Hegel Schmegel

As both a Canadian and a cinephile, all this talk in the news of Trump wanting to make Canada a 51st state, and now this (potential) trade war, brings to mind the movie Canadian Bacon. Released in 1995, it's about an American president who takes to looking north of the border through an ever so suspicious lens, in viewing Canada as a country out to ruin the lives of Americans via cultural infiltration and other insidious methods. One paranoid American official in the movie even goes so far as to ponder the question, What if the U.S. was taken over by Canada? I'm no fan of director Michael Moore's politics or documentaries, but Canadian Bacon admittedly contains more than a few laughs, and makes for apt viewing at this critical and surreal time in international relations. Still, a premise that, however ludicrous, pales in comparison to the outrageous narrative being played out, centering around the present tariffs-obsessed, arguably mentally deranged POTUS. Sometimes real life is far more absurd than satire! One can only hope that Canadians who were once Trump-supporters are now finally coming to their senses, with this current 'feud' between Trump and Trudeau mere political theater, perhaps intended to entertain more than anything else. My guess is, these two loathsome characters, these two moronic heads of state, each performing their scripted roles, are probably the best of friends or at the very least on the same page, behind the curtain.

Once again we come to yet another polarizing debate, and yet I suspect there are many levelheaded folks also who have thought long and hard about it, who generally remain on the fence as a whole, and who, instead of seeing this controversial issue in black and white terms, understand the gray areas involved and the need to examine medical assistance in dying not in absolute but in situational terms. What I've observed in my following the alt- and independent media is a lot of fear-mongering in recent years, on the part of various outlets and commentators outright opposed to the very idea of MAiD, and this I simply do not understand. No doubt much of this opposition to MAiD is rooted in an intense dislike for what these ones perceive as being a strictly left-wing position, when at its core, as I see it, is a fundamentally ethical or even theological issue, far deeper and more intellectually nuanced compared to the realm of this-or-that/either-or partisan politics. For me, this is not about siding with an entire party platform simply because one is pro-MAiD. Here in Canada, it just so happens that the government in power in support of MAiD are liberals, but were they conservatives, it needn't change an individual's position on the matter. Personally, I am in total support of Canada's euthanasia program and yet on many other issues am strongly opposed to Liberal Party policies. Call me a maverick, but I do not take party sides, just as some Christians adhere to no set of dogmas exclusive to a single denomination. Incidentally, and somewhat paradoxically some might think, I side with the pro-life community on the abortion issue, but here I reason that another life aside from the mother is clearly involved and thus ought to be considered. By contrast, in countries where it's been legalized, MAiD concerns only one being, a free and moral agent, and as such is, or ought to be, a pro-choice matter, being it concerns the God-given right to individual sovereignty. And yet what I've observed is a strict toeing of the party line on the part of pro-life social conservatives who fail to make this glaring distinction between dependent fetus and thinking, consenting adult; the latter, whose right it has been for quite some time to decline by way of a Living Will life-sustaining measures (passive euthanasia in action), if he or she so chooses. Most definitely, there is always the potential for MAiD being weaponized by the state but simply to legalize it, as some countries have done, does not make it a war against the people, as the fear-mongers outrageously make it out to be. In the government's own words, this is about the "autonomy and freedom of choice of individuals," as it should be. This we did not see when it came to the Covid 'vaccines,' which makes this particular instance of respect for individual rights so extraordinary to witness. We ought to be very pleased that the Canadian government has taken it upon itself to respect the rights of the individual in this case, but instead what we find are some rather vocal Canadians opposed to this very freedom! Go figure. Interestingly, the early 20th-century English author, H.G. Wells once wrote: "This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and the sensual, is possible. I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved." As stated above, in very rare and extreme instances, MAiD does have the potential of becoming weaponized, and we must always be on the alert for this, but as it stands here in Canada and in other countries in support of MAiD, to argue against medical assistance in dying by way of said tactic amounts to fanatical rhetoric -- it is neither rational nor persuasive, bur rather is an extremely weak argument. If military veterans and those with disabilities are opposed to MAiD, fine, that is their choice, but at the same time they should also respect the individual freedoms and personal judgments of their fellow countrymen, enough to refrain from lobbying government to change its laws on their behalf, just as socially conservative media outlets and commentators ought to refrain from using disingenuous scare tactics in a pathetic attempt to paint MAiD out to be somehow associated with or echoing Nazi criminality/propaganda. For every military veteran or disabled person opposed to MAiD there is someone suffering from a painful, terminal illness who would be in support of it. Suppose you were to awaken to find yourself the lead character in Johnny Got His Gun, would you be for or against medical assistance in dying? As a cinephile, I have seen several excellent films that have dealt honestly and compassionately with this sensitive topic. Among them, the following titles I highly recommend to anyone interested in considering the sufferer's point of view: An Act of Murder (1948), Right of Way (1983), The Sea Inside (2004), and Whose Life Is It Anyway? (1981), to name but a few fictional narratives. As for documentary films, How to Die in Oregon (2011) is a must-see, as well. With regard to reading material, by far the best book on the subject is Final Exit by Derek Humphry. The late Mr. Humphry was best known for his having founded the Hemlock Society and in his lifetime had contributed greatly to our understanding of the right-to-die movement. I raise two goblets: One in toast of Derek and the other in tribute to that admirable renegade and humanitarian, Jack Kevorkian.

