Hegel Schmegel

Some additional comments with regard to a few scenes in the movie... Among the more zealous members of the JW faith, it's not uncommon for full-time ministers ('pioneers' as they're called) to learn a foreign language, in order to be able to communicate more effectively with the variety of householders they encounter in their local assigned territory, or so as to later relocate and serve in regions of the world where the organization feels there's a need for 'Christian' missionaries. In the movie, Alex and Luisa are shown to be somewhat fluent in Urdu. When the question is asked of them as to what becomes of unbelievers come Armageddon, one of the girls remarks how perhaps not every non-JW will be destroyed, as God knows what's inside the hearts of people. Applying the Great Commission as recorded at Matthew 24:14 to themselves, the JWs feel it is their scriptural duty to proclaim 'the good news' of Christ's (invisible) return and established heavenly reign. Some of the more pious even go so far as to learn a new language so that all may get to hear the JW message. A curiosity, however: If God is omniscient, a reader of hearts, and knows who belongs to him and who doesn't, why the need for door-to-door preachers, and to go through all the trouble of learning a new language, as if the salvation of non-members somehow depends on their hearing what amounts to a rehearsed sales pitch? Seems rather superfluous, if in the end God is the final judge and will save and destroy whom He pleases, anyway. I've heard it said of JWs by one ex-member how generally 'square' they are. In keeping with this quadrate perception, the JW culture, it has also been said, is known for its micro-managing and structure -- its organization. Even when it comes to recreational activities, over-planning is often involved; even these events are 'controlled' so to speak. At informal get-togethers, for example, in which secular music is played, the playlist is often if not always reviewed beforehand by an elder so as to make sure all the music is suitable for listening and dancing to. Often there's an elder in attendance to supervise these events. There's a scene in Apostasy that has Alex and her mother attending a party at the home of a co-congregant. Observe in this scene how the women are shown dancing, as if keeping their minimal movements restricted to an imaginary box about them; their dancing, self-conscious and lacking in spontaneity. This is their time to have a little fun. Next on the subconscious schedule: A Bible drama performed by the children -- laugh here. Consider another scene that has the mother at her place of worship, listening to a talk being given by the same 'brother' who has recently privately counseled Ivanna for associating with her disfellowshipped daughter; the speaker making it appear that he's talking to all those in attendance when he's really speaking to one person, however indirectly. Understandably, this makes Ivanna uncomfortable, to the point that she gets up and leaves the auditorium, no doubt displeased with this act of verbal underhandedness/personal opportunism on the part of the smug, unctuous homilist who, like the odd study magazine Sunday commenter, enjoys pointing out the faults of fellow believers in attendance in a self-righteous, roundabout manner. Although for every ex-JW there is a story, behind why they decided to leave or the reason for their ex-communication, none are more interesting than the experiences of those who at time during their membership served at one or more of the society's branch locations, or even at headquarters itself. One of the better ex-JW sources to be found online is a show called "Critical Thought," hosted by a married couple (JT & Lady Cee) who were one-time 'Bethelites' and, as such, were privy to a lot of stuff that went on 'behind the scenes,' if you will. One episode, in particular, is quite intriguing: titled "Vow of Poverty." In this, the show's host talks about how in recent years many Bethelites have been let go on account of the society no longer being in need of their live-in services. Some of these are men and women in their fifties and older who gave up homes and careers in order to devote their entire lives to 'serving Jehovah,' and who now after decades of living sheltered from the harsh realities of the working world find themselves placed into a situation where they must now fend for themselves, all the while being close to retirement age, with very little if no financial savings and little to no experience in the workforce. Twice in Apostasy, one of the characters mentions how nice it would be to be a Bethelite or a 'Circuit Overseer,' in which all one's basic needs are looked after and one doesn't have to work in the world. In almost every episode of "Critical Thought," the curtain is pulled back as it were, and makes for essential listening for anyone interested in learning more about this religious group, from a husband-and-wife team whose experience within the organization was unlike many compared to those among the rank-and-file. As for the movie itself, obviously it's not to everyone's liking, but it's well-made, observant, and quiet -- so very quiet; contemplative. One will note the absence of musical underscoring which -- for those of us who appreciate great works of 'cinematic theater' -- adds to its overall appeal. Kudos to Daniel Kokotajlo for making such an exceptional film, one that has more than just entertainment value.

Movie Title: Apostasy Director: Daniel Kokotajlo Released: 2017 Although the term apostasy carries with it a negative connotation within the narrow-minded confines of religious dogmatism, and in the eyes of monotheistic, triumphalist zealots primarily, for numerous others, especially those who've escaped such pious power structures, the term is a beautiful and positive one, a synonym for freedom. Apostates -- or freedom-lovers, if you will -- exist the world over and have since the beginning of pseudo-spiritual, mind-controlling belief systems. Such admirable, independent-minded escapees come from various backgrounds but tend mostly to have their origins in the controlling Abrahamic theocracies and their cult-like splinter groups. Apostasy is an excellent, well-made indie film written and directed by a former Jehovah's Witness, whose insider knowledge and personal experience of what it's like to be a JW adds greatly to the story. Ivanna (Siobhan Finnerman) is a middle-aged single mom and devotee of the sect, with two teenage daughters living at home: Alex (Molly Wright) and Luisa (Sacha Parkinson). As the movie opens we find the girls dressed in their Sunday best and engaged in proselytizing. Both appear to be believing members, just like their serious-minded mother, knocking on doors, out and about in the 'ministerial work' peddling their salvationist literature. The sympathetic character here is Luisa, as will be shown further along as the movie progresses. Lovely and good-natured, our likable heroine longs to be free yet at the same time doesn't want to hurt her mother whom she loves deeply. Apostasy is very well-acted and Sacha Parkinson as Luisa especially turns in an impressive, realistic performance as a young woman who'd rather stay true to herself than live a lie, even if it means having to struggle out in the world -- away from the cozy, close-knit congregation -- as a disbelieving bachelorette, without any financial and emotional support. This she chooses than live under a roof as a fraud and an inmate of sorts. Siobhan Finnerman is also very good in her role as a woman torn between her (unconditional?) love for her 'aberrant' daughter (of whom she is told by the elders she must ostracize) and the clannish organization she's a part of, headed by a few semi-idolized men based out of New York who call themselves the Governing Body. Apostasy is a quiet, captivating and deeply affecting photoplay with emotional depth and complexity. This is drama at its finest and the best film out there that I know of on what it's like to be a 'PIMO' or an outright lapser within this particular faith -- these groupthink sects and opposers of free-thinkers. Highly recommended and, as with all great movies, best watched in a single viewing and without interruption, so as to experience its full filmic impact.

