If you read an article and wish to comment, then please do.
Do not worry about the date it was written.
I promise that I or the articles author will answer.
It is produced by the same duo who produced BoB, two relatively unknown guys...I think the ones name is...ah...Tom Hanks and the other is...oh, what's his name...Spa...Spi-...oh yeah Steven Spielberg.
Obviously this is set in the time frame of the Pacific Theater of WWII, and a companion piece, of sorts, to BoB.
I hope it is as good as BoB, which, in my opinion, was one of the best things produced on TV.
Here is the trailer.
Here are two ridiculous quotes:
"Them Jews ain't going to let [President Obama] talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office...They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.""Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media."
The first quote is from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the second is from James Von Brunn, the alleged shooter at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. Notice any similarities?
Now, politically Von Brunn and Wright couldn't be farther apart; yet their extremist views go so far, that at a certain point they seemingly overlap. And what is that overlap? Anti-Semitism of course.
I am fascinated by this, it always seems extremists and conspiracy theorists come to the same conclusion? Why does their line of thinking always go to a "Zionist" conspiracy to take over the world?
I ask only because I don't understand.
My only guess at a reasonable answer is that Anti-Semitism is a cultural meme in western history. It was started in ancient Rome, continued in the middle ages, and is still very present today. However, I could be very wrong about the cultural meme thing, for I venture to say there is no easy answer to this question.
Now, it is true since days of old that for the most part, Jewish people were very family oriented, tended to look out for each other, and were un-trusting of their neighboring "Gentiles"; however, giving the Anti-Semitic tenancies of the western world their suspicion was warranted, or at least I think so.
Personally, as regards Israel and the Zionist movement in its traditional form, here is what I see.
On The Israel Lobby in America:
- I find nothing suspicious about Jews and Israel; however, I can't stand the Pro-Israel lobby in Washington. But, I have a good reason for that, I don't like ANY lobbyists in Washington-PERIOD! I see their lobby and the NEA lobby as equally repulsive.
On Israel's Right to Exist:
- If Israel originally purchased a desolate strip of desert from the Arabs one piece at a time and turned it into a glittering oasis then God bless them, for what they've done is a good thing. They radically improved life in the region from what it was.
On the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict(s):
- There are approximately 7,184,000 people living in this narrow strip of land, and out of that number there is 1,375,600 native Arabs living within its borders. Out of those native Arabs 1,142,000 are Muslim comprising 15.9% of Israel's religious population. If these Muslims can find a way to live peacefully with their Israeli neighbors, within the borders of Israel and vice-versa, then why can't the Palestinians do the same. I maybe oversimplifying the issue, and I'm sure I am, but why isn't anybody asking this, or looking to the Israeli Muslims for help with some kind of truce? (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Israel#Population)
- I think, if Israel believes its the right thing to attack Iran preemptively to protect herself then she should do so. Yet do so with caution, lest Israel wants their own personal "Iraq" on their hands (and if such a thing happened their popularity would surely diminish all the more). However, this decision is Israel's alone and not Americas. We shouldn't get involved in this unless we are attacked. We shouldn't hold them back or propel them into something either.
- Now, if anyone has ever seen the movie Minority Report, then you know it regards a not-to-distant technology which can see clairvoyantly into the future and prevent a crime before it happens. They call it the pre-crime division, and when they catch the would-be perp' they freeze him in a suspended state for an indefinite amount of time. (Sounds like what Americas done in Iraq.) That is what preemptive war sounds like to me. The justification for war is from a threat by a foreign nation, based on "credible" evidence. If the campaign is successful, then the attacking nation can claim they averted calamity; yet, how one could possibly know this is beyond me.
