“If a box is filled with salt, it cannot be filled with sand, and if our hearts are filled with hatred of our neighbor, how can God fill them with His love? We must forgive others, for on no other condition will our own sins be forgiven. It is as simple as that. There can be and there will be no mercy toward us unless we ourselves are merciful. The real test of the Christian then is not how much he loves his friends, but how much he loves his enemies.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (The Rainbow of Sorrow)
"SOME people do not like the word 'dogma.' Fortunately they are free, and there is an alternative for them. There are two things, and two things only, for the human mind — a dogma and a prejudice. The Middle Ages were a rational epoch, an age of doctrine. Our age is, at its best, a poetical epoch, an age of prejudice. A doctrine is a definite point; a prejudice is a direction. That an ox may be eaten, while a man should not be eaten, is a doctrine. That as little as possible of anything should be eaten is a prejudice; which is also sometimes called an ideal." ~GKC: 'What's Wrong with the World.'
There are two things, and two things only, for the human mind — a dogma and a prejudice. The Middle Ages were a rational epoch, an age of doctrine. Our age is, at its best, a poetical epoch, an age of prejudice. A doctrine is a definite point; a prejudice is a direction. - Chesterton
“What right have we to hate others, since our own selfishness is often the cause of their hatred. The first word from the Cross and the Beatitude of meekness both demand that we tear up self-love by the roots; love our executioners; do a favor for those who insult us; be kind to the thieves who accuse us of theft; be forgiving to liars who denounce us for lying; be charitable to the adulterers who charge us with impurity. Be glad and rejoice for their hate. It will only harm our pride, but not our character; it will cauterize our conceit, but not blemish our soul – for the very insult of the world is the consecration of our goodness.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (The Cross and the Beatitudes)
It should go without saying that real artists don't come out of the military, since real artists never considering going into the military in the first place. Nothing could be more contrary to the artistic sensibility than anything to do with the military.
Real artists also do not go into art history, because they don't need to. Real artists are art history. It would be like Michael Jordan coming out of the school of basketball history. -- Miles Mathis
Anyway, to make a long story short, the Muggles were an early Jewish project against Christianity, created to make it look foolish. -- Miles Mathis
It shows how much our governors really care about diversity or representation. They claim to be very careful to represent minorities, but here they forgot to represent the majority. A majority that isn't represented at all isn't really a viable majority, is it? It is simply a slave population. -- Miles Mathis
The famous explorers were also Marranos. -- Miles Mathis
In the circles I grew up in, exposing fraud was not seen as virtuous, it was seen as antisocial. Of course, as I look back, I can now see that was part of the long project: to educate nice people that part of being nice was looking away on cue. Only in the movies do good people face down evil: in real life good people go on quietly with their lives and don't make trouble. -- Miles Mathis
Masonic influence in the Muggletonians from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggletonianism
"When the one reprobate angel was tossed from heaven to earth, he perished, but not before impregnating Eve so that Cain was born to perpetuate his frustrated rage upon this earth. The natural process of generation ensured that, even by the time of Noah, all humans had within themselves something from Seth and something from Cain. Muggletonians call this the doctrine of the two seeds: the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The former promoted faith within us, the latter promoted reasoning and desire. This is the conflict within every person."
This is also what the Masons claim. That is why they are 'Sons of the Widow", the Widow being Eve who was widowed when Lucifer was ejected from the Garden.
"THE MASONIC LEGEND has points of variance from as well as agreement with the Bible story. It states that Jehovah created EVE, that the Lucifer Spirit SAMAEL united with her but that he was ousted by Jehovah and forced to leave her before the birth of her son Cain, who was thus THE SON OF A WIDOW."
Other interesting things about the original Muggles in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggletonianism
"Reason is not seen as a sublime mental process but as a rather shoddy trick humans use to try to get what they misguidedly imagine they want."
"The reprobate angel was not at fault."
"Professor Lamont sees 17th century Muggletonianism as an early form of liberation theology."
Anyway, by that point I could see that the main thesis of this film was steering young girls away from guys and towards their careers —where they could make the most money for their bosses. -- Miles Mathis
I don't like being caught in the middle of this obnoxious war of the Jews against the Catholics. Let them arm wrestle over it or something: it doesn't have to ruin every movie, every work of art, every published piece, and every news story. -- Miles Mathis
Pathetic, as usual. But it again sells the American dream, which consists of lusting after the neighbors' possessions. “Oh, if we just had money we would so happy!” Which makes the middle class work harder and bow to their bosses' and banks' and government's every demands. -- Miles Mathis
"The birthrate in China fell last year, alarming government officials who had confidently predicted a baby boom following their relaxation of the one-child policy."
“Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again”; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, “Do it again” to the sun; and every evening, “Do it again” to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.” -- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
"A single train moves the same load as 280 tractor trailers and a ton of freight can go some 400 miles on a single gallon of fuel." - CSX commercial
"Where passenger trains are present, railroads may need to maintain their tracks to a different standard. On curves, for example, the outside rail is elevated above the inside rail to bank the turn. The amount of elevation depends on the speed of the trains. Faster passenger trains require higher elevations. All trains put more weight on the lower rail as they round the curve. Passenger trains are relatively light and put little wear and tear on the track but heavy freight trains going through these curves can cut in half the amount of time rail can safely be used—consequently there are higher maintenance costs."
"The U.S. government subsidizes highways, airports, and ports directly; and gasoline and electricity indirectly via foreign policy and support of the oil and gas industry; so there's no surprise that trains need subsidies as well to compete.
America has had a history of government support for transportation. In the early Nineteenth Century governments built canals to link natural waterways. In the second half of that century, government support took the form of land grants to and bond purchases from railroads. In the 1950's, Eisenhower launched the interstate highway system.
Increased regulation of the railroads and subsidies for highways and air transportation heavily tipped the playing field against trains of all types. We spent massively to create the highway network, and the result is that it is now the backbone of most Americans’ daily commutes. There was nothing natural about that process. If President Eisenhower had waited until (1) he had all the cash on hand, (2) all the lines drawn on a map and (3) all the naysayers on board; America would not boast the state-of-the-art interstate highway system we have today."