David Icke, is that you? Joking aside, as much as I enjoy and prefer being liked, in the end when it comes to remaining true to myself, I could care less what others here or anywhere else think of me...as well as whether other forum members agree with Icke that we live in a simulation. It is interesting, though, and I do have to ask: Has Icke ever moved on from New Age teachings? After all, this 'All is One' concept is a fundamental doctrine of the NAM (New Age Movement). More commonly known as monism, it is found in numerous NAM writings, including those of Theosophist Alice Bailey and New Ager Neale Donald Walsch. Walsch, via his alleged spirit guide (whose name, by the way, was not 'Master Rakorski') also preaches that there is no such thing as death and that everything we see is an illusion. As far as gatekeeping is concerned, a gatekeeper is someone who consciously seeks to conceal truth from others. All I'm doing is freely expressing my thoughts as an intellectual dissident at times, or simply putting forth questions in the spirit of a Devil's Advocate, as one who is not dogmatic when it comes to metaphysical issues. (Sheesh, and here I thought the religious faith I was raised into was triumphalist!) David Icke has been called many smears, as was Christ. Was it not the Pharisees who wickedly accused Christ of being in league with Satan? Everyone's entitled to their opinion of a person, but it says a lot about what type of person one is when they're so quick to brand someone something he's entirely not and opposed to himself simply for disagreeing with them. (For anyone interested in hearing it directly from me what I think of David Icke, I refer them to the third post I made in the thread I started titled, "Christian Zionism.") Furthermore, this poster ought to know since s/he has read the "Christian Zionism" thread, that I state there right from the outset of my being a non-Christian, so how can it be that I consider Yahweh or Christ my god? Far from me having a closed mind, I at least have a mind open enough to consider other possibilities and to entertain other points of view that may even conflict with my own, in the manner of a truth-seeking critical thinker. The concept of there existing a Demiurge might very well be true, and if it turns out to be, so be it, I would accept that. One will note that I phrased several of my comments in the above post in the form of questions. I remember listening to a David Icke presentation long ago. In it, he spoke of occasionally meeting up with certain Christians along his travels who take offense to what he teaches and who are even quite nasty in their dislike of him. His point being, so you disagree with what he says. Fine. No need for it to create a division. Cheers, mate.

I finished perusing The Trap and I must say I most enjoyed reading all the personal material that it contains -- the related early-childhood memories, the anecdotes, and the pictures of Icke when he was young. Who knew our beloved septuagenarian likes to watch cinematic weepies? Also of surprise to me was learning of Icke's love of privacy and solitude, considering his being a public figure and all and seeming to enjoy the publicity that comes with it. There's a picture of Icke in The Trap as an infant, staring at the camera with an expression on his face as if to suggest, alternately, a feeling of being uncomfortable with being photographed, accompanied by a precocious, innate sense of what kind of world he has been born into. This image (Figure 2) reminded me of how I also looked at this age. I recall a picture of me taken by parents when I was four or five, clad in my Sunday best and looking every bit uneasy and forlorn even though I had wonderful parents who loved me more than anything. I think my soul, even at that tender age, knew what it was in for and, like Icke, I too was a shrinking violet all through most of my grade-school years. Which is all a way of saying, it was kind of interesting to see a lot of myself in the younger Icke. Icke writes of a life-long sense of being metaphysically watched over, or guided, and I think we all are to one degree or another; it's only that some of us are more conscious of our 'guardian angel' (for lack of a better term) than are most people; the more oblivious of these being especially those given to the belief in self-determination. (This has not been my own experience and is where Icke's message and I divaricate.) 'Tis must be why I've never once in my life felt alone, and as such have never understood it when others speak of loneliness, being this Presence, as I shall call it, has been with me for as long as I can remember, and likely always will. In The Trap, a comment is made in passing, to the effect that more and more people are starting to awaken and to come out from the mass trance-like state that has been imposed upon them. This may be true, but I don't think it'll ever be enough to turn the tide. I say this not pessimistically, but as a self-perceived realist. The sad fact is, the average citizen continues to sleepwalk in lockstep to the hypnotic beat of the masters' drum. The QAnon crowd also envision a 'Great Awakening' as did the '2012' enthusiasts. This warm-and-fuzzy and dare I say unrealistic notion of a paradigm shift in human consciousness to one of mass enlightenment has its roots, partially, in New Age idealism. Barbara Marx Hubbard, one of the pioneers of the movement, as just one example, titled one of her writings, "Conscious Evolution: Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential." Interestingly, Ms. Hubbard also likened the material world to a prison of sorts and spoke of the illusion of separation; things which Icke speaks of as well. As much as I enjoyed The Trap, I must add that, for me, Icke is at his strongest when he sticks to the geopolitical sphere and the five-sense conspiratorial world. I understand that his message extends far beyond this, into what might be called alternative spirituality, but as I grow older and learn ever more to appreciate nature and the miracle of being human, I find myself asking: Is materiality really so base? Is the psychic and the spiritual necessarily 'higher' than the physical? What is, say, monopsychism compared to the beauty of a garden park, or the pleasure derived from an ecstatic lay? Is materiality in and of itself a prison, as the Gnostics of yore would have us believe, or does the problem simply lie with our outlook on it? This idea that matter is 'bad' and spirit (consciousness) is 'good' has its origins at least as far back as Plato, if not farther. Does this world really belong to some Demiurge? There is so much beauty here to be seen and experienced by those who see life's chalice as half-full. What is wanting to 'transcend' the human experience by spiritual means than just another form of transhumanism? Personally, were it not for all the scumbags and their parasitic overlords ruling and ruining this lovely earth of ours, I for one would love to return to this world to live again, as life on earth was perhaps meant to be lived, free of these negative forces. That's the small Bible-student in me speaking, but I do think I'd prefer resurrection to escaping the space-time matrix...for what...? I myself have never longed to be God or like God or 'a' god. Furthermore, would existing in an immaterial state possessing infinite consciousness really be such a good thing, anyway? To me the prospect of this doesn't sound all that appealing. Spiritualist doctrine also considers the human experience enslaving, in its viewing of the human body as an imprisoning obstacle to be overcome by the spirit which longs to be set free, to take flight, echoing once again the dualistic view of early Platonic thought. Yet, if the human being/experience is a miracle and so cosmically precious, then why do so many adhere to a worldview that seeks to 'transcend' this?

Re: Who some think were ultimately responsible for 9/11 (those popular scapegoats of theirs) and why they say they did it... I would like to make a few comments in regard to the treasured conviction held among a number of (mostly UK-based and European) (9/11) researchers and their impressionable, rabid, vocal followers, who seem to derive tremendous satisfaction from zeroing in on this one particular, arguably speculative, motive behind 9/11 which they love the best and that keeps them ranting and raving endlessly like good little malleable mouthpieces on the front lines of this diabolically lop-sided information war. Although I do not discount this possibility entirely, my own feeling is that too much focus has been put on it, to the point that it causes some to see only what they want to see at the expense of failing to notice (either unwittingly or deliberately) a Trojan-horse after much territory itself. Buraq whinnies, yet how many of us are awake to the steaming manure? One thing I've noticed in the course of my studies is that when it comes to 9/11, it's often been the case of anti-Israel intellectuals co-opting this tragic event in order to suit and promote their own ideological agendas. On one level, these mostly (far)leftist academics and revisionist historians pretty much all seem to share the idea of a global Jewish conspiracy (including the belief that 9/11 was orchestrated by Jewish masterminds), or strictly are opposed to the state of Israel. However, in their response to 9/11, these crafty devils often begin by posing to their readers their much-loved 'rhetorical' question along the lines of, Why do they [meaning the Arab world/Muslims] hate the United States so much that they would want to attack it? They ask this as if they sincerely believe this themselves when in fact they raise this question only as a means of leading into an often lengthy diatribe in which their own anti-American biases are clearly made evident. While they themselves do not believe the perps to have been Islamists (or if one or two of them do, they simply glaze over it and treat it as a triviality), they respond to the question which they've raised as a pretext by commenting that the motives for the attacks were in response to imperialist U.S. foreign policy, without ever acknowledging that much if not most U.S. imperialism that has affected Middle Eastern countries negatively, has been caused by rogue factions within the U.S. of whom it could be effectively argued are anti-American themselves, or who at the very least are not representative of the American people (i.e. the U.S.). It's always made me wonder, are these intellectuals (in and outside of discussing 9/11) so apologetic of Islamism that they couldn't give a damn about western freedom? Conveniently, these ones never seem to question why in recent decades there has been such a steady stream of Muslims fleeing their native lands for western parts from countries whose human rights records and totalitarian laws make places such as the U.S. seem like heaven. Not to excuse the actions of the rogue imperialist factions operating within the U.S., but want to talk imperialism and expansionism, there's been no greater example of this within the last 1400 years than the Islamic Empire. This is still going on today, although not as militantly as in the past, but primarily via stealth jihad.