However, Israel has another enemy. The worst kind of enemy. The enemy that acts like a friend, but has sinister ulterior motives. This enemy can be found in American evangelicalism in a so-called eschatological doctrine known as Dispensationalism. There was an article written back in 2000 that perfectly summarizes this threat and the clandestine objective of some American evangelicals. The article is as follows:
For anyone interested in the correct teaching regarding Israel please click here.The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel
by Gary North
With the President meeting this week with Prime Minister Barak of Israel and Yassir Arafat, it may be time to review a topic that is baffling for Jews, annoying to Arabs, and unavoidable for American Congressmen: the unswerving political support for the State of Israel by American fundamentalists.
Vocal support of a pro-Israel American foreign policy is basic for the leaders of American Protestant fundamentalism. This has been true ever since 1948. Pat Robertson and Rev. Jerry Falwell have been pro-Israel throughout their careers, beginning two decades before the arrival of the New Christian Right in the late 1970's. These men are not aberrations. The Trinity Broadcasting Network is equally supportive. So are the best-selling authors who speak for, and influence heavily, Protestant fundamentalism, most notably Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth (1970), and Tim LaHaye, the husband of Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, which says on its Web site that it is "the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization." Rev. LaHaye and his co-author have each earned some $10 million in royalties for their multi-volume futuristic novel, Left Behind. They have a very large audience.
People may ask themselves, "Why this support?" Fundamentalists earlier in this century were sometimes associated with anti-Semitism. James M. Gray of the Moody Bible Institute in 1927 wrote an editorial favorable to Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent series on Jews. Gray’s editorial appeared in the Moody Bible Institute Monthly. Arno C. Gabelein, a prominent fundamentalist leader, believed that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was a legitimate document. Gabelein’s 1933 book, The Conflict of the Ages, would today be regarded as anti-Semitic.
Other fundamentalist leaders of the pre-War era, while not anti-Semitic, attempted to maintain neutrality on the issue of Hitler’s persecution of Jews. In his 1977 book, Armageddon Now!, Christian historian Dwight Wilson cites numerous examples of fundamentalist theologians in the late 1930’s who regarded Hitler’s discriminatory policies against Jews as part of God’s judgment on the Jews. He writes: "Pleas from Europe for assistance for Jewish refugees fell on deaf ears, and ‘Hands Off’ meant no helping hand. So in spite of being theologically more pro-Jewish than any other Christian group, the premillennarians also were apathetic. . . ." [pp. 96-97]. What was it that persuaded almost the entire fundamentalist movement to move from either hostility or neutrality to vocal support of Israel? No single answer will fit every case, but there is a common motivation, one not taken seriously by most people in history: getting out of life alive.
The Not-Quite Last Things
The Christian doctrine of eschatology deals with the last things. Sometimes eschatology deals with the personal: the death of the individual. Usually, however, it has to do with God’s final judgment of mankind.
There have been three main views of eschatology in the history of the church, which theologians classify as premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. The pre- and post- designations refer to the expected timing of the bodily return of Jesus in the company of angels: before (pre-) the establishment of an earthly kingdom of God, or after (post-) this kingdom has extended its rule across the earth.
The amillennial view is that the kingdom of God is mainly spiritual. This became the dominant view of Christianity for over a millennium after Augustine’s City of God, with its distinction between the city of God, the church (spiritual and permanent) and the political cities of man (rising and falling). Luther held this eschatological view. Most of the Continental Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century held it. But seventeenth-century Scottish Presbyterians were more likely to hold the postmillennial view, and they carried it with them when they emigrated to America. Their postmillennialism rested in part on their belief that God will convert the Jews to Christianity as a prelude to the kingdom’s period of greatest expansion, an idea derived from Paul’s Epistle to the church at Rome, chapter 11. Presbyterians are officially commanded to pray for the conversion of the Jews. [Westminster Larger Catechism (1647), Answer 191.] The first generation of Puritan Congregationalists in New England also held similar postmillennial opinions.