An argument could certainly be made that misandry is what largely fuels the modern Western Zeitgeist termed 'female empowerment.' Are there courses in this? I'm not sure. Note, however, this isn't about wanting to be equal, but about power -- power over men. There was a time in secular society, not so long ago, when women in general did not think themselves superior to males, but rather were as modest and humble as many of today's grannies. The social forces primarily responsible for popularizing feminism would do a lot to change how men in the West were perceived and treated by the opposite sex, with an increase in 'female supremacists' and crypto-man-haters being merely a by-product of this rather effective, decades-in-the-making propaganda campaign orchestrated by the social engineers. Have you ever wondered why the majority of men in sitcoms are portrayed as slackers and idiots, and why so many Hollywood-made movies depict men as wife-abusers and rapists? This is not so much the small- and big-screens imitating reality as it is effective cultural programming. Such is also why you never heard of a 'henpecked husband' until about the latter half of the 20th-century. They have been given an inch, have taken a mile and then some, and are now loving every minute mounted atop their high horse. This castrating, snarly attitude and dissing of men you see today, mostly in the secular West, has been accomplished not so much through grass-roots efforts as by design, beginning with the engineered woman's lib movement here in North America, which, although on the surface professed the noble aim of freeing womankind, has arguably, in effect, only worked to 'masculinize' the female gender on a grand, if not irrevocable, scale. It's as if this has been done to acclimatize women to living in a predominantly manly world. This might only be just a theory but sometimes I wonder, where have all the ladies gone? Case in point: During my years in the workforce I have yet to see a man wearing a padded bra and miniskirt but I have seen many a woman clad in ether pants or a business suit; some who strut with an air of confidence or a swagger befitting a cowboy, as if believing they've been liberated when perhaps all they've really been is 'masculinized.' Perhaps, then, it could be a case of modern women hating men -- even if only subtly so and on a subconscious level -- for their having to dress and act as cocky as some males, in order to fit in and succeed in society; in a sense, resentful for having sold a part of their souls to the machine, if you will. In psychological jargon, what the 'masculinized' female projects is not so much 'female' empowerment as an underlying 'penis envy.' So it is I feel this antimale spirit of the age is really just a cultural symptom of a society which has lost and is badly in want of feminine qualities. By this I mean to say, that if both men and women were softer and gentler and thought less in patriarchal, hierarchal terms the world would be a far better place, with less man-haters around. Instead, you have women who get off on being domineering, who like to be in charge, in control, who seek out positions of occupational or political power, all the while often behaving quite unladylike. (As just one example, I know of a department manager, a woman who I'd describe as a manly woman, who enjoys addressing a fiftyish gentleman, a co-worker 'beneath' her job title, by way of a condescending hailname, as if he were a little boy or puppy, when for him to express back to the spiritual juvenile the same indignity would be beneath him to do, however much he'd love to be treated as a fellow human being with a name, as opposed to being viewed as an objectified, dehumanized 'subordinate.') This isn't to say that the majority of men are any better, what with hypermasculinity the norm. Indeed, where have all the gentleman gone? Still, to think that there are those -- some men included -- who believe that if women governed the world there'd be a lot less war and other forms of violent aggression, or even a complete end to these things, altogether. Personally, this idea that somehow the world would be a better place if women ruled the roost is over-simplistic and spurious. For in society today, I find there are just as many unlikable traits in women as there are in men, that women can be, for example, just as argumentative, spiteful, rash, hard-headed, unforgiving and mean-spirited as some, if not many, men can be. There are female serial killers. Women unfit to rule fill penitentiaries. Many young women commit violent crimes. Some male husbands are verbally, physically, and sometimes even sexually abused by (dildo-toting) female wives. The only reason it's men who commit wars and not women is more likely due to the fact that women have, hitherto, never been in a position to do the same -- the mythological Amazons of old, notwithstanding. In sum, if it is a case of women hating men -- whether consciously or unconsciously -- I don't think it has much to do, if at all, with differences in gender as similarities in manly attitude and ego. In my opinion, they are also not so much being taught misandry, as say in some indoctrination center, as coming by it naturally. For some guys, it's gotten so bad it's enough for them to seek out feminine companionship in a sexbot or love doll.

I've often wondered myself why it is David Icke is so down on this physical world of materiality, calling it a simulation that we need to spiritually escape from, and yet at the same time has willfully brought forth children into 'the matrix.' Granted, maybe at the time of fathering his family Yaldabaoth was the farthest thing from his mind. Still, I wonder if his own grown-up kids think the same of this plane of existence as he does or does Icke have grandchildren? There are those who refuse to offer up any more children to the Demiurge. Perhaps it is why Yahweh struck down Onan for having spilled/wasted his seed and why protected, recreational sex is demonized within the Abrahamic faiths. Could it be that these monotheistic believers worship at the same altar? Consider the population of Earth and the percentage who make up worshipers of either Yahweh, Christ, or Al. For people whose minds are supposedly focused on an afterlife to come and who themselves believe this world a fallen one, ruled by an evil power, many of them sure do reproduce like rabbits!