Note: I didn't know exactly which thread of the two opposing camps to place this under so I contacted a moderator for advice. Although it was suggested that I could post my question in both of these threads, I've decided on this one only, since I kind of would like to get the flat-earthers input on the question I have more than anyone else on the forum. Q: What to make of these portable devices called gravimeters? These are said to measure the gravitational pull on earth and hardened skeptics of the flat-earth theory often use this as a talking point in their attempts to debunk the theory. I pose this question as one with one leg on a plane and the other on a planet, which is another way of saying, on this particular issue I'm a theory-straddler, as I don't adamantly defend/oppose either model and am merely wanting to learn more and to get the flat-earthers' take on this.

I simply couldn't let some of the comments you make go unanswered. Clearly, you have a distorted impression of Pawson and where he's coming from. Secondly, I have the utmost respect for David Icke and his life's work fighting for freedom, even though I disagree (perhaps emphatically) with his opinion of Christian Zionism as he has understood it to be. I don't consider that a reason for me to go asking for divine forgiveness. As memory serves, I've heard Icke express more than once how he's not out to have us all think like cult members. 'Take it or leave it' has been his attitude with regard to the information he presents. Does Icke think himself omniscient? That I don't know and shall remain in doubt about. For the record, I've defended Icke's work countless times when speaking to ones in person, and in print, and have even encouraged others to read The Trigger even though I do not agree with some of its conclusions. Before attacking the messenger (in this case Pawson's character) in kneejerk fashion (as many critics do Icke, who quickly write him off using any number of smears) all I've done is encourage readers to go check out Pawson's material for themselves. Whether one accepts everything he says is left up to each individual to decide. In defense of Pawson, as one familiar with his work, I would say he spoke the truth as he read it to be from Scripture, mildly and lovingly yet always uncompromisingly, to the point that some of his honest-hearted and more 'controversial' Bible-based sermons/stances sometimes ruffled the feathers of even those among the faithful. (Take Hell. Pawson freely admitted he never liked teaching it but went about teaching it anyway, so true he was in wanting to keep to what he understood the Bible to teach.) Pawson described himself as an 'unorthodox evangelical' and his published memoirs (Not As Bad As The Truth) shows the likable man behind the likable minister.

A misconception exists among 'Christian' non-Zionists and 'Christian' anti-Zionists especially, which states that no where in the New Testament does it speak of Israel being restored as a nation, and that this idea of God guaranteeing the land of Palestine to a restored Israel has its basis not in Scripture but originates entirely with a 19th-century Protestant heresy (or according to others, a 16th-century Jesuit conspiracy). Part of this confusion discovered among 'Christian' anti-Zionists stems from the fact that these ones fail to recognize the 66 canonical books of the Bible as constituting a unified -- coherent and complementary -- whole. True, no where does it explicitly mention in the 'New' Testament of a return of Jews to Palestine, but as a whole the Bible most certainly does, with the so-called 'Old' Testament quite unequivocal as to this teaching. As all Scripture is said to be inspired of God, the Bible is therefore meant to be read and understood in its entirety. As many a Bible scholar has pointed out, the word testament is synonymous with the word covenant and that a fundamental error on the part of those responsible for compiling the Bible was in their misnaming of these two parts of Scripture. In labelling the Hebrew Scriptures 'Old' this suggests that all the covenants God made with Israel (there were 5 in total) as recorded in these Hebrew texts, are somehow all made obsolete with the appearance of the 'New' testament scriptures. Some Bible scholars lament this improper terminology, and wish instead these two portions of Scripture were more accurately referred to as Hebrew and Greek, instead of Old and New. As to this Jesuit conspiracy which some 'Christian' anti-Zionists maintain, it goes like this: about the time soon after the Protestant Reformation in 1517 the Jesuits introduced the Christian Zionist concept, with the works of writers such as Francisco Ribera (circa 1585), who wrote that there would come a time when there would be a rebuilding of the temple, for the sake of an Antichrist appearance. Such is how, so these 'Christian' anti-Zionists claim, the teaching of futurism (a future return of Christ) began -- with the Catholics/Jesuits so they say, and thus a heresy. In actuality, however, futurism did not begin with the Jesuits or with some strain of heretical Protestantism, but has its origins in Scripture itself. For starters, the Book of Revelation is a futurist text, said to have been completed circa 96 AD, which annuls preterist teaching, that believes each and every last prophecy contained in Scripture has already been fulfilled, with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD having been the proverbial final nail in the coffin (taken as a sign that God has somehow rejected the Jewish people). However, just as the Great Tribulation has clearly yet to be fulfilled, so too the appearance of an individual Antichrist (individual, as the Bible speaks of his one day occupying God's holy temple). The Apostles of Christ were restorationists themselves, not rejectionists (as clearly evidenced at Acts 1:6). Moreover, the Book of Revelation contains prophecies in which the land of Israel plays a key role in End Times events. So for one to say that futurism (a central doctrine within Christian Zionism) began with the Jesuits of the 16th century or a few centuries afterwards is simply not true. The early Church Fathers (Polycarp, Barnabas, Iranaeus, Justin Martyr) were premillennial futurists themselves, at a time only a few decades removed from the Apostolic period, and years before the apostate takeover of Christianity by the Roman Catholic Church, beginning with Emperor Constantine. In the very first book of the Bible, a land promise is given by God to the Hebrews/Israelites that was and is, according to this holy book, unconditional in the grand scheme of things, regardless of their faithfulness to Him as a people, as this covenant was and remains the means by which the LORD is to carry out his will for mankind on earth. Most if not all traditional (and dispensationalist/dominionist, a.k.a. heretical) Christian Zionists admit that the state of Israel in its present state is not a godly nation, and mostly secular. This, however, does not necessarily disprove a providential hand in its overall destiny. Admittedly, Pawson, for one, acknowledges in this afore-highlighted book of his the role that Britain had in helping to pave the way in the 1800s for a Jewish migration to Palestine. Yet any student of the Bible knows that God has always used unbelievers and even entire pagan nations every now and then to help carry out his will (unbeknownst to them), what with God being the ultimate be-all-and-end-all puller of strings. The exodus that was of Jews from Germany and surrounding lands to Palestine, during and immediately following WW2, some have interpreted as a satanic (Sabbatian) doing when its very opposite is or may be the case. (Indeed, for one to say that the Jewish homeland does not benefit the Jews is a comment that sounds almost if not utterly satanic in spirit.) So even if or although the Star of David hexagram had its origins with the Rothschilds and appears on the flag of Israel, this does not necessarily disprove God's overriding influence in matters, as one who is ultimately sovereign and in the end the ruler of all nations and peoples. In other words, the faithless Mossad and other ungodly usurpers posing as Zionists (Zionism being at its core a theocracy as opposed to a political movement), may be oppressors to some degree, but such ones are not an accurate representation of Zionists as defined in Scripture and as perceived by God. As far as biblical/scriptural Christian Zionists see it, Zionism in its truest sense is not worldly at all, but in fact refers to a theocracy and, this being so, is a concept which predates political (man-made) Zionism. Postscript: Aside from the book I've herein-above recommended, I also would recommend to anyone interested in a better understanding of biblical Christian Zionism to listen to some of David Pawson's discourses that can be found online. One, in particular, is especially worth listening to: entitled "Replacement Theology -- Too Anti-Israel." In this talk, Pawson also briefly touches on the practice among 'Christian' non-Zionists (the cult groups among this camp, in particular) of spiritualizing Bible passages (e.g. as with the End of Days temple desecration) and reading allegorically into verses meant to be taken in a literal sense. (Here I think of the 'Christian' non-Zionists who teach that Christ's "invisible" return occurred in 1844 or in 1914.) David Pawson is by far my favorite Christian preacher/teacher, who has left us with many exceptional discourses on a variety of Bible-related topics and on various aspects pertaining to Christianity. His talk on Capitalism as it relates to Christians is especially noteworthy, as is his talk on the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses/the history of Charles Taze Russell.