The premillennial view was commonly held in the pre-Augustinian church, although the other views did have defenders. After 1660, premillennialism became increasingly common within American Puritanism. Cotton Mather was a premillennialist. But Jonathan Edwards was postmillennial. In nineteenth-century America, both views were common prior to the Civil War. After the War, premillennialism steadily replaced postmillennialism among fundamentalists. A secularized postmillennialism was adopted by the Social Gospel movement. Non-fundamentalist Protestants from Continental Europe, like the Catholics, remained amillennial. Postmillennialism faded after World War I until the late 1970's, when it experienced a limited revival.
Basic to the view of both premillennialism and amillennialism is pessimism regarding the efforts of Christians to build a culture-wide kingdom of God on earth. Both positions hold that only by Jesus’ bodily presence among the saints can Christians create an cultural alternative to the competing kingdoms of man. The premillennialist believes that this international kingdom construction task will begin in earnest a thousand years before the final judgment, with Jesus ruling from a literal throne, probably located in Jerusalem. The amillennialist views this universal extension of the kingdom of God into culture as possible only after the resurrection of all humanity at the final judgment, i.e., in a sin-free, death-free, Christians-only world.
Tribulation and Rapture
Just prior to Jesus’ return to set up an earthly kingdom, argue most amillennialists and all premillennialists, there will be a time of persecution, called the Great Tribulation. It is here that the great debate over the Jews begins. Amillennialists believe that Christians will be persecuted by their enemies. A handful of premillennialists, referred to as "historic premillennialists," also identify Christians as the targets. This version of premillennialism has been insignificant institutionally since the 1870’s. The dominant premillennial view says that Jews will suffer the Great Tribulation. Born-again Christians will have flown the coop – literally. This is the doctrine of the pre-tribulation Rapture.
According to pre-tribulation premillennialists, who are known as dispensationalists, Jesus will come secretly in the clouds and raise deceased Christians – and only Christians – from the dead. Immediately thereafter, every true Christian will be transported bodily into the sky, and from there to heaven: the Rapture event. The passage cited to defend this view is found in Paul’s first letter to the church at Thessolonica: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up [harpazo] together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (I Thes. 4:16-17). Throughout most of church history, this passage was associated with the final judgment, but beginning sometime around 1830 in England, it was linked to the premillennial, pretribulational Rapture – a word that is not found in the Greek text or in any English translation of the New Testament. Its Latin root word is in Jerome’s Vulgate, a translation of the Greek "harpazo" – seize, catch, or pluck.
This outlook on the earthly future became increasingly popular among fundamentalists, beginning in the 1870's. It was formalized in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909; revised, 1917). In 1930, it became the first Oxford University Press book to reach sales of one million. It has now sold over five million copies. C. I. Scofield’s system has defined fundamentalism for nine decades.
The Rapture-based escape from history is now universally believed by fundamentalists to be imminent. Generations of fundamentalists have believed that they will escape bodily death. They will be transported into the sky, like Elijah, though without benefit of chariots.
But when? That has been the great question. The answer: "Soon." But why soon? Why not a millennium from now? The psychological answer: Because men do not live that long in this millennium. The main selling point for fundamentalism’s Bible prophecies is to get insight into what is coming soon. In this case, the issue of mortality is central. As the slogan says, "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." The doctrine of the imminent Rapture allows Christians to believe seriously that they can go to heaven without dying. Millions of Americans believe this today, just as their fathers and grandfathers believe this today.
But how can they be so sure? Because of the events of 1948. In that year, the crucial missing piece of the prophetic puzzle – the restoration of the nation of Israel – seemed to come true. Critics of the dispensational system could no longer say, "But where is Israel in all this?" The answer, at long last: "In Palestine, just in time for the Great Tribulation."
The Grim Fate of Israel
The source of the idea of the Great Tribulation is found in Jesus’ last words regarding Israel, which are recorded in Matthew 24 and Luke 21.
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (Luke 21:20-24).
Throughout most of church history, this prophecy was interpreted as having been fulfilled by the Roman siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. With the rise of dispensationalism, however, the fulfillment of passage was moved into the future.