James Kidd analyzes "Ayn Rand"
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/jkidd_aynrand_apr2011.asp
In Rand's view, the entirety of the world's problems can be traced back to altruism, which she defines as "the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self."
"The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption."
Freemasonic Ethos
Rand believes that there are two classes of people: the "creators" (inventors, intellectuals, businessmen, and all others who use their minds to create something useful) and those she calls looters or second-handers, inferior beings who spend their pitiful lives mooching off the creators and their creations like parasites.
According to Rand, "looters" have always been around and have always been dependent on the kindness and compassion of the creators for their own sustenance. But centuries ago, the looters made the creators' benevolence toward them obligatory. In other words, one man's need placed a moral burden on the one who had the resources to relieve it. Ever since then, anything and everything the creators produced was claimed as the rightful property of everyone else. Thus was born the evil of altruism.
This conception of altruism, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to some heinous results, as Rand explains:
"Your code [altruism] hands out, as its version of the absolute, the following rule of moral conduct: If you wish it, it's evil; if others wish it, it's good; if the motive of your action is your welfare, don't do it; if the motive is the welfare of others, then anything goes. ..."
Rand places religion—especially Christianity—at the heart of the great deception that made every man a servant but none a master. It was religious belief, by supposedly rejecting reason and replacing it with an irrational "faith," that gave birth to altruism. From then on, self-interest was discouraged and self-giving was required. Of course, part of the reason for religion's ascent, according to Rand, was that it appealed to those at the bottom of the social ladder. It gave them an opportunity to revel in their worthlessness and justified their demands on those at the top.
From this was born socialism, which sought to take power away from natural leaders and place it in the hands of the unwashed masses. In fact, Rand sees religious believers and socialists as two sides of the same coin: Religionists (or "mystics of spirit," as she calls them) preach that all man's activities should be in service to God, while socialists (or "mystics of muscle") preach that all man's activities should be in service to "society."
First, her critique of socialism is largely correct. The alleged ambition of socialism is taking charitable motives and sentiments and codifying them into law. The goals of socialists and "progressives" can be characterized as taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have-nots," all in the name of justice.
So is Catholic morality guilty of Rand's charges? Does it mandate self-donation, corrupting both the giver and the recipient and destroying the very concept of charity? If not, how are we to understand the words of Christ and of the Church regarding the virtue of charity?
A proper understanding of charity recognizes the difference between the cardinal virtue of Justice and the theological virtue of Charity. Justice consists of what is required of us, or giving each man his due. Charity, on the other hand, goes above and beyond what is required of us.
Thus the phrase "obligation of charity" is an oxymoron. The concepts of obligation and Charity are mutually exclusive: If something is obligatory (say, adhering to the terms of a contract), then fulfilling it is not an act of Charity - it is an act of Justice; if an act is recognized as charitable (say, holding an elevator for a stranger), then it is not mandatory in any way.
So in the same way that the New Law of Christ goes above and beyond the Old Law without wiping it out, Charity exceeds Justice while not replacing it. Christ institutes the New Law not as a set of new mandates but as an exhortation to go above and beyond the existing ones. Christ does not modify the virtue of Justice; He introduces the virtue of Charity to give high achievers something even better to aim at. But Charity remains distinct from Justice. Or, in terms of the old theological dictum, grace does not destroy nature; it presupposes and perfects it.
Unfortunately, though, a lack of clarification has led to a misunderstanding of the virtue of Charity. Nevertheless, Rand's devastating critique of altruism serves to help clarify the nature of true Charity: It is not required, but it is still good.
Cardinal Virtues are acquired through reason applied to nature. They are:
Prudence
Justice
Temperance
Fortitude
The Theological Virtues were given to us by Christ. They are:
Faith
Hope
Charity (Agape)
The Angelic Virtues are impossible for us to emulate without constant prayer. They are:
Chastity (Castitas)
Temperance (Temperantia)
Charity (Caritas)
Diligence (Industria)
Patience (Patientia)
Kindness (Humanitas)
Humility (Humilitas)
Note that Charity is sufficiently complex to be listed twice: once in the Theological Virtues, and another time in the Angelic Virtues. Of the definitions below, 1 - 4 demand only physical effort (Corporal Works of Mercy). 5 is pity (not a virtue). 6, 7 require a mental change that would require constant prayer to maintain.
On Pity:
In English, pity is related to the word piety, from the Latin pietas. Piety in its classical sense is a form of reciprocal justice that governs the relationships between parties who are not equal. A man shows piety to a god by offering sacrifice, the god shows piety by having pity – often translated in English as mercy – on the worshiper, and helping him in his need. Children show piety to parents by obedience and respect, parents show piety (pity) to children in providing for them and governing them justly. A host shows piety by caring for his guest, who shows piety by not overstaying his welcome.
This form of piety is not a specifically Christian virtue; it is, for example, a major theme in The Odyssey and The Aeneid. Pity is derived from the virtue of Justice, a virtue first recognized by the Pagans.
Jesus shows pity in the New Testament when healing lepers or feeding the crowds. Even his preaching is shown as an expression of pity for those “who are like sheep without a shepherd”. If there is anything we can call Christian pity, it is this sort of pity which might move one to dedicate his life to caring for the sick and the poor. In this case it is not related to “pietas” as much as it is related to “caritas”, the Christian virtue of Charity. Granted, in our modern world there are plenty of people who do that without a shred of religious motivation, but that is only because the modern world was formed by Christianity. In the ancient world no one would display that sort of behavior, except to family members as a matter of piety.
So the properly Christian virtue is not pity, but charity: the Christian is called to reflect (to some degree or another) God’s universal love. Pity is based on recognition of mutual humanity and the virtue of Justice. Christian Charity is based on an imitation of divine love.