In retrospect, perhaps proven is not the correct word; dismissed may be more accurate. Over the past twenty years, whenever I've looked into the events of 9/11 (in a strictly personal-interest capacity) my studies have shown that this 'Jews-missing-from-towers' theory has more than often been dismissed by these (largely North American-based) investigators as the to-be-expected anti-Israel rhetoric it is, or is omitted from their mentioning altogether, as most of the 9/11 investigators I've come across have seemed to feel -- based on all the far more substantial evidence pointing elsewhere -- that this claim is worth a mere passing footnote only, if that at all. Supposing for a moment, however, its truth, were this so it would certainly make for a rather odd curiosity, when you consider that it's been said of the Sabbatian death cult that they are just as much against Jewish people as they are the rest of humanity. So then, a) why would they tip off the Jews in the towers and b) when causing death and destruction is said to be what delights them most? Ah, but I've always sensed a euphemism whenever 'Sabbatian' is used by those into exposing this cult and here the veil appears to come off. We're back at the ages-old, tired cliche that the 'Jews did it' are we? With that being said, I am all open to the possibility of Israeli intelligence behind 9/11, but only if the evidence is solid and substantial, as opposed to a pathological wanting this to be so mental approach, on account of long, deeply-held, incorrigible anti-Israel biases. Many Muslims danced in the streets in response to the 9/11 attacks. A few Israelis are reported doing the same and somehow this proves Israel's involvement. As for there being Israeli spectators, I'm not sure exactly what this is meant to prove, if anything. There were many spectators 'live in person' during the events of 9/11, among them probably representatives from all sorts of faiths; atheists, secularists, whomever.; NYC is a densely populated area, after all. That a few Israelis/Jews would be there at the time of 9/11 is not the least bit unusual, and definitely not an indication of something conspiratorial going on. Then there's the other one about a group of Israelis taken in for questioning what with their conveniently having been found to be there at 9/11. If these were indeed Mossad agents or other Israeli operatives of some kind, the fact they allowed their presence to be known doesn't seem in keeping with a competent and skilled intelligence agency. If this were any other MSM story, all these same people would be immediately screaming, "impostors!," "actors!" "fake news!," as with the Paris 2015 Charlie Hebdo tragedy and the 2005 London '7/7' attacks. My naming of 9/11 investigators who haven't taken the 'Jews-missing-from-towers' story seriously would be futile in the face of such adamant preconceived notions. Why, even the simple act of one's referring to respected sources, authors who incidentally are Jewish is enough for many on this forum to instantaneously dismiss as information not the least bit credible. I do recall, however, an author by the name of Scott Shay (who has written an excellent book titled Conspiracy U), although not a 9/11 investigator, being on Skeptiko and about midway through the episode one or two of these anti-Israel theories being raised/discussed. It was one of the more important topics/issues that Skeptiko has addressed, which is why I think I remember it.

Haven't you heard? NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and back. All UFO sightings are simply misperceptions of natural objects and/or phenomena. The two-party political system is democracy in action, by and for the people. And, yes, JFK was shot and killed by a lone gunman (duh). Of course I don't believe any of this but with regard to Posner, truth be told I am unfamiliar with his other works. Yet even mainstream 'hacks' sometimes get it right, and I've seen many a published conspiracy author (Icke included) cite or reference thinkers otherwise belonging to normieland whose information every now and then supports their own research/conclusions. Posner is certainly no dot-connector on par with, say, a Jim Marrs, but one's being aware of even one or two dot-connections is, in my opinion, enough to give an author some credit and enough for a book of theirs to contain some value. Which is to say, Secrets of the Kingdom might just as well have been written by a conspiracy author. It's that important a read.

Note: I express the following as one who is both non-Christian and a Gentile, yet who nevertheless possesses a deep interest in Bible-related subjects. The common view shared by many who despise Christian Zionism is one that is often not based on an accurate understanding of its true biblical form. In David Icke's recent works, for example, Christian Zionists are perceived as a gullible group of people who have bought into the idea that the modern-day creation of the state of Israel is proof of some fulfillment of Bible prophecy when, as Icke believes, in actuality there's been no providential hand in this whatsoever, chalking this landmark event up to the work of the Rothschilds, Sabbatians and other strictly geopolitical agenda-driven elites. Such dismissiveness of Christian Zionism is not entirely without merit, for it may very well be a case of Israel's statehood having no divine approval at all, which would make the generally fundamentalist Christian Zionist certainly appear misguided and foolish, indeed. It is to be emphasized, however, that not all Christian Zionists adhere to the idea that Israel's establishment as a nation re-born in 1948 is necessarily proof of fulfilled Bible prophecy. To such ones, it does seem likely of this having been the first step along the path towards a future ushering in of a Messianic Kingdom, however temporal the affairs surrounding this rebirth appears to have been. And yet, if God's redeeming plan for humankind is to see to Israel playing a significant key role, there is always the possibility of a 'satanic overshadowing' going on here, involving in this case the so-called Sabbatians/pseudo-Zionists, temporarily engaged in a spiritual upstage of sorts, to be divinely removed at some point in the future in God's appointed time, by Christ and his angels; the effect of this hypothetical scenario mirroring in a sense Yahweh's serpent of yore that swallowed up and devoured the materialized snake of Pharaoh's black magicians. Whether or not this proves to be is a moot point to the Bible believers who identify themselves as ones who adhere to 'biblical' Christian Zionism -- such ones to be distinguished from the more public and caricaturized display of Christian Zionism, whose followers staunchly preach 1948 as an all-important year in the biblical timetable and who may even actively involve themselves in or support ways in which to try and hasten the Second Advent. To the former of the two groups, such behavior constitutes heresy, and is what is termed dominionism, whereas 'biblical/scriptural' Christian Zionism neither involves itself with politics nor does it actively seek to quicken Christ's Return. In other words, whether a Third Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem is not a major concern of 'biblical' Christian Zionists, insofar as they have faith that Christ shall eventually/inevitably return at some point to establish his reign on 'Mount Zion,' regardless of what 'upstagers' or secular Israelites do or not do with regards to a temple re-construction. The common mistake, then, that most if not all critics of Christian Zionism makes, is in their assuming that all Christian Zionists are as those whom they despise and/or ridicule when such ones are perceived as 'pseudo' by 'biblical' Christian Zionists who do not adhere to what is termed dispensationalist theology (a whole other discussion). In this posting, I have limited myself to raising awareness as to this important distinction, yet for anyone interested in a scriptural analysis of this subject I highly recommend reading Defending Christian Zionism by David Pawson, which articulately and cogently refutes the belief that the church has somehow replaced or superseded ethnic Israel (which I too believe it hasn't).

