kind, as we know. Or, it is about the ability to steal and hoard gold and nothing else. -- Miles Mathis
Yes, there are natural hierarchies. Yes, people are not equal and never will be. Yes, some people are adept at some jobs and some are adept at others. Yes, society should be led by leaders, and not all people are leaders. Yes, democracy—taken too far—leads to endless squabbles and chronic inefficiency. But does that mean the only viable government is a vicious top-down control by vulgar rich people who a) don't believe in God, or b) believe they are God's chosen rulers? No and a thousand times no. The answer is not either an anointed aristocracy or a self-appointed cabal of financiers. The answer is NEITHER.
The rather obvious fact of the matter is that neither the aristocrats nor the financiers have done a good job of ruling. They have only done a good job at tooting their own horns and preying on the rest of us. I have news for both of them: looting your constituency is not governing it. Strip-mining the world is not governing it. Lying all the live-long day is not governing. -- Miles Mathis
Most humans have a natural talent for discipline when it is required and encouraged. Even now, when it is least encouraged, most people show incredible amounts of discipline and restraint—which is what the false governors rely on. -- Miles Mathis
As a good analogy, think of domestic pets. Dogs or cats in a house run by intelligent and kind people are glorious little beasts, loving and happy around the clock. Their fur glows, they are beautiful and shining, and they purr or wag for hours on end. Conversely, dogs or cats in a house run by corrupt and predatory people are likewise corrupt. They are dirty, ugly and miserable. They tend to be either vicious or neurotic.
Well, don't we see precisely the same thing in human society? Yes, in contemporary society, we see a fantastic number of vicious or neurotic people: miserable, ugly, and shedding their anger and discontent all over the house and town. But does this mean that people are naturally bad? No, not any more than the vicious and neurotic dogs and cats mean that dogs and cats are naturally bad.
As pets are a reflection of their owners, citizens are a reflection of their leaders. -- Miles Mathis
The problems in the world now are, by and large, not problems that come from human nature. Yes, there are problems with human nature, and those problems will persist under any governance, benevolent or not. But the wickedness of human nature has been vastly oversold, and it has been oversold to mask the real cause of wickedness in the world: leadership by the corrupt. The more corrupt the leadership is, the more it tries to sell you the idea of corrupt human nature. -- Miles Mathis
The war between the aristocrats and financiers is over, ending roughly with the fall of the Romanovs and the end of WW1. Yes, the financiers won, and they won pretty decisively. But the aristocrats were able to strike a bargain, by which they saved face and kept a tithe of their old privilege. They were able to do this only because the financiers needed someone to hide behind. Having all the charisma of a bag of dirty socks, they could not rule in the open. So they have ruled since then by hiding behind Kings and Queens and Presidents and Parliaments and Congresses, padding the Congresses with actors and other celebrities. In exchange for this, the aristocrats agreed to no longer trouble the financiers with their plots and schemes. Both the financiers and the aristocrats conspire to build the MATRIX you live in, and all you have to do is follow their suggestions. -- Miles Mathis
If aliens are watching us—as some think—and if they were given permission to break the noninterference clause, they would change human society most quickly by targeting a few dozen people. If they replaced the right 50 people, say, with benevolent look-alikes, human history would reverse overnight.
With that idea in mind, ask yourself how that could be achieved without alien interference. It won't be achieved by voting, will it, since those 50 people aren't elected. It won't be achieved by murder, since even if those 50 could be killed, they would just be replaced by the corrupt ones around them. It won't be achieved by legislation, since those 50 are above all laws. It won't be achieved by an infowar, since those people and their minions control far more means of suggestion and influence than you and yours ever will.
If those aliens are watching, they are waiting for us to make that jump and finally show the potential we have. I suspect they are amazed we have been stalled for so long. They must be amazed that an entire planet can be purposely stalled by a few families for many centuries, just for their personal enrichment —while those same families remain miserable. We are all caught in the manufactured nightmare of a few hundred related people, and since they cannot wake we also cannot. A strange circumstance, assuredly, but nothing is predestined or necessary about it. It could end at any moment. -- Miles Mathis
We were assured that wearing the black hat was more thrilling, but found with experience it wasn't so. Even Yoda tells us the dark side is more seductive. But is it? Not really. It is sold with a greater fanfare, but I have found its levels of seduction to be minimal. -- Miles Mathis
You have a choice how to live with your pets, and that choice is pretty much a one-way street. You have the power, and they don't have much to say about it. In most cases, they can't harm you, so you can do whatever you like. So if you treat them well, that is only because you choose to. You like to be the generous guy who is kind to his pets, because you like that image of yourself. But it goes beyond that. You like the response from your pets, who treat you like a god. They come when you call (even if they are cats), they sleep next to you like loving children, and they fill the house with beauty and contentedness. You feel like a beneficent ruler of your house, where all is magical and blessed. You amaze yourself that you created that. No, you didn't create the pets or their responses, but you created the atmosphere, and you didn't have to. Many people don't.
But unless you really are a saint, odds are you created that atmosphere mainly for yourself. That sort of household appeals to you not because you are so concerned for the well being of those beasts, but because you are so concerned about your self image and your own contentedness. You find that household preferable for yourself.
Anyway, I don't think it is hard to blow this household pet story up into an analogy of human society. You probably saw where I was going before I got there. Those currently running society don't suddenly have to become saints for things to change. They just have to come to the (perhaps wholly selfish) realization that ruling a contented society is far more pleasant and satisfying for them than tyrannizing one.
Good rulers are more likely to like themselves and be surrounded by people who like them, which is not an intangible reward. Because of this they are more likely to sleep well and have good digestion. This leads to fewer ailments, better health, and higher levels of physical beauty. All tangible. They also age more slowly, which appears to be high on the list of the superwealthy.
Because they aren't looting the world, they also aren't polluting it to the same extent, which means they themselves don't have to dodge those pollutants. Again, better health for them and their children, which is tangible.
For the same reason, they don't have to worry so much about security. Loved rulers need far less security than hated ones. Spying on your constituents all day and night takes a lot out of you. If the superwealthy wish to live longer and healthier, they should start by being better rulers. Just think about it: If you aren't lying and stealing all the time, you don't need all the security and spying. Once all that is gone, it will be like removing a clamp from your chest: you will breathe so much easier. Tangible. -- Miles Mathis
The red pill, though difficult to swallow at first, later becomes far easier to digest than the blue pill. This is because the blue pill, though familiar, was indigestible to start with. It was a pill of contradictions, impossibilities, and absurdities, and you could have never advanced past a certain level while trying to make it your sustenance. -- Miles Mathis
"A man's inability to state his opponent's view; and often his inability even to state his own." ~G.K. Chesterton: 'The Slavery of the Mind.'
History attests that religion has not encroached upon the temporal sphere, but rather jealous temporal rulers have invaded the spiritual. Sometimes these rulers were kings and princes, even so-called ‘Catholic defenders of the faith.’ Today they are dictators.” -- Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (Characters of the Passion)
Most humans are muddled to some extent, but writing by committee and computer program allows a wide-ranging inconsistency that isn't even consistent with its own inconsistency. That is to say, a real person is normally inconsistent in a consistent way, and as a fellow human you can spot the patterns in that person fairly quickly. But a committee won't have those tight patterns of inconsistency. A committee will be inconsistent with itself
You don't need to mind-control a committee sitting around a table. You just hire people who will write what they are told and then pass around a program on a sheet of paper. Very old school, requiring no tech at all. -- Miles Mathis