In "The Antichrist", Frederick Nietzsche starts his attack on Christianity with an attack on the "virtue" of pity. Christianity is the religion of pity, he says. According to Nietzsche, the obligation of pity forces us to identify with the suffering of others to the point of suffering with them, increasing the net misery of humanity and spreading pain like a virus. The prime example of this would be Christians contemplating the sufferings of Christ, needlessly increasing their own misery. Worse, pity is anti-evolution, since it makes us care for the sick and malformed who are better off dying for the benefit of the race, and their presence makes the rest of us morbid.
https://truthandtolerence.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/is-pity-a-christian-virtue/
We have seen in previous papers that most of history is a fraud, made up or rewritten by the ruling families for their own purposes. In most cases I have been able to show that rather than being a total fiction, it is a palimpsest: an overwrite of the real history, with small or large parts of the actual story existing beneath the current version. For this reason, with some amount of work we can recreate the real history by paring away the later lies and accretions. To a good eye, the truth can be seen through the layers of deception. Think of the Princess and the Pea. Just as she could feel the pea through any number of mattresses, I can spot the truth through any number of lies.
Admittedly, the further back in time we go the more difficult this is. There are fewer clues and therefore less truth to latch onto. However, because the overall form of the deception has remained pretty much the same over the centuries, we can use our knowledge of newer deceptions to decode older ones. The puzzle pieces are fewer, that is, but they fit together in the same general way. The same people are telling the same basic lies, so an investigator can build the same case with fewer and fewer clues. -- Miles Mathis
"THE new method of journalism is to offer so many comments or, at least, secondary circumstances that there is actually no room left for the original facts." ~GKC: 'Illustrated London News,' Nov. 6, 1909.
In order to explain situation ethics, one must first understand the importance of the sources and consequences of human actions.
The goodness or badness of a human action is discovered by examining the three dimensions or sources of the human action. The first source is called the object or what-ness of the action, which we learn by asking: "What am I doing?" Normally, in order to answer this question about a given human action, more information is needed than can be gained by witnessing the action. However, there are some human actions whose object or what-ness is totally obvious by merely witnessing them. Such actions, in and of themselves, are intrinsically evil and must never be done. Such actions include contraception, abortion, and euthanasia.
If it is determined that the human action in question is bad in its object, then we do not need to ask any additional questions to determine the moral species of the human action. Neither a good intention, a particular set of circumstances, nor a good consequence can make a bad what or object good.
If the object of the action is good, then we must consider the intention and circumstances of the action. The intention of the action is learned by asking: "Why am I doing it?" A good intention cannot make a bad action good, but a bad intention can make an otherwise good action bad, even if the object of the action is good.
The circumstances of the action ("How, when, where am I doing it?") can also make a human action bad.
In addition to the sources of the human action, we must also consider its consequences. We are responsible for the foreseen consequences of our actions. Some of the consequences of our actions are foreseeable consequences but not foreseen consequences. If this is the case, we must determine if and to what extent we are blameworthy for neglect or for not taking the time to look beyond the tips of our noses.
To practice discernment in this area, it is essential to nurture the virtue of prudence. We learn about the nature of the foreseen consequences of our actions by asking: "What if I do it?" If we can foresee that evil will result directly from our action, we must refrain from performing it. A foreseen bad consequence can make a human action - including a human action with a good object - bad.
Thus, for a human action to be good, it must be good in all its sources and its foreseen consequences. This is a very important truth to recognize in the face of the three currently predominant ideologies: situation ethics, utilitarianism, and proportionalism. According to situation ethics, as long as you have a good intention, you may do anything to fulfill it. For example, contracepting in order to regulate the size of one's family, or getting an abortion in order to be able to fulfill one's career objectives. This approach to evaluating the morality of human actions excludes consideration of the object or what-ness of the human action. Normally, situation ethics, focused as it is on accommodating human actions to the circumstances, rejects any consideration of foreseen consequences.
"Afterwards... you know how they screw up the evidence...there won't be a straight story to get anywhere... and they hope to fool the country... and you... that they're acting to protect you from violence... " -- "Ayn Rand"
Well, it's very suspicious that nearly everyone that could have identified this Phillip the Bold died in a short span of months, and he himself disappeared for nine months. Are we sure the same Prince returned to France that left it? -- Miles Mathis
In trying to unwind this story, I was reminded that in subsequent events, we found that the truth was normally 180 degrees from the story we were told. If we were told black, the truth was white. If we were told day, the truth was night. So I thought to myself, “What would it mean if the Crusades were 180 degrees from the truth? What would that entail?” Well, it would mean that Western Europe wasn't invading or conquering Jerusalem: no, Jerusalem was invading and conquering Western Europe. But how might it accomplish that, short of an overt invasion? We have no evidence of an overt invasion— as in big Jewish armies moving from east to west; so do we have evidence of a covert invasion? Yes, we do. I have shown you piles of evidence in later centuries, so we should look for similar evidence in earlier centuries, the centuries of the Crusades. -- Miles Mathis
Just as a for instance, say the 7th Crusade to Egypt happened somewhat like we are told. Say Louis went to Egypt, got captured, and had to be ransomed. Say some Jewish financiers were involved in the exchange of monies, and say one of them had the idea to insert spies into the returning Royal entourage. Say they were even partially successful in that, getting a man or two to Paris. Well, one of them may have had this brilliant idea:
"Say, Abe, next time one of these stupid Western Kings gets his ass underwater in the East, instead of ransoming him, why don't we kill him and ransom his son? These dopes always travel with their sons, right? Even better, why don't we replace his son with an impostor?"
"But Lev, that won't work. Someone will recognize him and blow his cover."
"No, we will create his entourage as well with the most western looking lads we can find, and then just poison anyone who could recognize him outside that entourage."
"That might work on the way back, but it can't work in Paris. We can't poison half of Paris."
"We won't have to. We only have to poison a few key players: his father and anyone on the crusade will already be dead, so we will only have to kill, say, his wife, his uncle, maybe a sister or brother-in-Law. Others we can pay off. "
"It couldn't be that easy! Could it?"
"I don't know, we can only try. It's risky, sure, but think of the payoff. If we fail, we lose a couple of brothers. If we win, we take an entire country."