Dispensationalism’s critics had long asked: "Where is the nation of Israel? Where are the Jews?" Not in Palestine, surely. So, dispensationalists tended to apply this prophecy of near-destruction to Jews in general – only symbolically residing in Israel – until 1948. This was one reason for their silence on Hitler’s persecution. Hitler was just another rung in the ladder of persecution leading to the inevitable Great Tribulation.
The prophesied agency of the great persecution has shifted over the years. As Wilson shows in Armageddon Now!, from 1917 until 1977, Russia was a prime candidate. But, after 1991, this has become difficult to defend, for obvious reasons. The collapse of the Soviet Union has created a major problem for dispensationalism’s theologians and its popular authors. But there have been no comparable doubts about the intensity of the coming persecution. Here is the opinion of John F. Walvoord, one of dispensationalism’s leading theologians, who served for three decades as the president of Dallas Theological Seminary (founded, 1924), the movement’s main seminary.
The purge of Israel in their time of trouble is described by Zechariah in these words: "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith Jehovah, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried" (Zechariah 13:8, 9). According to Zechariah’s prophecy, two thirds of the children of Israel in the land will perish, but the one third that are left will be refined and be awaiting the deliverance of God at the second coming of Christ which is described in the next chapter of Zechariah. [John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,  1988), p. 108.
Nothing can or will be done by Christians to save Israel’s Jews from this disaster, for all of the Christians will have been removed from this world three and a half years prior to the beginning of this 42-month period of tribulation. (The total period of seven years is interpreted as the fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel [Dan. 9:27].)
In order for most of today’s Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movement’s support for Israel. It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians’ imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture.
Every time you hear the phrase, "Jesus is coming back soon," you should mentally add, "and two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will be dead in ‘soon plus 84 months.’" Fundamentalists really do believe that they probably will not die physically, but to secure this faith prophetically, they must defend the doctrine of an inevitable holocaust.
This specific motivation for the support of Israel is never preached from any fundamentalist pulpit. The faithful hear sermons – many, many sermons – on the pretribulation Rapture. On other occasions, they hear sermons on the Great Tribulation. But they do not hear the two themes put together: "We can avoid death, but only because two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will inevitably die in a future holocaust. America must therefore support the nation of Israel in order to keep the Israelis alive until after the Rapture." Fundamentalist ministers expect their congregations to put two and two together on their own. It would be politically incorrect to add up these figures in public.
The fundamentalists I have known generally say they appreciate Jews. They think Israel is far superior to Arab nations. They believe in a pro-Israel foreign policy as supportive of democracy and America’s interests. They do not dwell upon the prophetic fate of Israel’s Jews except insofar as they want to transfer the threat of the Great Tribulation away from themselves and their families. Nevertheless, this is the bottom line: the prophetic scapegoating of Israel. This scapegoat, not Christians, must be sent into the post-Rapture wilderness.
Evangelism in Israel
Their eschatology has produced a kind of Catch-22 for fundamentalists. What if, as a result of evangelism, the Jews of Israel were converted en masse to Christianity? They would then be Raptured, along with their Gentile brethren, leaving only Arabs behind. This scenario would make the immediate fulfillment of prophecy impossible: no post-Rapture Israelis to persecute. So, fundamentalists have concluded that the vast majority of the Jews of Israel cannot, will not, and must not be converted to Christianity.
This raises an obvious question: Why spend money on evangelizing Israelis? It would be a waste of resources. This is why there are so few active fundamentalist ministries in Israel that target Jews. They target Arabs instead. Eschatologically speaking, the body of an Israeli must be preserved, for he may live long enough go through the Great Tribulation. But his soul is expendable. This is why fundamentalists vocally support the nation of Israel, but then do very little to preach to Israelis the traditional Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. Fundamentalists have a prophetic agenda for Israelis that does not involve at least two-thirds of the Israelis’ souls. Israelis are members of the only group on earth that has an unofficial yet operational King’s X against evangelism by fundamentalists, specifically so that God may preserve Israelis for the sake of the destruction of modern Israel in the Great Tribulation. The presence of Israel validates the hope of fundamentalists that Christians, and Christians alone, will get out of life alive.