Foreword: The proceeding body of text, highlighted and in italics below, was authored by me and originally submitted on another online forum, a site that has multiple sub-forums devoted to discussing religious, spiritual, and paranormal themes and one in particular to discussing all things Christianity related, whether favorably or critically. Upon receiving a few complementary and equally civil responses from fellow users, the thread I'd started on this topic, which had only been up for a day or two, was subsequently, curiously removed, on account of it supposedly being too 'controversial.' I feel this subject matter is simply too culturally important to dismiss, and ought not to be relegated to the internet waste bin, and thus herein am trying out this topic on the DIF, in my re-posting said content verbatim. You tell me, is this topic too 'controversial,' so much so that it's worth shameful censoring? PS: Out of respect for this other online forum, I choose not to name it, as this isn't about back-talking but rather freedom of speech and open debate. I'm quite surprised to find nary a mention of this largely interrelated topic anywhere on this site, when over the years prime-time preachers/televisional megapastors have certainly played an influential role within North American culture. And so this thread, that at the outset has me wondering if there are any other forum users old enough to remember the 1980s and '90s -- what was considered the heyday of the electronic preacher phenomenon -- when once household names like Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn shared the airwaves. If so, what are your thoughts on televangelists? Sex scandals notwithstanding, the reputation of televangelists in general is that they're charlatans, covert businessmen out to acquire wealth by means of swindling a gullible and charitable audience. 'Tis why they've often been parodied within cinema (as in the 1989 movie, Fletch Lives), as being small-screen characters rather transparent in their phoniness. Granted, no doubt some TV ministers have been sincere and legitimate (I've always thought highly of the late Jack Van Impe, for example), as not all clad themselves in silk suits and expensive jewelry; exceptional cases who are not out to dupe poor seniors into donating what little is left of their pension cheques, but in my opinion these real McCoys have been few and far between. Aside from often gaudy wardrobes and telling land assets, one thing that many of these Sunday morning entertainers tended to have in common was a claim to be able to cure people of their ailments and afflictions, via supernatural means. Yet were these stage performers really faith healers, or more so fake healers? Prior to the age of televangelism there was what was called the revivalist period. Revivalists were itinerant preachers who would travel the country, performing at various tent shows. These events were often known for their theatrics -- loud, excitable speakers, attendees practically rolling in the aisles, and, most notably, a stream of folks lining up to the stage in the hopes of being miraculously healed. For an interesting behind-the-scenes look at the tail end of what was the revivalist period in America, the 1972 documentary film, Marjoe, makes for highly recommended viewing. It tells the fantastic story of its human subject, who began his stage career as a revivalist showman at the mere age of 6 (!), and who, as an adult, takes to revealing some of the tricks of the trade, exposing the circuit as being a no-good racket more than anything else. As someone who doesn't watch satellite TV, I cannot say whether televangelism is still popular or not, but there was a time back when cable TV was around when as a channel-surfer I would, on occasion, stop to watch a few minutes of Popoff or Hinn and be amazed that there were people who bought into this stuff. With regard to what is termed faith healing, at least one well-known televangelist from the 1980s was exposed for having employed 'plants' -- men on the payroll, who would dress up as old ladies, in wigs and wheelchairs, and only pretend to be cured. In other cases, when attempts at televangelistic healing were known to fail, the explanation given for this was said to be due to a lack of faith in the intended recipient. How convenient. Of note is that, according to Scripture, genuine faith healing is said to occur at no cost and remotely, meaning it does not require the (showy) laying on of hands. If there is an afterlife of eternal punishment for the wicked, one can only wonder what is in store for those who con and fake and amass fortunes doing so, and in the name of Christ, no less. According to one prominent conspiracy researcher, known for having self-published a somewhat notable work on the Jesuits back in the '90s, most of the more influential televangelists in the '80s and into the '90s were not simply avaricious wolves in sheep's wool, out after riches, but were in fact nothing less than agents of the Illuminati, assigned to infiltrate the world of telecasting, with the primary mission of making Christianity look bad to the average couch potato. Along the way, should the undercover, anti-Christian actor manage to make a few hundred million dollars on behalf of his masters in the process, call it gravy. According to this theory, if all a person knew of Christianity was from what s/he saw on TV, doubtless they would be put off the religion and would look no further into it. Hence, so the author claims, why also several of these televangelists were so easily exposed in the news for having committed adultery, with the intent of this being to paint all clergyman as covert hypocrites into leading double lives. What I find so astonishing is that even when these sex scandals made headlines, the shocking news did nothing really to decrease ratings or lessen viewership, at least not to any significant extent. One well-known televangelist from said era was raking in an estimated $35 million a year, while another was no doubt grabbing the attention of heresy hunters, in teaching a nine-member godhead. Then there was the case of a televangelist and evident egotist who would mail out to those on his donor list hankies said to contain holy perspiration taken from his brow. Could've been only ordinary droplets of water for all we know, or sweat beads from someone other than the sender, but such critical thinking skills did not prevent many an addressee from willingly parting with their money in order to have it. Sometimes dupes get what they deserve. It is a subject that has long fascinated me and so recently, I took to researching its modern-day origins. Apparently, it all began with a Canadian Pentecostal by the name of Aimee Semple McPherson (aka, Sister Aimee), who was quite the celebrity in her time, during the 1920s and '30s. (The 1931 movie, The Miracle Woman, was reported to be loosely based on her life story as a traveling 'faith healer.') From simple farm girl to media sensation, McPherson would go onto found the first megachurch, located in California: the million-dollar Angelus Temple. Fast-forward a few decades and we come to yet another then famous and influential female preacher, (the kinda creepy, in my opinion) Kathryn Kuhlman, and the rest is history in a paragraphical nutshell. It's been said that faith-healers are often sought out by desperate folks as a last resort in potential treatment for what the medical community has rendered an incurable illness. The question becomes, whether any man or woman of God possesses the 'Gift of Healing' in our post-apostolic period? Consider that Jesus, who had the power to heal and who is thought to be the greatest magician of all time, still, rather curiously, advised some who approached him who were sick, for them to seek out a physician. Interesting it was to learn that once upon a time, centuries ago, even European nobility got in on the act of supposed divine healing, which gave us the expression the 'Royal Touch.' Of interest, too, is that among some tribal communities found in non-Western, underdeveloped countries, such is known of the natives to successfully rid cases of illness and ailments by way of clairvoyant abilities. If true, then Christianity holds no monopoly on faith healing/miracle cures. In addition, back in the 19th and early 20th century America, Spiritualists were also said to have healed people via their own methods as well, either through help from alleged contact with benevolent nonhuman beings or via psychic surgery on the patient's etheric body.

Is Donald Trump a crypto-globalist, or a super-patriot into expansionism? You would think an isolationist president would be all for other nation-states maintaining their national sovereignty, and yet ever since POTUS was re-elected he's been talking about wanting to make Canada a 51st state. Merely the mad ravings of an impotent blowhard? And yet, this is exactly what someone with a globalist agenda would want -- namely, the amalgamating of two western countries, which in such a scenario would be only one step from basically a North American Union, the near-equivalent of the EU. As a Canuck myself, it is bad enough we had one head of state in league with globalist parties like the World Economic Forum. We certainly don't need another south of the border attempting to bring North America down as well, if that is what's going on here. Maybe the next PM should strongly consider erecting a giant wall along the Canadian border, if only to make a point that cocky Mister Tariffs can go screw himself. Viva Canada!

A nationwide postal strike enters its second week here in Canada and that it has continued for this long and especially now during what would otherwise be the busiest period of the year in letter and parcel delivery demonstrates how utterly stubborn and small-minded both Canada Post and the postal workers union are. Neither side seems to mind what their petty labor dispute is doing to the country, nor does either party seem to care about their fellow Canadians whose lives and/or livelihoods are being negatively impacted as a result of this untimely and uncalled-for disruption in what is generally regarded as an essential service. Aside from affecting hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country who live in rural areas, small business owners are especially feeling the effects of the strike -- as was the case during the recent lockdowns -- which has caused some to wonder whether this postal strike is yet another attempt on the part of the globalists to destabilize a Western economy, all the while as large e-retailers and the big parcel delivery companies are themselves benefiting from it. It just doesn't make any sense for this strike to still be in effect, during 'Black Friday' and with the Holiday Season fast approaching, when instead of locking horns and creating a work stoppage you could be in operation, promoting the Holiday spirit, and making hay while the sun shines. Are we to believe that CP and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) are willing to risk millions if not billions in business over what outside of their insular boardrooms amounts to a trivial squabble? Or can managers and labor union leaders really be this fantastically unreasonable and imprudent? Incidentally, should public sector unions be allowed to strike at all? When, if ever, will the federal government intervene with a back-to-work order, or do those in the governing party not give a damn about the Canadian economy and the small business owner either? Kudos to the CBC for being about the only news media in Canada covering this story, which is more than can be said for the independent media outlets who profess to having Canadians' best interests at heart but who up till now have remained curiously, or rather tellingly, silent on the topic. If there is a silver lining in all this, it's that those who are able to do so are switching to using alternative couriers, with some Canadians vowing never again to use Canada Post if at all possible, what with CP/CUPW proving themselves unreliable. As it stands, self-involved CUPW picketers are wasting time walking around with signs crying a sob story that no one is sympathetic to but themselves, with Canada Post most negligent in, as of this writing, refusing to release the countless pieces of mail in its possession that belong to Canadian citizens but of which are being held up in its network; this, despite these items having entered the mail system prior to the strike and some of these pieces being time-sensitive. Shame on both CP and CUPW for their inexcusable behavior, and where oh where are the scabs?

As much as I regard David Icke as one of the best five-sense conspiracy researchers out there, his far-out metaphysical views -- which in recent years have regrettably become more prominent -- doubtless has caused more than a few potential Ickettes to turn back to normieland, which is most unfortunate. One wonders if Icke would 'save more souls' as it were, in the here-and-now, where it counts the most (objectively speaking), than constantly venturing off into baseless, temporally impractical, territory. Perhaps if remaining more grounded to the earthplane would he lessen the chance of alienating a lot of the more rationally minded readers just discovering his bibliography. David Icke likens the human being to a 'biological computer,' inhabiting a VR-like simulation, in which my beloved Akashic Records are even referred to as a database, and the laws of physics are akin to a computer code -- all very cold and technical language, if not soulless bot-speak. If one didn't know any better, you'd almost think DI's brain was connected to AI. Although Icke likes to stress the point how he's been speaking about this supposed illusory world of ours for over two decades, prior to this public figure and that published person entering the scene to upstage him, it nevertheless is an occult concept that's nothing new to modern 'science,' however much the language in using to describe the hypothesis has changed. Does this make it true, however, and truly scientific? Not anymore than a respected and credentialed priest of scientism who states matter-of-factly of the Big Bang, the missing link, and of 'dark matter' being so. Spaced-out psychonauts and delusional psychotics who come back to reality to tell of nothing is real aside, I suppose it looks good if you can find a few scientists to help lend weight to your theory, as might an Apollo 11 dupe, or an atheist. So Icke cites/quotes a few scientists in chapter 7 of The Reveal, so as to try and make a credible case for the Simulation Gospel. Most surprisingly, one of these being Nick Bostrom, probably most known for his 2003 journal article, "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" (No, a cave, stupid.) Naturally, I questioned what Icke was doing in trying to make a scientific case for this theory by citing a man also known for having co-founded a transhumanist association! A few paragraphs later in chapter 7 of The Reveal, the author of a book titled "Our Mathematical Universe" is quoted from, which does little to impress those readers familiar with how theoretical mathematics has been in large part used over the past five centuries as an arcane craft to invent and make 'concrete' any number of philosophic -- or pseudoscientific -- theories, as it suits largely Masonic/Luciferian scientism to do, in the process fooling many a gullible layperson who thinks all the highfalutin terminology is over their heads so it must be smart and true. Then only a paragraph or two later does Icke then cite a computer scientist who works for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as if anyone involved with NASA makes for a strong and reliable source. JPL? You mean that outfit that occultist Jack Parsons co-founded, and who Werner von Braun credited with launching the 'space' program? Transhumanists. Theoretical mathematicians. NASA. Surely one can find better 'voices of authority' within usually Icke belittling 'mainstream science' in support of the simulation hypothesis; a belief system for some, which has it roots more in esotericism than actual, hard true science. As for quantum this and quantum that, a favorite pet word among those who promote the simulation model, it brings to mind a book I'm currently reading, by Chris Ferrie, titled "Quantum Bullsh*t." "The physical world defined by mathematics is real, but your perceptions of the world through your senses are not real. They are illusory." - Rene Descartes, 17th-century philosopher

Film Title: The Rise Of Jordan Peterson Director: Patricia Marcoccia Released: 2019 In recent years the arguably nominal Liberal Party of Canada has been shamelessly proposing/passing several anti-liberal pieces of legislation as to mirror if not surpass China in Big Brotherness. Consider such draconian examples as Bill-16, Bill-18, and Bill C-11. Say what you will of Jordan Peterson, he is all for freedom of speech, is anti-censorship, and as such makes a fine and true Canadian in my book. Granted, turn over a few rocks and there's certainly a few curious if not alarming surprises underneath, if it is true of his once having worked for the UN/Agenda 21. Admittedly, his 'ARC' project does sound more than a little suspicious as well, but is he really knowingly in cahoots with the powers-that-be as some have suggested, or is the man's heart for the most part in the right place? Shill, stooge, or simply harmless pseud? Lest we forget, Peterson has called out the World Economic Forum, has been critical of the Covid 'vaccine,' has stood up on campus against obnoxious wokesters and their twisted propaganda, and has dutifully spoken out against (radical) Islam. Okay, so he taught for seven years at Harvard which is enough to raise red flags, although more than this I am wary of any man who dons a pinstripe suit. Then there's the paintings of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx that he has in his home, which can be seen as the documentary subject takes us on a tour of his humble abode, but let us not read too much into this. Furthermore, for all his talk of being anti-authoritarian, what's Peterson doing, as shown here, owning an Orwellian, eavesdropping device in his home? For all his supposed intellect and wisdom, here's a man who speaks to a machine in order to be informed of the day's itinerary. If you haven't yet seen this engaging little film, then I encourage you to check it out. I think the only viewers who would find it most disagreeable would be umbrageous, censorious transgenders and their ideological bedfellows. There's a 'nonbinary transgender' colleague of Peterson's who in the film is quoted as calling our unwoke prof a bigot, meanwhile as hundreds of thousands look up to their hero as a beacon of light, or at least their source of inspiration behind finally getting around to picking their dirty laundry from off the floor. Indeed, prior to their reading "12 Rules For Life" I wonder how many Peterson fans had heard of a hamper? In "The Reveal" David Icke turns a suspicious gaze upon Jordan Peterson and perhaps rightly so. Still, I question if Jordan Peterson is really all that bad as some forum users and conspiracy researchers make him out to be. Why should this man who is so verbally abused and disliked by the 'woke' mob/MSM be at the same time outright rejected by those who are themselves opposed to wokeism just as much as he is? After watching The Rise Of Jordan Peterson, you may think it unfair for him to have to run this gauntlet. My favorite scene: the clip taken from Lauren Southern's 'ID switch' video. Priceless. She may have fooled the lady behind the desk, but not me. I can spot a pretty gal a mile away.

Title: The Greatest Lie On Earth Author: Edward Hendrie Re-Published: 2018 'Question everything.' With that motto in mind, I took to reading a book which half or more of the users on this forum are doubtless to regard as outright disinfo -- either intended to keep man tethered to Earth and from terraforming the galaxies, or designed to discredit conspiracy research in general. As one who has read the dang thing, I am here to say that is an emphatic not so on both counts. Nevertheless, space-worshipers may think the author to be a malevolent extraterrestrial for writing this heretical screed, when in reality our penman in nothing quite as exciting as all that; merely, a self-professing Christian Creationist and -- more pertinent to this review -- devout geocentrist. Worth mentioning is that I haven't read the previous printing of this title but as to the expanded 2018 edition, contained in it are numerous pages which veer off into all sorts of arguably irrelevant territory, from the Kennedy assassination to 9/11, to exposing a not so flattering side of Martin Luther King, Jr. What all this has to do with an alleged Copernican conspiracy, the patient if not long-suffering reader of this oft-digressionary book may find himself wondering. Could 100-200 pages have been easily expunged from this bulky bible? Anything is possible, including the gospel message as cogently presented in this alternately polarizing/paradigm-shifting read. Funny, that on this forum there exists comments to the effect of the flat-earth 'psy-op' being in large part of Jewish doing. Here we are told the opposite is true. Oh, yes, there is a Jewish conspiracy all right, but it centers around the worldwide promulgation of ball-earthism! (This, a perfect case in point of how the Jews just can't win -- how within the conspiracy culture they're blamed for everything, to the absurd point that theories can contradict each other.) So it is that The Biggest Lie On Earth is readable, up to a point...or extremely readable if you happen to be on the same anti-Zionist page as Hendrie. (Note: It was not the Jews who conspired to crucify Jesus, but rather only a handful of corrupt Jewish leaders -- the operative words here being handful, corrupt and leaders.) Indeed, this may be the only book you read on Flat Earth where one minute the author is discussing an intriguing Isle of Man photograph and the next Talmudic Jews/Cabalistic Judaism and how it all relates. Shall we have to nickname it the Internationalists' Space Station? Have I now come to a better understanding of Judaism? How can it be, Mr. Hendrie, that Jesuits are beholden to Zionist Jews when the Jesuits precede modern-day/counterfeit Zionism by a few centuries? More importantly, is there really such a thing as egregores, that can be conjured up by sorcerers to serve the interests of a collective body? And here I thought these beings only existed in movies, most notably in the 1920 silent film classic, "The Golem," which shows a Jewish occultist summoning such a monster into existence. Hendrie might very well be onto something huge...but as to his skewed replacement theology, how any more explicit can Romans chapter 11 be?

In this post I get around to recommending a podcast, but first a few relevant words... I am rightly wary of any alt-media podcaster...whose fan base is in the millions...whose marquee name dwarfs their content...whose website features merchandise for sale...who takes time-out from each episode to promote products...who is partially owned or controlled if you will by (content-monitoring) sponsors...(crikey, who are obsessed with AI, promoting it as an overall good!...who speak fondly of the Cloud!)...who frequently interview bigshot guests and share these guests with other prominent show hosts as if part of a clubby bromance circuit. The tentacles of the (sewer) system run deep and extend underground as well, compelling the burrowing ex-normielander to bypass the uppermost layers of the rabbit hole, where he once waded, trying to sift through all the (fake) crap. Such sifting in these regions he will inevitably find to be a futile pursuit, which may cause him to want to give up in his search, surrounded as he is by semi-blue carrots in the hole out to lead him astray. Dig a little deeper, however, and there beneath the reach of the underground system & plants can be found genuinely trustworthy sources of information -- neither bought nor owned, neither after fame nor money; merely podcasters in pajamas, simply wanting to relay information they feel is important onto their audience; listeners who are encouraged to go do their own research and to critically think for themselves. Shows that are seldom if ever recorded in a professional studio, shows that far from being the host's source of income are rather something that is done out of heartfelt interest, in-between and aside from often bluecollar jobs and family responsibilities. These are podcasters who do not conveniently come to us (by way of self-promotion and ads); rather, we have to seek them out -- a process one might call digging for turd. For it is the proverbial punchbowl that is the real danger here, laced as it is with contaminants, and if there are any admirable 'party-poopers' to be found in this inverted system of ours, these are not found so conspicuously in the open anymore, floating transparently where they may be easily 'netted' and 'scooped up.' It is only by digging through all the contaminated layers of the rabbit hole that genuine red pills & pillers (so-called 'turds') are today discovered. Refreshingly, an alt-media does exist that isn't 'mainstream' in content and style. One such example of which I happened to chance upon a few years ago, via my own exploratory efforts. The podcast is aptly named "NWCZradio's Down The Rabbit Hole" and it is golden. It's hosted by two ordinary guys (Big D / Brandon V) who do their own extensive research into various conspiratorial/paranormal topics and who simply pass along their findings onto their listeners. Nothing flashy, not very polished, and all about the content (all positives) -- a perfect example of what an alt-media podcast should at least sound like. Yes, but some may wonder: does it keep only to a five-sense perspective? I would say that for the most part it does, albeit a parapolitical understanding of what is going on is I think also recognized. Of possible interest to those here are past episodes on Zionism, David Icke, and the whole 'matrix' meme. Re: the matrix. Who really knows for certain? When it comes to metaphysical matters, I do know this, however: it's wise to maintain some counter-balance, lest we find ourselves swept up in some collective 'neo'-religion.

I continue to admire David Icke and his work, despite my overall disappointment with the alternative media in general. That much of it is geared toward drawing attention to the personality than the content (what amounts to a personality cult), with many an egotistical podcaster/author/researcher primarily after subscribers/followers, has always been a major turn-off for me, and so it was I appreciated reading in The Reveal Icke's own thoughts on this highly infiltrated subculture, all the while baffled as to why he seems to want to be accepted/respected by some of the very alternative personalities who are part of the problem. Take Joe Rogan, for example. I haven't listened to a single episode of his show and don't intend to, as I could care less what an opulent, publicity-seeking celebrity (not difficult to read between the lines there) has to say on anything affecting the common, everyday person. The dude is a sell-out, in my opinion (with some background history as told by podcaster Jan Irvin who knew Rogan personally before JR acquired his cult following most insightful). In The Reveal, Icke whines how he is marginalized by this Joe Schmo when it shouldn't matter to him one bit. Consider your being ignored by Rogan a compliment, David, not a slight. As for Alex Jones, what's he doing consorting with the likes of Elon Musk and praising this guy, no less? Is not Musk a contemptible transhumanist? As I do not follow "infoWars" I would like to thank Mr. Icke for bringing this to my attention. I shall have to re-examine my thoughts on AJ, despite his having done some excellent work over the years exposing the game plan of the 'globalists.' Meanwhile, you have 'independent' newspapers -- for the most part respectable rags, opposed to state-controlled media -- who frequently take to praising the likes of Jordan Peterson and Musk, all the while completely ignoring the things these two say and do that are quite revealing of their true colors. Makes you wonder as to the depth of controlled opposition when those all for Covid jabs, brain implants, etc, are hailed as heroes by supposedly independent media outlets allegedly on the side of civil liberties/humanity. Incidentally, you can understand my initial shock upon reading the subheading "Gimme Islam" that appears near the end of The Reveal. My first reaction was that perhaps Icke was just another snake in the grass, finally coming clean as to what I've long suspected might be the case (based on his view of Israel and what-not), but rest assured the author is only being ironical here and has neither turned monotheistic nor Far Left. Phew!

As to the Trinity as taught in Christendom, it does appear to be a biblical doctrine the more one examines the Scriptures as an unbiased reader and using an exegetical approach. Nevertheless, I don't think the triune nature of the Godhead is meant to be entirely comprehended by the puny minds of men and as such I regard the Trinity doctrine to be not so much nonsensical as understandably incomprehensible -- as God no doubt would be outside of a quadrate belief system. Certainly, the ancient Egyptians had their own seemingly triadic proto-variations of the Holy Trinity -- as depicted by the Horus-Isis-Osiris love triangle, as did the ancient Babylonians as well, with their tales of Nimrod, Tammuz, etc, but do these pagan parallels necessarily disprove what may be the original source and genuine article? In chapter 5 of The Biggest Secret, David Icke takes to dismissing the Trinity doctrine on the grounds of its supposed pagan origins, and on the surface it does appear to be so, albeit one must be careful not to confuse the monotheistic rendering of the Trinity with tritheism (three gods in one), as Muslims do. The Athanasian Creed makes it clear how one is to perceive the triadic Godhead, a concept first officially formulated at the earlier Council of Constantinople; this creed in direct opposition to the heresy of Arianism, of which the JW sect fall among, denying as they do the fully divine nature of Christ; this, despite biblical passages plainly alluding to the absolute deity of JC (John 1:1 -- save the NWT; Revelation 22:13). Interestingly, the Trinity is not taught in Judaism, despite the use of plural pronouns in verses such as Genesis 1:27, in reference to Elohim, and in the account of the Tower of Babel, found at Genesis 11:7...not unless the speaker here in these texts is communicating by way of the 'royal we,' of which I do not think is the case. (Incidentally, when at Deuteronomy 6:4 the LORD speaks of his being the one and only God, it is to be noted that an external distinction is being made, in denunciation of polytheism and in line with exclusive devotion, and is not meant to imply a one-person deity.) Just as a man can himself be both a father and a son at the same time -- different persons to different people -- and yet still remain a singular being, so it is with the apparent oneness of the triadic Godhead. As it is, according to biblical scholars, first- and second-century Christians, such as the Church Fathers (Origen, Iranaeus, et al) understood Trinitarianism to be scriptural orthodoxy, and this quite some time before the Council of Nicaea came along and began to officially solidify the doctrine of the Trinity, or 'Tri-unity' as others have dubbed it. Indeed, if denying the personhood of the Holy Spirit (in describing this Ghost as God's impersonal 'active force') amounts to the unforgivable sin, and if denying the divinity of Jesus amounts to rejecting Christ, then as many mainline Bible-believers teach there will be some self-professing believers bound to be in for quite the surprise upon their crossing over to the other side. Still, if generally fine human souls like the JWs are destined for Hell simply for their being nontrinitarians, then the question remains: Is the Christian God worthy of one's love and worship?

Interesting tidbit... The next time a Jehovah's Witness appears at your doorstep, don't be surprised if you should find the male recruit no longer appearing as his former clean-shaven self. Of interest to hear that JW men may now grow beards if they want and should they decide to, continue to remain in good standing within the organization. News of this has no doubt caused many an ex-Witness beardie to want to laugh, and to perhaps reach for his electric shaver in order to be different. For many years prior to this recent organizational change in policy, any man within the congregation who for whatever reason decided to grow a beard would've been looked down upon by his fellow spiritual brothers and sisters as one weak in the faith and semi-rebellious, and in all likelihood pulled aside by the elders and counseled for his 'unchristian' appearance. Now, just like that, with a simple stroke of the pen, so to speak, it's OK for a JW man to grow a beard (so long as it's kempt, I presume, and neither shaggy nor bushy) and to still be viewed as an upstanding congregant and faithful servant of Jehovah. (Note: As of this writing, such is reportedly to be the present case.) Who knew organized religion could be so farcical? As for whether this go-ahead on the part of the movement's Governing Body applies to all male Witnesses throughout the entire earth or just to certain parts of the world is unknown to me. Word is, however, that in areas where the green light has been given, more and more Witness men, young and old, are taking to the new look -- that no sooner had the announcement been made of beards being acceptable grooming, that peach fuzz and five o'clock shadows started appearing on the faces of teenage boys like never before, with many of their (equally enthusiastic) fathers quick to jump on this hairy bandwagon, as well...as if these JWs had all this time, privately in their hearts, disagreed with the hitherto organizational restriction on beards, despite their previous outward show of obedience to the contrary. It makes you wonder what other religious prohibitions the rank-and-file members privately think to be pharisaical, if not downright unscriptural. So I'm told, the former restriction on beards had to do with the Witnesses wanting to stand apart from the world and from the clergymen of Christendom. Never-mind that the very god they profess to worship is depicted in their holy book as one appearing like your typical rabbi, and despite Jesus doubtless having been a beardie himself, and although the sect's founder, Charles Taze Russell, resembled Santa Clause, it was around the 1970s that the WTB&TS began to put the kibosh on beards. Apparently, the sect's leadership did not want their men looking like 'worldly' hippies and yet even neatly trimmed, close-shaven beards were also prohibited, or discouraged, during this period. So the next time you hear your doorbell ring or a knock at your door and you open it to find some whiskered/goateed man in a suit toting an electronic tablet and claiming to be a JW, don't immediately write him off as an imposter, for he may very well be who he says he is. As to whether it's permissible for a JW woman to wear a partially ingrown mustache, I do not know. And as to where all this is headed, whether the JW leadership is, via this latest policy change, trying to appeal to the younger generation, I also cannot say. It makes you wonder, though, what might be next in store. Will a JW one day awaken to learn that it's now okay to have a tattoo, so long as it's of modest size and the image presentable? Only time will tell.