That 9/11 theory gratuitously spun out of whole cloth has been long ago & easily proven by several unbiased, independent 9/11 investigators as nothing more than a legend -- anti-Israel propaganda, promulgated by the familiar Islamist groups, and used among other things as a decoy to divert attention away from the real culprits.

As counterpoint to all this talk of a Jewish/Israeli conspiracy (as it specifically relates to the U.S. in particular), I wanted to highlight a past outstanding episode from Jan Irvin's show, UnSpun: As one listens to guest Lloyd DeJongh, it quickly becomes evident that the info he presents is well-researched. "Who Controls America: Following Islamic Money" (episode 168 of UnSpun) is a must-listen to anyone willing to hear the other side of the story from the one that gets talked about ad nauseum on this forum (and I suspect way, way more often than on any other forum within this subculture...wonder why that is?...repetition...repetition...repetition) that has the U.S. controlled by Israel and the Jewish lobby's influence in America all-pervasive and -powerful. Reading books like Gerald Posner's Secrets of the Kingdom certainly helps to dispel this myth, but for those of you who are not readers and who'd prefer an overview, this highlighted podcast episode (among numerous other respected sources/references one could give), at almost 2 hours in length, makes for an excellent reality check. In this episode one will learn the facts and figures behind... 1) Who really influences U.S. foreign policy 2) Who is out to destroy American freedom from within 3) Who controls American universities 4) Who is the biggest investor in Silicon Valley 5) Who owns the largest percentage of a particular (censorious) social media company 6) Which country was the first to give human rights to an A.I.... ...among other startling and undoubtedly for many on this forum inconvenient truths that no doubt will simply go (on being) ignored by such ones.

Ever wonder as to the origination of those questionable if not ludicrous theories that posit a) Jewish neoconservatives were the orchestrators of 9/11, or b) the Mossad, or c) a combination of these two? In Deborah Lipstadt's excellent book Antisemitism, in the chapter entitled "A Cognitive Failure," we read of how, according to an Al Qaeda member no less, the Mossad claim began with a television station located in Lebanon, one connected to Hezbollah, and how this baseless rumor quickly spread throughout Iran and elsewhere, later to be adopted by other anti-Zionists such as Louis Farrakhan. (That latter piece of info is enough to totally discredit the Mossad theory for me right there.) I know the Mossad theory is a popular one held by many fans of The Trigger (perhaps my least favorite David Icke book, for this very reason), but there's just way too many unsavory characters who, not surprisingly, were more than ready to latch on to this theory immediately following 9/11 without any serious and unbiased investigation into the matter, that it has never sat well with me.

Here in Canada, the Liberal Party has been in the process of phasing out most plastics and by the end of the decade are aiming to eliminate all plastic waste for good. This unjustified 'War on Plastic' has Agenda 2030 written all over it. On the banned list of 'public enemies' are plastic cutlery and straws. When it comes to governmental priorities, who can argue that this surely must rank high up there among all the things imaginable for a governing party to concern itself with. Who knew plastic straws were so dangerous to society? At least these (far-left) Liberals will have to go grow up and start using silverware. But seriously, doesn't the Environment Minister have anything better to do with his time than dwell on this? We all know this is really all about virtue-signaling but the extent to which some stateman go to achieve a sense of self-righteousness is downright mind-boggling. Plastic? Plastic??? No joke. Here I recall George Carlin's monologue on this very topic (the eco-nuts' senseless fear of plastic) and have to laugh. Supermarkets in these parts are in the process of doing away with plastic bags in checkout lines, yet so far one is still able to sanitarily bag fruits and vegetables in those tiny little ones made available in the produce section of the grocery store. If and when these too are phased out, shoppers are going to be really at a loss. I know of patrons who are already frustrated with this needless display of Liberal party-pooping. There's managers of stores who aren't liking this one bit either, as customers are now permitted to bring their own bags with them into the store, something which has managers worried that this will only increase the risk of shoplifting. The negative social consequences of this 'War on Plastic' are too soon to tell at this point but its effects will surely be felt all across the spectrum of society. Take the so-called 'homeless.' Bag ladies and downtown derelicts will soon be in even more dire straights. These poor folks depend on disposable bags (plastic ones, in particular) to carry their few precious things in. Seldom are they welcomed inside laundry-mats to clean washable items (even if they could afford it) and so they depend mostly on plastic bags for their survival, often it is said picking up stray windblown bags along the street, thus performing a valuable public service in removing litter. One can only imagine what the lives of these street people is going to be like once these ones are without access to plastic bags. As if they aren't already viewed as human garbage by tax-funded ivory-towered politicians who live off the working class (how about a 'War on Poverty' instead?), now these social outcasts will be coerced into having to carry with them bags that many of them simply will not have the means to wash, that will continually smell, and that will have the effect of psychologically kicking them while they're already down in the gutter, as the non-plastic bags they will now be forced to tote will only serve as symbols to them, making them feel permanently bound to their hopeless situation. And they will have the irrational plastic-phobes in Parliament to thank for that.

Is a social credit system headed to Canada? It certainly appears that way. Yet in order for that to happen a digital I.D. infrastructure must first be in place. Lo and behold if that's not what I've been reading about of late in Canadian news. According to a recent report, the Trudeau government are set to bring about this very infrastructure, to be implemented by Fall or thereabouts. What was described by at least one Canadian politician only a few months ago as an urban legend is turning out to be what 'conspiracy theorists' for years now have been predicting would happen. The official reason for this is in response to the covid 'cause' with this being the 'solution.' The news of a 'Digital Identity Program' soon to be rolled out in Canada has some of the more religiously minded of Canucks recalling verses 16-17 of Revelation 13. I would have to agree that devils are behind this, with the Davos dregs no doubt in their glory as they watch their beloved stooge go about fucking with Canadian civil liberties once again. Sadly, I'm afraid the majority of Canadians will be totally for this, as they were the technocrats' jabs. As part of this program, there is talk of digital currencies in the works which is only a few tiptoe-steps away from a Chinese-style surveillance state. Digital I.D. and digital currencies have been foretold for several years now by so-called 'conspiracy theorists' -- you know, those people Trudeau has liked to publicly condemn for being supposed spreaders of disinformation. This is Agenda 21 unfolding right before our eyes in otherwise free, democratic countries of the world, as critics of the U.N. have warned about for years would happen, as all a part of a globalist conspiracy of arguably eschatological proportions.

If I were allowed only three pieces of evidence to present to a normie that 9/11 was an inside job, the 'Building 7' collapse would be my first case exhibit. There's the whole anomaly involving a TV reporter prematurely announcing that WTC-7 had collapsed; the footage of which has been conveniently lost (or so we are told). No hijacked plane ever hit this building and yet down it went, not in the morning when the other towers fell, but late in the afternoon, and supposedly all on its own. Exactly how this extraordinary feat was accomplished has been speculated; just don't tell me that this hypothetical fifth plane came equipped with an 'invisible shield' capability as I'm not buying it. More believable is that a desert chieftan situated overseas simply aimed and blew into his pea-shooter. You have to be more than just uninformed -- you have to be immensely stupid to believe 9/11 was not an inside job. Good lord, My Pet Goat is a damn good children's story, no doubt about that, but not so important that one cannot interrupt its read to attend to urgent presidential matters. Dubya's suspicious reaction while at the Florida elementary school would also make my list of exhibits. Yet by far it's the collapse of WTC-7 that to me is the smoking gun pointing to a partially domestic conspiracy. That this building was not sabotaged by remote Sabbatians appears rather obvious. Clearly, I'm not one of those of the opinion that there were no hijackers involved in 9/11, as all the calls made by passengers aboard these flights to friends and relatives certainly seem proven to have been genuine. More ridiculous a theory than this is the one in which no planes are believed to have been involved; such nonsense is patently obvious disinfo designed to discredit all 9/11 skeptics/critics and to paint them all as delusional fools. I do not deny that directed energy weapons exist as I'm sure they do, but I don't think they had any part in bringing down the Salomon Brothers Building or the twin towers, as the case has strongly been made that controlled demolition was involved. I realize that the favorite bogeyman of many on this forum are the Sabbatians, when little attention has been given to fascists belonging to the Fourth Reich possibly having ultimately masterminded this false flag event...a Fourth Reich, by the way, whose predecessor (the Third) were known to share many commonalities and to be in close alliance with Islamofascists in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor.