July 19, 2000Gary North is the author of Conspiracy: A Biblical View, which discusses the 20th century's Anglo-American alliance. Download a free copy at www.freebooks.com.
It seems that I'm one of the "blogs of the week" on Issues Etc. Thanks Jeff & Pr. Wilken for the honor!
You can listen to the podcast right below.
Labels: Issues Etc.
Pretty much all of the evangelical hodge-podge that is American Christianity and it's various forms ultimately finds its root in one place: Episcopalianism.
In the founding of our country the New Englander Congregationalists were worried that Virginia, the largest and most wealthy colony by far, would impose Anglicanism on the Union as a National Church as it was the state Church in Virginia. Now, there are some who may recoil at the thought of a state Church, and I share their sentiments, but all of the colonies had state Churches at the time. And, as a matter of fact most colonies were not founded for conquest, but to set up religious utopias contrary to popular thought. However, Pennsylvania, founded by Quaker, William Penn, was the first, and I think only colony (I could be wrong on that fact) to endorse religious pluralism as a part of its state charter. New England saw this as the safest way for our country to tread, and in the end, this constitutional protection was conceded by the Virginians.
Let us thank those Puritanical New Englanders for this gift, for if religious pluralism was never allowed, I would have perhaps never become a Lutheran. However, Lutheranism hasn't gone unscathed. Even now all the branches of the Evangelicals, whose root is firmly entrenched in Episcopalianism of one form or another, are influencing and sadly winning over American Lutheranism. They have been winning for some time, and the American Lutheran Church is resembling something that is...well...not Lutheran. It is true, Satan never sleeps, and where the Word of Truth is preached correctly, you can be sure the Devil is present to distort and destroy its efficacy.
If you're interested by what you read hereafter, then please do yourself a favor and read this book! It might change the way you practice your faith; after all, It did for me.
This passage is taken from the preface. Enjoy!
The Church of England is that part of the Reformed Church for which most affinity with the conservatism of Lutheranism is usually claimed. That Church occupies a position in some respects unique. First, under Henry VIII., ceasing to be Popish without ceasing to be Romish; then passing under the influences of genuine reformation into the positively Lutheran type; then influenced by the mediating position of the school of Bucer, and of the later era of Melancthon, a school which claimed the ability practically to co-ordinate the Lutheran and Calvinistic positions; and finally settling into a system of compromise, in which is revealed the influence of the Roman Catholic views of Orders in the ministry, and, to some extent, of the Ritual; of the Lutheran tone of reformatory conservatism, in the general structure of the Liturgy, in the larger part of the Articles, and especially in the doctrine of Baptism; of the mediating theology in the doctrine of predestination; and of Calvinism in particular changes in the Book of Common Prayer, and, most of all, in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The Conservatism of the Church of England, even in the later shape of its reform, in many respects is indubitable, and hence it has often been called a Lutheranizing Church. But the pressure of the radicalism to which it deferred, perhaps too much in the essence and too little in the form, brought it to that eclecticism which is its most marked feature. Lutheranizing, in its conservative sobriety of modes, the Church of England is very un-Lutheran in its judgment of ends. The conservatism of the Lutheran Reformation exalted, over all, pure doctrine as the divine presupposition of a pure life, and this led to an ample and explicit statement of faith. While the Church of England stated doctrines so that men understood its utterances in different ways, the Lutheran Church tried so to state them that men could accept them in but one sense. If one expression was found inadequate for this, she gave another. The Lutheran Church has her Book of Concord, the most explicit Confession ever made in Christendom; the Church of England has her Thirty-nine Articles, the least explicit among the official utterances of the Churches of the Reformation.