Think of it like a game of chess. Jews have always been great at chess. [I find chess too boring to bother with, if anyone should ask. I find it about as fascinating as bingo, without the payoff.] If the stories of the Crusades are true, these Western Kings were terrible at it. Imagine marching your King right out in front of all your pawns. You are just asking for trouble. But if what we are told is true, it was even worse than that. In this 8th Crusade, Louis allegedly took both his sons with him, and these sons took their wives, and they all camped right on the shore of the Mediterranean, waiting for six weeks for the other half of his force to arrive. This after getting his ass handed to him by Africans just fifteen years earlier. So basically he had the IQ of a retarded chimp. Are you really going to tell me the Jews couldn't pull one over on his entourage? -- Miles Mathis
When the Crusaders eventually returned to Western Europe, they carried with them the genes of all these Eastern wives they had taken. They also carried with them other family members in the entourage, who also married at court once they returned. In this way, the longterm effect of the Crusades was not a conquering of Jerusalem, Palestine, or the Middle East, it was the reverse: an infiltration of Western royal lines by Eastern families. We saw this later when the Medicis and Jagiellons and Vasas married into the royal houses of Europe, but it had been going on back to the First Crusade, and before.
You will say it worked both ways and was just another example of worldwide miscegenation, and to some extent that is true. The difference being, it now appears the Jews had a plan while the Gentiles didn't. The Crusaders had no intention of infiltrating Jewish or Turkish or Arabic royal houses, since they apparently didn't even see that as a desirable goal. If they took Eastern wives, it was only because these women were beautiful or alluring. But in the reverse direction, there was definitely a plan, otherwise the Jews would have married their daughters to Europeans indiscriminately. Instead, we see them marrying only kings or other top nobility. In most other cases, the Jews were far more strict about marrying their own.
If we look closely, we can tell who is rewriting this history. Almost without exception, the Jewish protagonists remain in the shadows. You usually don't hear about them, and the few times Jews are mentioned in these stories, it is as helpless victims, being slaughtered for no apparent reason. In these stories of the Crusades, we are told the Crusaders were sent by the Pope to free the holy lands from malicious Arabs, but if that is the case why would we be slaughtering Jews? It never makes any sense. Given what we know about later history, a more likely scenario is that it is the Jews who wanted the holy lands cleansed of these Arabs, and it was they who were inviting and paying the Crusaders to come. [That is the story of that region to this day, although the Crusaders are now from the US.] We have already seen evidence of that above, since it is admitted the Byzantine emperors asked for help from the Pope. That is what started the Crusades. Well, I just showed you the Byzantine emperors at the time were Komnenos, and they were very likely of Jewish descent. -- Miles Mathis
Frankly, this 6th Crusade looks totally fabricated, which would explain Frederick's excommunication: he never went. He could have achieved the same treaty without ever showing up, couldn't he? It would also explain the lack of a battle. Did the Sultan actually cede anything? It is doubtful. It looks to me like he was busy elsewhere, so the Europeans simply claimed Jerusalem while he was away. In 1244 (just 15 years later) he returned from the East and put a final end to all their empty claims. I'd be interested to see Egypt's copy of this treaty, giving Jerusalem up without a fight. My guess is it either doesn't exist or is written on a Big Chief tablet. -- Miles Mathis
"Masonic initiation rites include the reenactment of a set on the Temple Mount while it was under construction. Every Masonic Lodge, therefore, is symbolically the Temple for the duration of the degree and these may either be built into the hall or be portable. Among the most prominent are replicas of the pillars Boaz and Jachin through which every initiate has to pass, a number of churches and synagogues have been designed to evoke the Temple."
The word Templars comes from the Temple of Solomon. Don't you find it curious to see them connecting themselves overtly to the Temple of Solomon? Would Christians be more likely to do that, or. . . say. . . Jews? The Temple was where the Ark of the Covenant was housed, and the Ark contained the original stone Ten Commandments and the rod of Aaron. Most Christians couldn't care less about the rod of Aaron. Also curious that the King of Jerusalem set up his Templum Domini on the Dome of the Rock, where the Jewish Temple had been. Note that the King didn't call that the Templum Christi or Templum Jesu. Just the Templum Domini, which could be any Lord—Christian, Jewish, or other.
From what I understand, the early Christians were more interested in the life and teachings of Christ, not in Jewish temples. So why were the Crusaders so interested in Jerusalem and its Jewish holy sites? We are told it was for Christian pilgrims, but I have never been clear on that concept. I don't remember Christ teaching his flock to take pilgrimages to Jewish holy sites, so that they could bow down and venerate Old Testament figures and hoodoo. Isn't it more likely that it was prominent Jews that were so interested in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount? -- Miles Mathis
Being from the same family, there is no chance the King of France was an enemy of the Templars. Let me make this really easy for you: the Templars were rulers of Champagne and the King of France was also the ruler of Champagne. They were the same people. So it is logically impossible for one party here to have destroyed the other party. For what we have been told to be true, the rulers of Champagne would have had to destroy themselves. So the end of the Templars was just another hoax. They didn't end, they just changed names. The assets remained in the same family, they just shuffled the paperwork. -- Miles Mathis
"The Komnenos dynasty was very much involved in crusader affairs, and also intermarried with the reigning families of the Principality of Antioch and the Kingdom of Jerusalem - Theodora Komnene, niece of Manuel I Komnenos, married Baldwin III of Jerusalem, and Maria, grandniece of Manuel, married Amalric I of Jerusalem. Irene Angelina, daughter of Isaac II Angelos and a thus a descendant of Alexios I Komnenos, married Philip of Swabia, the King of Germany. From this union many of the royal and aristocratic families of Western Europe can trace a line of descent." Since we are looking at Jewish lines, it is the females that are actually more important. "Beware Greeks bearing gifts" His ancestors may have come from Greece, but they were Jewish. -- Miles Mathis
As we have seen in dozens of previous papers, relocations accomplish the same thing as deaths, without the bad karma involved in an actual murder. -- Miles Mathis
"The mesazon (Greek: "intermediary") was a high dignitary and official during the last centuries of the Byzantine Empire, who acted as the chief minister and principal aide of the Byzantine emperor. The term's origins lie in the 10th century, when senior ministers were sometimes referred to as the mesiteuontes , i.e. "mediators" between the emperor and his subjects. "
“Civilization is not to be identified with commercial prestige but with moral worth; not with goods, but with goodness.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Communism and the Conscience of the West)
And why are the sexes being split? Several reasons, but the central one is financial. The industrialists figured out long ago that single people spend far more money than couples, especially if the single people are sexually repressed and miserable. There is a multi-billion dollar market in anti-depressants to start with, and if people aren't depressed enough they can be made so. Splitting the sexes is the number one method of creating that misery, since the only better way to make people miserable would be to take away their food. The industrialists also have a lot of junk food to sell, so that won't work. But it isn't just anti-depressants. Miserable single people spend far more on compensating products, like comfort food, clothes, make-up, toiletries, drugs, gym memberships, hair treatments, facelifts, cosmetic dentistry, massages, therapy, porn, and on and on. The sexes are also being split for other reasons, perhaps the most important of which is the complete de-masculating and detoothing of men. Taking away the wives and lovers of men, and making men the target of societal hatred, censure, and distrust, is a planned and so-far successful method of destroying them. And why would the industrialists wish to do that? Because any potential revolution would come from men. Men have almost all the testosterone, and so the more the governors fear revolution the more they will try to destroy the motivation, ambition, and energy of men.