United 93, released in 2006, is a riveting 'in-flight' movie that portrays events said to have occurred on Flight 93, or at least those according to the official narrative. The film depicts the skyjackers as practicing jihadists, as opposed to professing monotheists who only days/weeks prior to boarding the commercial airliner, it was reported some among them to have been in search of paradise (carnal pleasures) right here on earth...apparently placing into question the sincerity of their allegiance to Big Al and perhaps putting to rest the theory that these martyrs died as virgins-seeking do-it-yourselfers. According to the work of the late great Philip Marshall (one-time independent 9/11 investigator/Boeing 767 captain), whoever these (mostly Saudi Arabian) hijackers were exactly, that they were well-trained in piloting these planes Marshall's research had indisputably shown. Curiosities surrounding these alleged culprits have been duly noted, what with all these polysyllable, hyphenated Arabian names -- either Mohamed-this or Ahmed-that -- and with their similar-looking mugs that make the process of distinguishing one from the other ever more difficult...so it isn't surprising that there would be some mix-ups and discrepancies within the official reports, in their trying to keep track of all these goons. That the official conspiracy theory with regard to 9/11 is a load of BS is fairly obvious to anyone who has examined the information and who has even an iota of critical thinking skills. At the other end of the spectrum, however, you have outright, far-out, ungrounded theories designed solely to mislead and to throw off the truth-seeking professional or amateur researcher whose job it is to sift the facts from the fiction. Naturally, the Arab lobby, as one such example, would like for us all to believe that 9/11 (which was an occult ritual, more than anything else) was the master plan of an Israeli agency. This politically correct, woke-friendly theory originated soon after 9/11 and seems to have been started with a former member of Pakistani intelligence heard spouting incoherent gibberish. Non-Arab Jew-haters the world over quickly jumped aboard the donkey and ran with it, much to the delight of the anti-Zionist, Mohammedan propagandists, whose spin-doctoring machine and financial influence is estimated to be astronomically more powerful than anything the Jewish lobby could muster. For starters, the U.S. administration in power at the time of 9/11 was headed by some oily cretins with close ties to the House of Saud, bonded together by a mutual interest in petrodollars. That the 'Elders of Zion' were somehow ultimately behind this event is as ridiculous to me as saying bin Laden was the the conspirator. The 'Nineteen' (or however many there were) were probably only used as patsies, anyway, as the authors of "The Project For The New American Century" report would no doubt conclude, were they to tell the truth. Albeit, let us not forget that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was itself masterminded by a jihad-driven sheik. For the sake of argument, however, even if Israel did play a role in orchestrating 9/11, it's important to note that many Muslims in the Middle East at the time believed bin Laden had planned it and there was much celebrating by Muslims in the Middle East over the collapse of the towers and the deaths of nearly 3000 victims, whom surely they must have known were not imperialists themselves. Outside of Israel, anti-Americanism is rampant in the undemocratic Mideast and in various parts of (largely Islamicized) Europe, when probably it is not so much the U.S. itself that is despised as its (anti-American) Deep State/Shadow Government, comprised of a particular war-mongering intelligence agency.

I'm surprised no one on this forum has yet to post a real howler, saying this was part of a Zionist conspiracy. Enough with the bullshit. This was not a Jew living in the U.S. who did this now, was it? (Nor was this a 'false-flag.') My heart goes out to Rushdie and his family and friends. From all the news accounts I've read of this horrific incident, it's said the attacker's parents had emigrated from Lebanon and it's been reported that the man accused of the crime was sympathetic to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran. What happened to Rushdie was motivated by sheer hatred. No wonder so many non-Muslims in the West are anti-Islamic. They have every right to be afraid of what wackos are possibly out there lurking in the shadows and driven by their ideologically diseased minds. Obviously, the majority of Muslims in the West are peaceful people who would be just as condemning of this heinous act as just about everyone (save for Islamists and many of their anti-Zionist bedfellows), which is why upon reading this thread I was surprised to find so few voices critical of this attack and unable to see this for what it was. Surely, as well, if there's any people who are pro-free speech it would be David Icke followers/forum posters, which makes some of the comments in this thread utterly baffling to read. There's nothing the least bit offensive in The Satanic Verses and even if some think there is, so what. There's many passages in the Koran and others in the Hadith that a lot of non-Muslims find troubling, if not hateful, but I don't think any of these ones would say that these texts ought to be banned. Therein lies the glaring distinction between those who honor and defend the fundamental freedoms of truly democratic countries and those anachronistic, benighted barbarians of the world who wrongly and demonically believe in the literal sword over the innocuous pen. Years ago in my high-school days I tried reading The Satanic Verses, curious as I was to see what all the excitement was about. About 70 or 80 pages into it I remember thinking that the only thing the book could ever be negatively accused of, was its being unreadable. I highly doubt that the majority of anti-Rushdie Islamists over the years have even bothered to read the excruciatingly boring tome, even if translated into their own language. Someone else already mentioned Curb Your Enthusiasm. Great show. "Fatwa" was a funny episode and it was fun to see Rushdie in a cameo. (Where the show's producers ever found the men to play those austere, judgmental high muck-a-mucks would be interesting to learn, but a large part of me suspects these were not actors playing themselves...not unless these were actual Islamists unaware they were being filmed for a sitcom.)

I don't think the Saudis/the Saudi lobby will stand for that. Then again... It's been speculated that fifty years from now the number of Islamists on Earth will so greatly dwarf the technocrats that it will make the rise of even autonomous vehicles turn out to be in all likelihood a fleeting cultural phenomenon, if not an altogether non-starter, as we may very well at this time all be traveling by way of shackles and camel caravans, in this not-too-distant future that these wannabe and rising sharia-enforcers envision for mankind.