The Eclectic Reformation is like the Eclectic Philosophy,- it accepts the common affirmation of the different systems, and refuses their negations. Like the English language, the English Church is a miracle of compositeness. In the wonderful tessellation of their structure is the strength of both, and their weakness. The English language is two languages inseparably conjoined. It has the strength and affluence of the two, and something of the awkwardness necessitated by their union. The Church of England has two great elements; but they are not perfectly preserved in their distinctive character, but, to some extent, are confounded in the union. With more uniformity than any other great Protestant body, it has less unity than any. Partly in virtue of its doctrinal indeterminateness, it has been the home of men of the most opposite opinions: no Calvinism is intenser, no Arminianism lower, than the Calvinism and Arminianism which have been found in the Church of England. It has furnished able defenders of Augustine, and no less able defenders of Pelagius. Its Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy have been a great bulwark of Protestantism; and yet, seemingly, out of the very stones of that bulwark has been framed, in our day, a bridge on which many have passed over into Rome. It has a long array of names dear to our common Christendom as the masterly vindicators of her common faith, and yet has given high place to men who denied the fundamental verities confessed in the general creeds. It harbors a skepticism which takes infidelity by the hand, and a revised mediaevalism which longs to throw itself, with tears, on the neck of the Pope and the Patriarch, to beseech them to be gentle, and not to make the terms of restored fellowship too difficult. The doctrinal indeterminateness which has won has also repelled, and made it an object of suspicion not only to great men of the most opposite opinions, but also to great bodies of Christians. It has a doctrinal laxity which excuses, and, indeed, invites, innovation, conjoined with an organic fixedness which prevents the free play of the novelty. Hence the Church of England has been more depleted than any other, by secessions. Either the Anglican Church must come to more fixedness in doctrine or to more pliableness in form, or it will go on, through cycle after cycle of disintegration, toward ruin. In this land, which seems the natural heritage of that Church which claims the Church of England as its mother, the Protestant Episcopal Church is numerically smallest among the influential denominations. Its great social strength and large influence in every direction only render more striking the fact that there is scarcely a Church, scarcely a sect, having in common with it an English original, which is not far in advance of it in statistical strength. Some of the largest communions have its rigidity in form, some of the largest have its looseness in doctrine; but no other large communion attempts to combine both. The numbers of those whom the Church of England has lost are millions. It has lost to Independency, lost to Presbyterianism, lost to Quakerism, lost to Methodism, lost to Romanism, and lost to the countless forms of Sectarianism of which England and America, England's daughter, have been, beyond all nations, the nurses. The Church of England has been so careful of the rigid old bottle of the form, yet so careless or so helpless as to what the bottle might be made to hold, that the new wine which went into it has been attended in every case by the same history, —the fermenting burst the bottle, and the wine was spilled. Every great religious movement in the Church of England has been attended ultimately by in irreparable loss in its membership. To this rule there has been no exception in the past. Whether the present movement which convulses the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, is to have the same issue, belongs, perhaps, rather to the prophet's eye than to the historian's pen. Yet to those who, though they stand without, look on with profound sympathy, the internal difficulties which now agitate those Churches seem incapable of a real, abiding harmonizing. True compromise can only sacrifice preferences to secure-principles. The only compromise which seems possible in the Anglican Churches would be one which would sacrifice principles to secure preferences, and nothing can be less certain of permanence than preferences thus secured. These present difficulties in the Anglican Churches proceed not from contradiction of its principles, but from development of them. These two classes of seeds were sown by the husbandmen themselves,-that was the compromise. The tares may grow till the harvest, side by side with the wheat, with which they mingle, but which they do not destroy, but the thorns which choke the seed must be plucked up, or the seed will perish. Tares are men; thorns are moral forces of doctrine or of life. The agitation in the Anglican Churches can end only in the victory of the one tendency and the silencing of the other, or in the sundering of the two. In Protestantism nothing is harder than to silence, nothing easier than to sunder.
If the past history of the Anglican Church, hitherto unvaried in the ultimate result, repeat itself here, the new movement will end in a formal division, as it already has in a moral one. The trials of a Church which has taken a part in our modern civilization and Christianity which entitles it to the veneration and gratitude of mankind, can be regarded with indifference only by the sluggish and selfish, and with malicious joy only by the radically bad.