Title: The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels Author: Alexander Epstein Published: 2014 'Argh. Fossil fuels -- bad! Renewables -- g-o-o-o-o-d!,' is about the extent and intellectual level of the neo-troglodyte's argument, or at least among the tee-shirt messaging, twenty-something, useful idiot crowd. Along comes a rare find in print, more than up to the challenge in daring to question the parroted party line. In an age where independent and critical thinkers are about as rare as a fossilized dinosaur, what we have in the positively heretical The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels is a book so taboo a read, as no doubt "The Satanic Bible" is to a practicing, non-inquisitive Christian. That is not to equate this book with evil and with darkness, by any means. On the contrary. No other book I know of does a better job of shining a light on the morality of hydrocarbons as this one does -- and I didn't even have to read it in an undertone and by candlelight, either. Is my sniffer and mind high on gasoline? Any greenie reading this might think that to be the case, but I only use gasoline to power my automobile and wish to do the same for many years to come, as I believe that is in my right to do...were I living in a free society driven by consumer choice and not by asinine government mandates. No gas-powered vehicles by 2050 is I think the stated goal of some parliamentary half-wits here in what feels like Schwab-controlled Canada. Every year, more impractical bicycle lanes appear every where you look; lanes that go largely unused (especially in winter); that only add to traffic congestion; and that have been causing numerous downtown mom-and-pop shops to lose business on account of no more curbside parking. Do these parliamentary policy-makers have hemorrhoids for brains, or what? My guess is a lot of them wouldn't know how to spell photosynthesis, or that fossil fuels are basically derived from precious plant life -- dead plants, mind you, but from plants, nonetheless. Already, we're seeing a number of Canadians leaving or planning on leaving the country permanently, fed up as they are with Trudeau and the way the country is headed, and it makes me wonder if the phasing out of gas-powered autos has a lot to do with their decision to abandon the Great White North, perhaps for greener pastures where carbon dioxide emissions are not demonized as they are here. Mr. Epstein reminds his learned readers of the Club of Rome's failed 1972 prediction that by 1992 there would be no oil left in the earth. Another false prophecy from the '70s predicted a time when urbanites would have to wear gas masks in order to survive. Once more, this hasn't proven to be the case, other than for perhaps one or two paranoiacs freely roaming the streets, overcome by an irrational fear of pedestrian flatulence. And on it goes, with the dire warnings of fanatical 1st-century Christian doomsayers proving no match compared to today's eco-alarmist fear-mongering -- those orally expelled emissions that have been increasing in both frequency and intensity with each passing year. In chapter 4 there appears a list of newspaper headlines taken from the 1930s, that all read very much the same as today, with regard to erratic and severe weather patterns. Not much has changed in that regard, either. Tidal waves. Tornados. Hurricanes. You know, the same old tired news. As an aside, as the ruling technocrats anticipate their New World Order, of digital currencies and smart cities, one can only hope that the inconvenience of a global climatological catastrophe doesn't interfere with their plans. The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels is not really just another book out to deny anthropogenic climate change, as its title suggests. It's more than that. Mr. Epstein also realizes that no natural resource is perfect, and knows enough not to romanticize the concept of nature as somehow being a loving mother, protective of the human species, when she is nothing of the sort. Indeed, were it not for humans responsibly terraforming our earthly home, our species would very much not be around to reap the benefits obtained from utilizing hydrocarbons. As the book highlights and emphasizes, fossil fuels have contributed greatly to the quality of human life, in countless ways; ways in which the far majority of earthlings are either simply unaware of or take for granted -- from powering machinery and other technologies leading to longer lifespans, to improving health, to helping to create environmentally friendly facilities, as with sanitation systems. Nuclear power and hydro-electric energy are also given some attention to as being potential alternatives, with the author noting both their pros and their cons, whereas solar and wind energy are rightly and quickly dismissed as the least sensible energy solutions of them all. Will a world teeming with EVs lead to a strain on the electric grid and to ever-ubiquitous blackouts? Is a new Dark Age fast approaching us? For plants' sake, maybe CO2 isn't that bad, after all. Ditto for oil sands, pipelines, and the internal combustion engine.