Thanks For The Memories is in a class of its own, as it has the power to change the world for the better if only more people knew of its existence and would read it. They would be so sickened and appalled by what they learn that I think it would be enough to finally waken and stir the majority of sleepwalking citizens out from under their trance-like state like no other book would quite have the means of doing. (David Icke has written a positive blurb of it, which was nice to see.) Within the alt-media one hears about MK-ULTRA, ad nauseum, whereas, specifically, Project Monarch receives very little attention. This I find more than just a little curious. It's been said the alt-media are mostly comprised of controlled opposition and this seems truer the more you realize just how little coverage damning information of this kind has gotten on platforms and shows purporting to be into exposing corruption in high places. There is a very ugly underneath (easily kept hidden from the public) to appearing family-friendly places and institutions that otherwise are regarded by the average citizen in a positive light. These are commonly perceived through rose-colored glasses as, for example, fun theme parks merely to take the children to or as aspiring space agencies whose professed sole mission and cover has them reaching for the stars, when perhaps behind the scenes it isn't so dewy-eyed a picture as it appears on the surface. Numerous public figures, past and present, are mentioned in this book, those whose names would shock the average reader who keep to a Norman Rockwell view of the world. It simply doesn't get any more revealing and revolting than this, for those who have the stomach and love of humanity to pore over this upsetting lurid material and then to dutifully bring it to other people's attention. Brice Taylor. Name ring a bell? How 'bout Sue Ford? No on both counts? Can't hear the ding-a-ling-a-ling for the Mockingbird media parrots and the alt-podcaster reluctant to touch this sensitive stuff? Don't feel bad, you're among the millions of others kept in the dark and ignorant of some of the most evil deeds ever committed by 'man' on Earth. 'Man' in quotes for these are souls who have lost their humanity and have not iota of a conscience. In all my years of listening to a variety of radio shows/podcasts hosted by supposed muckrakers deep down the rabbit hole, I've heard Cathy O'Brien interviewed only a few times and Taylor/Ford not once. Why is that? Suffice to say, Ms. Lyon's childhood was far from one of picket fences and apple pies. This is made plain by the numerous graphic descriptions that are given of her earliest years as a junior. All the while, as she emphasizes more than once, with God and his angels at her side whenever the diabolic torture would be too much for her young body and psyche to handle that she would dissociate from the pain, inflicted upon her from the many adults in her life at the time whose moral duty it was to protect and to do nor harm but who did anything but that. How she ever managed to survive this decades-long, violative generational and inter-generational nightmare to tell about it is, she tells, a testament to the Divine who watches over us, but will any one care to listen to this voice in the wilderness? Here in Thanks For The Memories one will read of slave auctions attended by power elitists on the hunt for a pet mind-controlled slave. (Whether some of these who are auctioned off grow up to become prominent heads of state or high-ranking bureaucratic bullies still under the control of handlers is anyone's guess.) It was at one of these events where the young Lyon allegedly was 'purchased' by none other than Bob Hope. My first thought upon hearing this was, You got to be kidding. Tap-dancin', tummy-ticklin' Bobby? The same ray of sunshine and hope that in my youth I would stay up late at night watching old comedies starring this very celebrity? Self-professing Catholic Bob Hope? I simply don't know what to make of all this material that Ms. Lyon presents. She claims to have been groomed from an early age to be a Monarch courier and a Presidential Model. The idea that there exists degenerate if not satanic presidents and prime ministers does not/would not surprise me in the least, what with this being an inverted, fallen realm in which, generally speaking, scumbags rise to the top and mingle with other popular and mediagenic lowlifes. It's the scope and depth of depravity of this inter-connected network of establishment and entertainment sickos that Ms. Taylor makes the case for its existence that ultimately tests the reader's credulity, but believe it I think we must and believe I do and to Ms. Lyon, a thanks and a God bless you.

I'm with the moon landing deniers who are of the unanimous conviction that the Apollo 11 launch and return splashdown were genuine, but that everything else in-between was staged. The one thing I don't quite get, however, is the reason for the five subsequent manned missions that 'occurred' following Apollo 11. Any moon landing sceptics on board here care to explain this? If Apollo 11 was hoaxed, and successfully so, why bother with any more manned missions? There were 24 astronauts who allegedly visited Earth's natural satellite, when it would have only taken the original three to pull off the hoax. Why involve 21 more alleged perpetrators, thus risking more of a chance of someone turning whistleblower? Of course, a variant on this theme of outright deception is that only the Apollo 11 photos and film footage were faked, that the astronauts did in fact make it to the lunar surface (if for no other reason than to say they penetrated space and conquered Luna/Selene with their macho phallic space vehicle), but that their photographic evidence was destroyed during their return trip back to Earth, by intense radiation. This would help explain why Alan Bean, Buzz Aldrin, Mike Collins, and the various other geezers interviewed in the documentary film In The Shadow Of The Moon seem so credible, else they are all masterful actors. I watched this yesterevening and is what has prompted me to post this message. They all sound so terribly convincing in this, even absent a laugh track. Released in 2008, it's astounding that only a decade ago there were still some people who were trying to keep the myth alive. Clearly, this was a doc made solely to appeal to those on the lunatic fringe who still buy the official narrative. Also amazing is that these Apollo astronauts, almost forty years on, were sticking to their story as not one confession is made in this twee production, that was obviously designed to tug at one's gullible heartstrings and to foster U.S. patriotism (fluttering American flag and all). Yes, the film made me cry. These were tears of unstifled laughter as each interviewee, looking directly into the camera and with a straight face, speaks of his supposed fond memories of the Apollo missions. (File this one under Special Interest or Fantasy?) I really don't know why I watched this. I suppose I was looking forward to some confessions; either that or hoping to hear from at least one of the astronauts tell of what it was they thought they saw while on the Moon. Legend has it that curious anomalies and possibly even artificial structures were observed on the lunar surface, suggestive of an alien presence. Is this why a handful of the Apollo astronauts were said to behave differently upon their return to Earth -- because of what it was they witnessed that disturbed them so? Or might this change in behavior of theirs have had more to do with troubled consciences? Incidentally, I'm presently reading Bart Sibrel's Moon Man and enjoying every word of it. It's a good one.

There are creatures that not only survive but thrive in harsh, torrid environments most inhospitable to man (as with those aquatic life forms that inhabit the Marianas Trench, home to volcanic temperatures) and according to science the lower one goes below the oceanic crust the hotter it gets, which would seem to suggest that no fleshly being would be able to live for very long inside the earth. Not unless, of course, Jules Verne was onto something when he penned Journey to the Center of the Earth (the insipid 1959 film version of which was a torturous experience in and of itself); a story that depicts Earth's interior as not only quite habitable for humans but near paradisaical to boot. Interestingly, Hades was the name of a god of the ancient Greeks, and quite possibly the very ruler whom Plato believed reigned from within the center of the Earth. If there is a netherworld inhabited by 'detrimental robots' or 'crypto-terrestrials' of some kind, that they would be observed on occasion emerging from the watery depths in craft we label USOs/UFOs seems a more realistic scenario than 'visitors' from 'outer space,' some of whom have, curiously, expressed concerns regarding man's nuclear weapons capability; messages of warning made all the more explainable if these beings were from here as opposed to elsewhere. Then again, the only subterranean inhabitants on Earth may be the Fallen Ones (those evil spirits that spawned the Nephilim) spoken of in Jude 6, said to reside in Tartarus, literally a dark pit (far beneath Hades, as the ancient Greek Homer told it) and according to scripture designed specifically for these fallen ones -- a place not to be confused with Gehenna, or Sheol; Sheol being the realm or state of the dead, where it certainly seems human consciousness survives, as is more than just suggested in the biblical account of King Saul and the Witch of Endor (recorded at 1. Samuel chapter 28). Postscript: One simply cannot enter into a discussion of the possible existence of an underworld without inevitably discussing the matter of Hell. We humans simply cannot wrap our heads around the idea of the God of the Bible condoning endless torture, when we ourselves know this to be unspeakably evil and psychopathic. And so we have certain sectarians on the fringes of Christendom who project their own human values onto those teachings of Christ that conflict with their own consciences and sense of morality, despite what the inspired canonical texts state in plain, undiluted Greek. Although these ones read into the Word what they choose to, I at least understand these God-fearing religionists more than I do those bona fide mainline Christians who read what the Bible says of Hell and, believing it to be a place as real as many New Agers believe heaven to be, continue to go on confessing to worshipping their Lord. How can this be? I think this can only be done via a conscious or unwitting suppression of their humanity and a blocking from their minds a concept that, unless their being torture-condoning sub-humans themselves, should it be brought to full awareness for even a second would make them feel as pitiful, shameless impostors. For how else can a Christian go on claiming to love He who allows Hell to exist when no human in his right mind would ever condone such a place himself? Paradoxically... and yet I respect those Christian ministers of Protestant faith who refuse to water down the Word by allowing human emotion to get in the way of their dutiful preaching. I do not refer to the Bible-thumping fundamentalists, but to those mild and meek and admirable souls who -- like David Pawson, who has written a few books on the subject and whose excellent sermon on Hell can be found online -- tell it like it is and who remarkably do so without ever concluding their homilies via a complete renunciation of their faith.

One major and understandable reason why many people are turned off by Christianity is that its holy book explicitly teaches an afterlife of eternal conscious torment for unbelievers. How it is Christians are able to worship such a monstrous, schizophrenic deity as the one they profess to love is beyond all human(e) comprehension. Christ spoke more of Hell (Gehenna) than he did of heaven. This Gehenna was not in reference to a land waste area, as some 'annihilationists' of some pseudo-Christian sects apologetically teach. When in the Gospels we read of Christ having harrowed hell, the context is pretty clear that a garbage disposal site is not what is being referred to. Christ descends to this place in search of a soul, not a piece of incinerated litter. Although it's true that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is unsupported in scripture (as are several Catholic teachings) and that other religions besides Christianity (including Buddhism and Taoism) speak of a hellish hereafter, this does not make the biblical references to Hell 'pagan' in the sense of their being untrue. (Many things that are/were pagan, are considered godly in scripture; temples of worship, as just one example.) Granted, there are a few non-canonical works that have been responsible for many of our cultural concepts of Hell (Dante's The Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost being the two most influential of these), whereas the Bible says very little about the exact environment and details of this realm of the damned (located in the abyss of the earth?) other than what it does quite unequivocally. In the book of Matthew alone, we find Christ speaking of Hell in several passages (5:22; 5:29; 10:28, etc). A demonic teaching? Such is what a minority of so-called Christians who hold to several heterodoxical tenets believe, despite what Christ himself explicitly taught. These ones point to verses in the Old Testament that has God denouncing the heathen practice of sacrificing children to Moloch/Baal as evidence of what He must think of such inflicting of pain on humans, yet the reason why Yahweh, being a jealous god, condemned this practice had more if everything to do with the sin of idolatry; namely, that these were idolatrous burnt offerings made to pagan gods. Many near-death experiencers report having witnessed a glimpse of this gloomy afterlife realm as have those in earlier centuries upon their deathbed (as documented in the fascinating book Dying Testimonies Of Saved and Unsaved by S.B. Shaw). One cannot simply say, then, that Hell is merely a religious mechanism by which to control people, as some quickly and mindlessly dismiss this as being the case, when numerous and various people, many of whom nonreligious, claim to have experienced glimpses of Hell for themselves. As well, I suspect many choose not to worship the biblical god for this very reason, unafraid they are of living in true love. Some Bible readers go through theological loops in order to try and make sense of what the scriptures state in plain language, in their attempts at interpreting the New Testament teaching of Hell in euphemistic terms. Where the scriptures speak of torment this, so they say, refers to a condition of being in prison-like chains and not to actual torture. (Still, their own interpretation, assumes then an afterlife of consciousness, thus contradicting their otherwise held-to doctrines of annihilationism and soul-sleep.) Perhaps the one Gospel passage there's no getting around is the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-30). Oh, but the whitewashers say, this is merely a parable and not to be taken literally. Yet every parable Jesus uses involves things that actually exist outside of the parable, in real life. However, for the sake of argument, say even if this parable is the sole exception to this, why, of all the innumerable settings to choose from so as to teach his disciples a lesson, would Jesus have specifically chosen something not only fanciful (something that in and of itself is odd and uncharacteristic of him) but utterly sadistic as well, even if only a parable?

Title: Saucers, Spooks And Kooks: UFO Disinformation In The Age Of Aquarius Author: Adam Gorightly Published: 2021 What's been fascinating to me, more so than talk of the UFOs themselves, has been all the intrigue and drama that has occurred over the years within the UFO field. William Moore's infamous and unforgettable confessional at the 1989 MUFON conference was a shocker that most definitely shook up the UFO community and one such example that comes to mind. Another one being the sad story of Paul Bennewitz, whose interest in UFOs sent him around the bend instead of off planet. These are just two of the human subjects featured in this highly essential read, in which the subtitle says it all. What we are dealing with here is not the same old, worn-out tale of government cover-up, but rather official deception that has long leaked into the UFO field dating back decades (possibly even to the time of Roswell), as a means of throwing researchers off track and muddying the waters, to the point that not even a genuine USO could escape the intel-laden quagmire. As if genuine UFO researchers don't have enough to deal with in the form of independent charlatans and hoaxers, there are establishment wankers such ones must contend with as well. Former special agent, Richard Doty, will certainly go down in ufological history as, without question, the greatest and most influential of all known disinformers. How this contemptible little weasel managed to sleep at night knowing that he lived a pathetic, meaningless existence as the near embodiment of deceit, as well as having been largely responsible (however indirectly) for Bennewitz's mental breakdown, is just one of those mysteries beyond all human(e) comprehension. Even the most competent of UFO researchers have not been immune from the effects of COINTELPRO measures. Among these, those said to have been taken in by crafty shills into the planting of false stories include Stanton Friedman and Linda Howe. Remarkably, even the esteemed Dr. J. Allen Hynek doesn't come out of this read entirely spotless, what with speculations surrounding his partial involvement in the Bennewitz psy-op, in which it is said he bestowed a computer with installed software intended to further mislead the poor dupe into thinking he had discovered an alien transmission from the Zeta Reticuli star system. It is the feeling among many truth-seekers that paid shills operate nowadays primarily via the infiltration of online forums within the alternative and fringe communities, whereas prior to the internet age disinfo was thought largely to have been spread via go-betweens, a la Jaime Shandera, who received a mysterious parcel in the post one day, leading to the whole MJ-12 meme. William Moore was another who was thought to have been an unwitting tool, 'tween disinformer and UFO community, up until said MUFON presentation where Moore came clean about his having been used and attempted to bring to the attention of his fellow researchers this idea of there existing wolves among the flock, be they pseudo-insiders or outright cranks. This book is pure fun to read, whether reading about ETs from planet Serpo who reportedly were observed playing football right here on Earth (sounds suspicious to me) or reading about the CIA-funded 'Stargate' project, that took place at the Stanford Research Institute, where a man believing himself to be one day capable of walking through walls kept bumping into them. Two portions of the book that are especially absorbing: Chapter 24 ("Bill Moore's MUFON meltdown") and the Afterword, which cogently encapsulates what it is like for some who choose to go traveling with Alice down that deep dark hole. With chapter 47, the author brings the reader right up to date, in his profiling the latest questionable character to come along and make a name for himself in the UFO scene: Tom DeLonge. As Gorightly notes, for those familiar with the work of Doty, this kind of felt/feels like deja vu. (I wonder: By 'to the stars' is this self-important attention-seeker referring to 'outer space' or to celebrity vanity?) Saucers, Spooks And Kooks I consider a must-read for anyone even remotely interested in going behind the scenes of the UFO field. I personally found it riveting, to the point I wanted to take my seat cushion with me wherever I went. Gorightly rocks.