Splitting the sexes doesn't just affect men, it affects all heterosexual people. Men without women implies women without men, and if women wonder why it is so hard to find and keep a good relationship these days, this is why.
Remember, loneliness is now an epidemic, and the UK just created a Ministry of Loneliness to help deal with it. Do you think all those lonely people are men? Nope. A large fraction are women. So while these gymnast girls may think they are helping the sisters with this project, they are actually harming them. And they aren't just “creating fiction”, they are lying—and lies have consequences. -- Miles Mathis
So you see, once again these fake trials are run to fool those who know nothing of the law. All your attorney friends probably know this thing was faked, since it can be spotted as a fraud in about 30 seconds. -- Miles Mathis
It looks to me like these numbers are being published to add to the confusion. Most people will read this stuff and just give up trying to understand any of it, which is what they want. They don't want you understanding anything, they want to just accept it and move on. -- Miles Mathis
Anyway, when you see crimes profiled on 60 Minutes before they have even gone to trial, you should know you are witnessing another project. News programs should be reporting on crimes after convictions have been handed down, not a year before. For one thing, such programs should prejudice a jury, making prosecution more difficult. Courts have to find unbiased jurors, remember, and if all the jurors are prejudiced by watching 60 Minutes beforehand, that is quite hard to do. This is why real courts don't like media circuses. Only fake CIA courts like media circuses, since that is the whole point. Another reason the media doesn't report extended testimony before real trials is that they can open themselves up to lawsuits. What if Nassar had been found innocent? In that case he could then sue the girls, CBS, and the rest of the media for slander and libel. -- Miles Mathis
According to the Wiki page for this, the charges against Sovereign Grace were thrown out in 2013 because the statute of limitations had run out on the crimes. We are told the statute ran out on the plaintiffs because it was 3 years after they had turned 18. Obviously, that doesn't match what we are being sold in the Boston priest scandal or the USGymnastics scandal. There was no mention of any statute of limitations in either case, and we saw that women much older than 18 or 21 were allowed to testify in the current one.
It is also not clear to me why Creation Ministries would be attacking Sovereign Grace Ministries, since they look very similar. I suspect Sovereign Grace is also a Jewish Front organization, set up for a fall. Compare it to the Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, which we looked at recently in my paper on Bobby Fischer. That was where the fall of Garner Ted Armstrong was staged a few decades ago. -- Miles Mathis
Which brings us to the fact this was filmed at all. Cameras used to be prohibited in courtrooms, but I as I showed in my O. J. Simpson paper, that severely limited the propaganda value of these fake CIA trials. So any time you see a trial filmed and released nationally, you can be sure it is a CIA/Hollywood project. -- Miles Mathis
Even ten counts is very low, since in some places we were told 265 women have accused Nassar. If so, why didn't they join this prosecution? Given the story we have been fed, Nassar should have been convicted of around one thousand counts. But remember we saw the same thing with Father Geoghan in the Boston priest scandal. We are told he molested hundreds of boys across three decades. But he was convicted on only one count of fondling over clothes, and even that conviction was wiped. Geoghan died with a clean record.
Which leads me to predict it will soon be reported that Nassar has died in jail for some reason, either by suicide or murder. It may be that his convictions will be out on appeal at that time, and for that reason he will also “die” with a clean record. He can then join Geoghan, Jack Ruby, and many others who have a clean record to this day. -- Miles Mathis
So am I saying the girls just flat-out lied? Yep. But you have to understand they don't see it that way. They think they are part of a movie about women's rights, you see. That is how it was sold to them. They were probably told that bad guys like this really do exist, so it is important to educate people about it. And, since Nassar isn't really going to jail, no one is hurt here: they aren't lying, they are just part of a fiction. A morality play. I assume a lot of the middle level players in these projects justify their actions like that. I don't think the directors do, since the directors know the know the score. They know why this is going on, and it isn't to educate anyone. It is to mess people up on purpose. But I don't imagine these girls are that evil. They are simply being manipulated, like the rest of us. -- Miles Mathis
Only by replacing these people with charismatic actors could this be sold as real. Not that the actors are any more trustworthy, they are just better at fooling you. It is their job, and they are very good at it. They were hired specifically because their faces don't (yet) match their black souls. -- Miles Mathis
In my paper on the Beer Hall Putsch, I showed that—like the Socialist parties in the US at the same time—the SDP was a fake party manufactured by the usual suspects as opposition control. It appeared to be pro-worker but was really a front for the industrialists and billionaires. This is a clue here, because the same thing was happening in Boston in the late 20th century and early 21st. Not, I mean, as a matter of Socialism, but as a matter of infiltration and opposition control. We will see below that the Catholic Church was not so much a target here as an accomplice in a larger project. Or, the Church wasn't attacked from the outside: it was infiltrated and blown from within.
The clue in the film is when Cardinal Law says, “this city most flourishes when its great institutions work together”. In the manufactured Catholic priest scandal, the institutions did work together, and one of those institutions was the Catholic Church itself. -- Miles Mathis
Again, it is best you keep reminding yourself that, outside of Hollywood and Los Angeles, more events and projects have been run out of Eastern Massachusetts than any other place. It is no accident that this fake priest scandal was centered on Boston. Hundreds of other fake scandals have also centered on Boston (and nearby towns like Salem, Concord, etc.). The fake Boston Marathon bombing didn't just happen in Boston by accident. This is an epicenter of fake events. The entire city is like a big movie set, and if you have ever lived there or visited there, you may know what I mean. You can literally feel the MATRIX buzzing around you. -- Miles Mathis
We will start with pedophilia itself. It is a word thrown around a lot, but what does it really mean? It means (sexual) love of children. Legally, a child is a person who has not gone through puberty, so we are talking about persons under 12-14, say. It varies, because not everyone goes through puberty at the same age. I mention this, because there is some confusion, and that confusion has been promoted on purpose. Pedophilia does not apply to all people under the age of consent, which is 17-18, depending on the state. The term that applies from age 14 to 17 is statutory rape, not pedophilia. In the US, you are not allowed to sleep with persons of that age, even with consent, since they cannot legally consent. But if you do, you are guilty of statutory rape, not pedophilia. There is a huge difference, which is why I am pausing to circle it. -- Miles Mathis
We are told that 6% of the population inside and outside the Church is pedophilic. 32% is ephebophilic. That last term means they are sexually attracted to teens from 15-19. You should be highly suspicious of those numbers, since they don't make any sense.
Do you really think 6% of the general population is sexually attracted to those under 11? I don't. That would mean about one in every sixteen people is a pedophile. I have lived over five decades on this crazy planet, but I have never seen any evidence that is close to being true. Pedophilia is considered to be a very weird thing, which is why people are so shocked by it. It is highly unnatural. So how could something that one in every 16 people is be considered highly unnatural?
Yes, most people think children are cute or pretty, because they often are, but thinking they are cute and wanting to have sex with them are two entirely different things. I think my kittens are cute, but I don't want to have sex with them.
I simply don't believe 6% of the population is pedophilic. And since I have seen the mainstream lying to me about everything, I have no problem disbelieving this number. They make up statistics and numbers all the time to push various agendas, so best guess that is what is happening here.
I don't doubt that some people are pedophilic, but based on what I know about people and life, I would guess something on the order of 6 in 10,000, not 6 in a hundred. That means the decimal would be . 0006, not .06. And if we whittle that down to those who would consider acting on such a horrible impulse, we would have to add another couple of zeroes, .000006.
Another reason you shouldn't believe the 6% figure is that it would be impossible to arrive at using any questionnaire. Just think about it. Do you think one in sixteen people are going to admit on a questionnaire that they are sexually attracted to children under 11? Of course not. It would be like admitting to strangers that you had a body buried under your house. The same applies to Catholic priests. How could you possibly obtain that 6% number? Notice on the Wiki page for the John Jay Report that they glide you right past that. They have a section called “methodology”, but it is only four sentences and tells you almost nothing. What they do tell us is that the data came from “priests accused of sexual abuse”. So, that begs the question: “Does that mean they found 6% of those accused admitted to liking children under 11, or that 6% of all priests did?” It looks to me like they are saying 6% of those accused admitted liking or were assumed to like children under 11. On a closer look, we find it is even less than that. It says, “6% of the cleric offenders are pedophiles”. If you are accused, you are not an offender. To be an offender you have to be convicted. That is very different than saying 6% of all priests are pedophiles, isn't it? In fact, it would bring the percentage way, way down. Assuming they didn't just fake this entire survey, it would mean that we need to know what percentage of all priests were convicted to be able to do any real math. Let's use some round numbers to come to a likely figure. Let's say 1 in every 1,000 priests have been convicted in actual court documents. 6% of those priests then admit to liking children. What percentage of all priests are acting pedophiles, in that case? Well, that's 6% of .1%, which is .006% or .00006. Six in one hundred thousand. -- Miles Mathis
According to the report, 4% of all clergy have been accused and “less than .1% have been convicted”. Despite the ever increasing culture of fear we now live in, the accusations curiously peaked back in the 1970s. -- Miles Mathis
The 6% figure is quoted in the report again, but this time it is that 6% of those accused were convicted. Again, that is very different than saying 6% of all clergy are potential pedophiles. In fact, it allows us to do the math using their own numbers. They give us a chart of ages as a percent of all cases. We find that about 53% of the cases were persons 13-17. About 25% were persons 11-12. So only about 22% were children under 11. Wikipedia misrepresents this number, reporting it as 22% were children under 10. Only 14% were children under 10, according to the posted chart. Therefore, we can throw out about half these cases as statutory rape, at the worst. Molesting a 17-year-old is wrong, but it isn't pedophilia.
So, they have told us explicitly in a major report that 6% of offenders are pedophiles, 6% of those accused are convicted, and 4% of all clergy are accused. What percentage of all clergy are pedophiles? We just multiply the three numbers together. Which gives us .0144% or .000144 as a decimal. Or about 1 in 10,000. That is close to my guess above.
Therefore, given 1,500 priests in Boston x .000144 = .216. Not 90 priests in Boston that are pedophiles, but less than one. -- Miles Mathis
The first complaint against Geoghan was in 1968 in Hingham, when “a man” complained to church authorities he caught Geoghan molesting his son. Really? He didn't beat the shit out of Geoghan or file a police report? Instead, Geoghan was sent for treatment to Seton Institute. He later returned to the same church, where it happened again. Joanne Mueller accused Geoghan of molesting her four sons. Mueller said she reported it to Rev. Miceli, but he told her to keep it quiet. And she agreed? What kind of parents are these people supposed to be? Who are the monsters in this stupid story? The first father—after seeing his son molested—watched Geoghan return to his church and did nothing? And this mother also did nothing but ask for money after finding out her four sons were molested? We are told she later got a settlement. Is that what you would do?
Six years later Geoghan was re-assigned. So we are supposed to believe the parents allowed him to remain in Hingham after molesting their sons? Over the next six years in Jamaica Plain, he molested seven more boys, and talked about it to another priest. This priest reported it to the bishop, who reported it the cardinal, but again Geoghan got off with counseling.
Within the year he was reassigned to Dorchester. I'm sorry, once again that simply isn't believable. He wouldn't be reassigned to someplace so near. Supposing they were all evil and wished to hide his behavior, they would destroy his records and send him to Alaska or Hawaii or something. Or at least California. Also not believable is the next tall tale: after many more complaints of molestations over the next two years, Archbishop Law intervened and moved Geoghan out of Dorchester. Law reassigned him to Weston in 1984, where he was put in charge of three youth groups, including altar boys.
I am going to stop there, since it can't get any more ridiculous than that. I'm prepared to believe quite a bit when it comes to the stupidity of people, but I'm not buying this. Even if we assume all these priests and bishops and cardinals are fat spiders sitting hugely in their chairs waiting to prey upon lovely boy flesh, the stories still don't fly. Why not? Because it requires us to ignore the boys and their parents. As I showed above, it simply isn't believable that parents would sit idly by while this happened. The boys would rat out the priests, and then all hell would break loose. You wouldn't just have one or two mothers and fathers reporting this to the high priest, you would have lawsuits filed, people going to the newspapers, police reports, high-profile arrests, and maybe a serious beating. There is simply no way this could be kept under wraps for 35 years. Remember, Geoghan didn't get prosecuted until several years after he retired. He was then accused of molesting over 100 boys. That makes no sense. Why would 100 crimes come to light in 2002, but none before that?
We also have this problem: in the film, they say that Geoghan was “charged with molesting hundreds of kids” [minute 1:19:00]. As we have seen, that is a lie. He wasn't charged, he was accused, a very big difference. And it was not hundreds, but about 100. Wikipedia now admits only three charges were filed. Geoghan was convicted on one count of fondling over clothes. Although the first complaint was allegedly in 1968, he wasn't convicted until 2002, when he was found guilty of grabbing the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy in a swimming pool. What? After allegedly raping and sexually molesting half the state of Massachusetts, he was convicted of that and only that? You have to be kidding.
We are given more clues, when we are told a second case went forward against Geoghan, and "a judge dismissed conviction of Geoghan in two rapes, after hotly contested arguments, because the statute of limitations had run out." A judge would check the statute of limitations before any “hotly contested arguments” occurred. You don't run half a trial and then go, “Oh, sorry, we didn't even need to show up: this happened too long ago. My bad”. As usual, these stories are written for people who don't know anything about the law by people who don't know anything about the law.
We are told there is no paper trail for most of the cases against priests. This is spun to make it look like the Church is hiding its crimes. However, it goes both ways. If there is no paper trail, we are just taking the word of the film producers or the scriptwriters of the bigger story that any of this happened at all. The lack of a paper trail is actually very convenient for them, because they can then tell any story they like. Later in the film, we are told the attorney MacLeish (played by Billy Crudup) settled cases against 45 priests in the Boston area [minute 1:10:50]. But since there is no paper trail, we have no possible confirmation of that. It is just his word. Suppose none of this ever happened, as I am showing you. Well, in that case, the fact that there is no evidence of any of these alleged crimes is another huge red flag. It also makes no sense from the point of view of the families, who certainly wouldn't have wished to sweep any of this under the rug. They would never have agreed to private settlements of the sort we are told occurred. They would have wanted to make sure it didnt happen to more children, right? We are told several times that the families just wished for personal recognition and a small settlement. Really? And you believe that? That is why this film is so insidious: it flips the truth on you over and over, but because they are so slick, most people miss it. Hollywood can sell night as day. The film Spotlight sells all these people as heroes for outing the Catholic Church, when they are just the opposite.
In 2003, the Globe updated the Geoghan saga by admitting that his one conviction had been erased from his record. That's right. Geoghan has no criminal record as of this moment. Criminal defendants who die while their conviction is under appeal have the conviction vacated (wiped) and are considered innocent. That's a curious end to this story, wouldn't you say? The film tells us Geoghan was charged with hundreds of crimes, but he ended up with a clean record after 2003. Wow. So if you study a list of those priests convicted of molesting children, Geoghan isn't on it at all.
Did you know Geoghan is buried in Holyhood cemetery in Brookline, with Boston aristocracy including Joseph and Rose Kennedy, three Massachusetts governors including Edward King and Maurice Tobin, and four Boston mayors? Adjoining St. Joseph cemetery includes Rose's father John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, three other Boston mayors, Speaker of the House John McCormack, and conductor Arthur Fiedler. Since space is extremely limited in such cemeteries, you may wish to ask yourself how Geoghan found a plot there. Remember, he was supposed to have died broke, and was not supposed to be from any important family. -- Miles Mathis
In other words, there are rules in the battles of the top families. You can run projects against one another, but you cannot blow the cover of the whole system. This is why the truth is the most hated thing, and the one thing you never see. -- Miles Mathis
Since the victims were all actors, the Church didn't actually have to pay out anything, you see. They just had to remain silent when the media reported they had paid out $10 million, or whatever.
The only thing the Church could do is tell its own members the claims were false, but they couldn't tell them the claims were fake. In other words, the Church was allowed to despin, but not to tell the truth. This limited the damage inside the Church, since we may assume most Catholics were loyal to their local people, and were more likely to believe their own officials than the newspapers. And, in fact, this is what we have seen. The Church hasn't been damaged as much as one would have thought.
Before I figured this one out, I wondered why the Catholic Church in Ireland and Boston didn't immediately collapse, declaring bankruptcy. If what we were told were true, that is what you would expect. You would expect a sort of run on the banks, where everyone removed their children—and therefore themselves—from the Church. But we haven't seen that, which indicates most people were not fooled by this project. I don't think they realized it was a project, as above, they just realized the story didn't add up. Without discovering any proof it was false, they just decided to ignore it. People have this ability to this day, which is one of the few signs of hope. -- Miles Mathis
If you have ever wondered why so much of the evangelist Christian movement looks so idiotic, now you know: it was meant to. Opposition control, once again. And yes, by that I do mean that Jewish interests infiltrated American Christianity, planting many agents, and making it look ridiculous on purpose. It has been a very good way to destroy support. You will say they wouldn't or couldn't do that, but they have done it in every field they wished to blackwash: art, feminism, environmentalism, unions, republicanism, the anti-war movement, race relations, sexual relations, education, the family, and on and on. We have caught them at it again and again in previous papers. So why wouldn't they do it with Christianity? In fact, this infiltration of Christianity has simply been a part of the old Theosophy project. While they were importing and bastardizing foreign religions in order to compete with Christianity, they were at the same time infiltrating Christianity and blowing it from the inside. This is how they work, and they have been incredibly successful. -- Miles Mathis
Bad art serves to displace good art, and— believe it or not—that is one of its main purposes. Why displace good art with bad art? Because bad art has been very useful to the billionaires. It works far better in money laundering and is far easier to control as a fake market. See my paper on money laundering. It is also far more useful as an arm of Operation Chaos, by which the same families keep everyone else confused and disempowered. Old art —like Classical music—orders the mind and strengthens it. New art and music does the opposite, stirring the mind and frying all its connections. -- Miles Mathis
For now, it may be enough to note that the Tsar was in a bulletproof carriage. The first assassin allegedly threw a bomb which blew up beneath the carriage, causing no harm to anyone inside. But we are supposed to believe the Tsar got out and walked around, at which point a second assassin threw a second bomb, killing him. And you believe that? Do you think it is normal military protocol to step out of a bulletproof carriage that has just been attacked, when that carriage has proved to be the only safe place? Let me ask you this: if you were in a tank and someone was firing at you, would you wait until the firing paused and get out and walk around to be sure you were alright? As usual, the storytellers are incredibly stupid, or—more likely—assume you are. -- Miles Mathis
Seeing Snopes leading the debunking on any topic is just indication it is true, in my opinion. According to my research, the main project of Snopes is debunking the truth. -- Miles Mathis
Castro was born to great wealth (sugar plantations) and later became a billionaire. He is also a lawyer. His first wife Mirta Diaz-Balart was also from great wealth, being a relative of Batista. Although Batista and Castro are sold to you as enemies, they are actually relatives and fellow US agents. Castro lived in New York City on many occasions, and he spent his honeymoon there. He and Mirta were married in 1948, and although we are told her father disapproved of the marriage, he nonetheless gave them “tens of thousands of dollars to spend on a three-month New York honeymoon”. Yes, I am sure a lot of revolutionaries of the time could say the same thing.
Castro joined or co-founded the Party of the Cuban people in 1947, year one of the CIA. This party was also founded by Eduardo Chibas, who allegedly killed himself on air in 1951 during a radio broadcast. He was a senator at the time, and was only 44. His death appears to have been another fake.
In early 1952, Castro first ran for Congress, although it is unclear why anyone thought he was qualified to do so. Nonetheless, he met with General Batista only months before Batista took over the country. That's curious, seeing that Castro was only 25 and had done absolutely nothing important. His law practice was a failure and he had held no offices. So why was he meeting with Batista? Well, remember that his rich wife was related to Batista.
We are told Castro brought several legal cases against the new government of Batista, but you don't sue a dictator, do you? So once again, this makes no sense. If you sue a real dictator, you get thrown in a Gulag.
In 1953, Castro began his “serious” revolt against Batista. He was arrested and sentenced to 15 years, but was pardoned only a year later by the same people that prosecuted him. Not believable. It is not even consistent with other parts of the same story, where we are told other captured rebels were tortured and executed without trial. So why was Castro given a prominent trial where he could make famous speeches? Not only was he not executed, he was somehow pardoned a year later. My guess is he didn't spend a single day in jail.
Although we are told Batista no longer considered him a threat (hence the pardon), in 1956 Castro tried again, attacking Cuba from Mexico with Che Guevara. Upon landing, Batista's forces supposedly attacked them, killing most of them. The remaining 19 went into the mountains and waged guerrilla warfare from there. Right. Kind of like the 19 hijackers, I guess? Somehow, during this time, Castro was interviewed by the New York Times and became a celebrity. Amazing, isn't it, that Batista's forces couldn't find Castro in the mountains, but a NYT reporter could? CBS and Paris Match also found him.
We are told Castro's men overran a military outpost in La Plata in 1957. Right. Nineteen poorly armed men overran a military outpost? C'mon. Only three months after being wiped down to 19, this group attacked the Presidential Palace in Havana. Right. -- Miles Mathis
In short, large parts of the Civil War in Cuba were faked. They never happened, except in the history books—which were written from Langley. Castro rose to power in 1959 not because he won any battles but because he was picked by the US to head the puppet-government in Cuba.
To understand this, it helps to jump from the Castro history page to the Cuba history page. Cuba was taken from Spain by the US in 1898, after the Spanish-American War. The fakery in Cuba goes way back, since that war was entered under false pretexts. The US battleship Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, and the sinking was blamed on Spain. However, it was a false flag, used by the US to get into a war they wanted to get into. The Hearst newspapers led the disinformation campaign, inventing the war cry “Remember the Maine!” Many mainstream sources now admit the sinking of the Maine was done by US agents. Like the Gulf of Tonkin event, it is a declassified false flag. They don't care if you know it.
But we didn't have to invade Cuba, because it was already ours. You don't need to invade an island where you already have a large military base. The story couldn't be any stupider if it included clowns on tricycles.
We find the same misdirection on the page for the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Guantanamo Naval Base gets three mentions, but none of them tie the base to the Crisis in a sensible way. Since we already had a huge military base on the island, there is no way the Soviet Union would think of putting one there also. The whole story is absurd from the first word. For example, we have large bases in Germany. Do you think Russia is going to start construction on their own military bases just up the road from those? No, it doesn't happen that way, for obvious reasons.
For instance, if Cuba had really been independent and Castro had really gone into negotiations with Khrushchev, the US would have immediately nullified that independence and taken over the island from Guantanamo. It would have taken a matter of hours. Therefore, we know that the long and illogical story we are told is just more yarn spinning, told to create fear and keep military budgets astronomically high. -- Miles Mathis
No historians ever tell you these stories are faked. No lawyers ever tell you the court cases are faked. No artists ever tell you the art market is a big con. No scientists ever tell you science is a hoax. So what does that tell you about the world? It tells me current “culture” is a total fucking write-off. Modern society is little more than a longrunning conjob, a smokescreen, a fairy tale written by twisted trolls. -- Miles Mathis