I originally found this article by chance. It perfectly describes my generation, and why Americas future is bleak to say the least. I'll let the article speak for itself (just keep in mind this was written in 2007, before all this economic mess came along).
August 17, 2007
It's an interesting question, and one that I was asked today. I have pondered the question for years, and have come to the conclusion that those born after the mid to late 1960's are not patriotic citizens by the same definition as those born prior to the 60's. In fact, I've heard many 20, 30, and even 40-somethings claim that they held no particular allegiance to the United States, as they consider their country to be Imperialistic, dishonest, exploitative, and devious.
But we older citizens must realize that the younger generations have not had the benefit of time, wisdom, and many have not had the experience of warfare and soldiering. Nor have they had the benefit of an educational system that taught "Republic" vs. "Democracy." They believe their country to be a democracy, and at the same time, know very well that it is not. They have also been raised on a steady dose of unscrupulous and lying governance, and this they know, as well.
Younger generations are not enamored with Capitalism, politics, democracy, or faith. Today's younger generations are largely atheistic and disgusted with leadership, religion, and their lies. Sometimes we tend to think they are simply disinterested and apathetic, but the fact is, they are all too savvy when it comes to the sick joke of aristocratic governance.
The older generations, the ones who spearheaded the globalist protest movement, are also disappointed people. We were betrayed by the ones we elected — betrayed. It's a bitter pill to swallow, because much like our younger countrymen, we did not act responsibly with our freedoms. We took them for granted, and then became enamored of televised entities, which turned out to be liars, thieves, cheaters, and conquerors. We also raised and supported the fully corrupt 2-Party system.
We, the older generations, and the largest voting body in America, elected and re-elected the men and women who, year by year, Executive Order after Executive Order, Act by Act, disassembled the united States of America and the American Constitution. And now, the younger generations think of us as ignorant, manipulated, and corrupted fools. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
The Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers have a heavy burden to bear, because it was under our watch that the deceivers smiled and grinned their way into full-blown destruction mode. We elected the Socialist globalists into our nation's most powerful positions, or to put it more honestly and plainly, we elected the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations over and over and over again, to our economic and historic demise.
Equally, and in many ways, the Greatest Gen and the Boomers sold their souls for appearances, credit, retirement, and in imitation of the elite. It's a sad state of affairs, a bitter story, and a guilt that is undeniable. But, forward we must go, and we need our youth to help us, though they have every substantial reason not to trust our intellects, our politics, or our decisions. After all, we dumped this terrible mess on their shoulders and told them they were living the good life. Now they are paying the price for our ignorance with their lives in foreign nations. America did not start corroding 5 years ago. It's been corroding for nearly 100 years, and that places the blame and the burden on us. We were supposed to prize, cherish, and protect our freedom. We were supposed to take care of our nation. Instead, we stood 100% behind her destroyers. Many of us still do.
Many younger Americans believe America needs to change — completely and permanently. Hence, the Socialists, who were always around our corners, simply walked in and set up shop — as in the entire American public school system and the "environmental," land-stealing, land trust movement. And many of the mid to upper-middle class Americans, particularly those who instantly fell for the "eco-friendly" and policed communities, are so financially polluted that they can think of nothing but their dire straits, their pathological youth sports addictions, and their pretend country clubs and day-spas. In my book, these people are out to lunch, vacant, and unreachable. Equally, they live in America's forthcoming wasteland (and I do mean forthcoming).
Again, I say to the Greatest Generation and the Boomers, we have an impossible task before us — the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, Agenda 21 and sustainability, the global land trust scams, corporate and financial dictatorship, a fully ignorant and gullible American population, and so very many global enemies — of which, now, we know why. What are the chances to regain our Republic and our Constitution, while we face "internationalized" policing forces, super viruses, and breaking news pandemics? Slim chances...but try, we must. America was slaughtered under our watch. She was.
So, the original question — do American people care if America ends? Today, I'd say the answer is 50/50 at best, but that may be another stupid assumption on this gray-haired lady's part. God knows I've made more foolish political assumptions than this, but to my countrymen of all ages, let us disappoint them, for they have always counted on our ignorance, our apathy, our cultural addictions, and their media. We must disappoint them. We have no choice. And to our younger American generations, please accept our sincerest apologies. We were wrong — albeit manipulated — and incredibly stupid. Please, don't follow suit.
Well, you can say it's 13.7 million and one now, as I reluctantly join the ranks of the jobless.
I was laid-off due to lack of work on 5-8-09, and I'm afraid the company I once worked for is in serious danger of crumbling like a sand-castle against wave after wave of economic despair.
It seems the economy may be on the up-swing, and that's a good thing for our 401k's, our pensions, our jobs, our country, etc. Now, Time will tell whether this is the real-deal or a "dead-cat-bounce"/"bear-market-rally" choose your favorite term, but the problems that got us in this mess in the first place have still yet never been fixed.
I heard one profound statement and a great analogy on the radio recently regarding our economic troubles, one was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and the other on Glenn Beck's, both of which made by economic historians fluent in what exactly happened during the New-Deal.
Hewitt's guest (sorry, I don't recall the name), said that basically the fed's a con-man (the "con" in con-man stands for confidence). What a con-man does is builds confidence in his mark so that he willingly hands over his loot to the crook as opposed to the crook stealing it against his will. Similarly, the government is printing money out of thin air, pumping it into the banks so as to re-inflate the burst balloon of our economy. If you put enough air (money) into that broken balloon it will loosely inflate creating the illusion that things are getting better, all the while the air is escaping into the void outside of it. This inspires confidence in the private sector. As long as the American public, economically speaking, is fat and dumb, we'll generally be happy and forget about the woes of yesteryear and what brought about those woes to begin with. Before long there is loads of money from the private sector flowing into the balloon, however the balloon no longer has the structural integrity to hold that much air and the original hole gets bigger. The balloon deflates a bit. Everyone notices, panics, and before you know it the private sector cuts off the air supply by hanging on to their money causing the balloon to deflate. Then the cycle starts again and again, except with each occurrence the economy must inflate the balloon with more air then before. And, ultimately in the end nothing gets fixed, especially when the real fix is to get rid of the balloon system to begin with, but to do such a thing would require pain and sacrifice. This leads me to the next example.
"What did we do after the great depression to fix the problems that got us into that mess in the first place, and how can we apply that lesson now?"The guest praised the caller and then grimly told her;
"-nothing, therefore there is no lesson to be learned from that situation."
You know, one experiment in socialism back in the 1930's and we are still paying for it, and in the end it may bring about the end of our great nation. So what's the solution now? More Socialism? Really? It's so frustrating to be caught between a lazy and dumb what-have-you-done-for-me-lately society, and an incompetent government. Yet, I digress!
I've been interested since my lay-off on what are some of the possible economic futures on the horizon, and the prospect is not good. In my next posts I will list some articles to further buttress my assessment. I'll warn you, some of it is really bleak!
The best thing for anyone is to look to the Lord and trust that he knows exactly what he's doing in times like this. I truly believe God is chastening us as a nation for the fraudulent and unfair economic system we have (among our many other politically endorsed sins). We, as in all things, need to repent of our covetous desires and unjust ways as a nation. I'll leave you with a prayer:
O LORD God, Heavenly Father: We humbly confess unto Thee that by our evil doings and continual disobedience, we have deserved these Thy chastisements; but we earnestly beseech Thee, for Thy Name's sake, to spare us; restrain the harmful power of the enemy,and succor Thy suffering people; that Thy Word may be declared faithfully and without hinderance, and that we, amending our sinful lives, may walk obediently to Thy holy commandments; through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord.