Looking Forward: The Readers Speak Out!

Judging by the feedback, it seems people are as excited about the idea of a podcast and/or interview regimen for The Secret Sun in 2012 as I am.

There are a lot of people who I'm interested in talking to and the readers had a lot of their own suggestions both her and on Facebook. Readers also seem to be excited about exposing some of far-right infiltration of the alt-research community, as well as rooting out some of the destructive assumptions that have crept into the counterculture.

For my part I believe there's a time to talk and a time to listen. And since I spend so much time in relative isolation I have to find alternative ways of seeking out interesting people to listen to. For those of you out there who are passionate about issues that you don't feel are being addressed, take it upon yourself to do the research and share your findings with us. Maybe there is a calling for you to fill a void that only you can.

Think about it.

In the meantime, here's a sampling of the feedback left on the best comments section on the Internet on the previous post.
Anadae suggested: I think that your having dredged up the Hollow Earth conundrum yesternight in facebookland as it dovetails with the Elusive Companion Theory merits more attention. Go hog wild. Here's Theo Paijmans' Mundus Subterraneus blog, which sought to chronicle all HE lit, whether fictional or alleged actual, ever committed to the printed page.
The ECH is definitely something I want to explore further, particularly in context of the HE lore.
Anonymous said: Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall seeing the follow-up to the ever-so-intriguing Introduction to the Secret Language post from 5/25/10.

Huh- I could've sworn I did post a follow-up, since I think I had one written. Must have gotten distracted. As usual.

Laurence writes: Look into Branford Keeney and his large collection of shamans / rites from around the world.

Will do. Maybe a series on shamanism and contact narratives.

Idiot Savant wrote: whatever comes i earnestly look forward to.

I'm humbled. Cheers.
Kandinsky writes: Your mention of the 'Fascist and/or Fundamentalist assumptions under-girding so much of Conspiratainment' will ensure I keep reading the blog. These guys deserve attention as many are adepts at seeding negative, paranoiac memes into the sub-culture of ufology, conspiracy and who knows what else?
Indeed. Fear is the ultimate weapon and the ultimate means of control. I do think that people will be paying less attention to the paranoia pimps as things get worse in the real world.

Justin suggests I look up Erik Davis, Joscelyn Godwin, Joseph Farrell,
Alan Moore, Michio Kaku, Professor Brian Cox and Jacques Vallee.

Some of these are certainly possible, but Jacques is always busy and Michio might be too big for The Sun.
Cindy writes: I wish you could do a pod cast with the pope, I'm still wondering if he's a warlock or a wizard. I guess there's little chance of that though.
How about a serial enabler of crimes against humanity? That probably wouldn't fly either.

Anonymous recommended James Power and Tristan wants to hear some more Hollow Earth stuff. Ted wants to hear from Gnostic scholar John Lamb Lash, who I'd love to ask about Gnostic themes in Star Trek.
Anonymous writes: I would love a well researched piece investigating links between various "conspiracy researchers" of the right wing patriot militia variety (such as alex jones g. edward griffin etc.) and the john birch society and cnp. Would also like your take on David Icke and Michael Tsarion who I believe pose as somewhat "New Age" but essentially promote the same line. Also continue the Secret War Against the New Age series.
As would I. If you know anyone who's researched this please let me know. It's long past time the hidden agendas at play are brought to light. I just want to hear from someone who's put some serious time into it.
Raksha is interested in the Gnostic themes explored here and writes: But I'm still interested, still very curious about new developments and rediscovered old ones, and endlessly fascinated with new ways of connecting the dots.
I think John Lamb Lash would fit Raksha's bill.
Venus writes: However, it alarmed me to hear that you are siding with the SRA hoax disinfo that the CIA-funded False Memory Syndrome promoted because, with all due respect for someone whose research I admire greatly, you are out of your depth here.
I think Venus might want to abstain from dictating what is and is not out of my depth, since I've been researching this for a very long time now. It's my belief that the MONARCH hoax is textbook disinfo (as did the late Jim Kieth and many other MK researchers) and the SRA hoax was created to bolster the credibility of skeptic groups like the FMSF (which someone once referred to as the "Pedophile Mutual Aid Society"), since SRA was vigorously promoted by media sleazeballs like Geraldo Rivera and then largely fell apart once actual investigations were done.

"False Memory Syndrome" is indeed a lie and a hoax (the Massachussetts Supreme Court recently tossed it out as a defense), but there are other lies and hoaxes that muddy the waters and do real victims no favors.

SRA also helps obscure the clear, documented and unambiguous reality that the overwhelming majority of the documented non-family abuse cases take place under the aegis of the established mainstream religions (and their various cults). As well as the fact that this problem is far more widespread than the mainstream media would have you believe.

For instance, the media might cover some of the more egregious cases with Catholic priests (and in some instances the Orthodox Jewish communities) but completely ignore the problem in the Protestant and Evangelical denominations.

Why would they possibly do that?

I recommend the SNAP website as well as the Religion News Service site, which is run by a Dutch Christian group who are serious about exposing evil within the churches (ie., the plank in their own eyes).

Jason recommends Michael Tsarion, Lash, John Greer (whose latest book I blurbed), Brian Bates, Jan Irvin (who interviewed me a while back) and Gary Lachman, who I talked to when I did the Lucifer Rising piece. Of these, Lachman is first on my list. He's done some excellent research that I think a lot of you would dig.

Anonymous is quite a prolific commenter and weighs in with these nuggets:
I often wonder if much of the modern conspiracy movement is funded by intelligence services or big business as a way of diluting possible political rebellion. While there's certainly conspiracy researchers of all political hues out there, the famous ones seem to be in peculiar agreement on a number of issues that coincide with the big business & religious fundie agenda.
Absolutely- look no further than Ron Paul and his extensive connections to the fascistic Christian Reconstructionist movement, whose "Libertarianism" (sic) is the brand Paul is actually peddling. Continuing...
Also by contending that the control systems of the planet are led by a supernatural New World Order this makes it seem that ordinary citizens have no hope against corrupt politicians other than by immersing themselves in a theological belief system.
Agreed. Which is why you never see these guys at protests. In fact they will twist themselves into pretzels explaining how OWS or the Greek uprising is all orchestrated by the Globalists, a claim strongly debunked by the police response thereto. More:
However looking at the conspiracy scene they're fixated on encouraging their followers to arm themselves to the teeth way beyond what one would expect for self-defence. The justification being they can fight against the New World Order. But what if its the other way around? Arm different political factions so they never get together and end up in a balance of power where nothing changes or simply fight against each other leaving big business & religion alone?
Or as we saw in South and Central America in the 70s and 80s, these radical right factions make nice ready-made death squads to do away with people who the plantation and factory owners saw as threats to their bottom lines.
The same ultra-right political ideas emerged in the UFO underground occasionally, especially in the 1980s and it effectively destroyed any serious interest in the topic. One of the top 'whistleblowers' at the time was William Cooper - who is now seen as a martyred conspiracy god by believers.
I think you mean "lifelong Naval Intelligence asset William Cooper." Yes, there are many reasons not to mourn the passing of an organized UFO underground. If you know of any researchers- or if you want to go out and do the research yourself- let me know.

Dayzero asks when an Incal film is coming out to which I say "hopefully never." Dennis recommends Jack Sarfatti, who at least judging from his Facebook page has become a bit of a angry, hectoring neoconservative. How about Russell Targ or Ed May? I met those guys at Esalen and they were very cool.

Venus checks in again with some very saliant responses to Anonymous' suspicions about the corporate self-help movements and Libertarianism. To which I say, "why don't you two get together and do some research on this and then come talk to me about it here?"

Laurence recommends something on British scifi soundtracks. Justin R recommends some old-school conspiracy researhcers like Jonathan Sellers, Justin Boland and Terry Melanson. Terry used to be a regular commenter here but the last I checked hadn't updated his site in a while. He's done some good work on the Bavarian Illuminati which is a nice corrective to the silly Illuminati mythology you see pimped by the YouTards. Doug Rushkoff and Chris Hedges are good ideas as well.

Raj checked in but kept his suggestions to the FB thread. Raj, if you want to repost here, feel free. Greg T suggests "Bill Deagle, Michael Hoffman, Tom Horn, David Flynn, Dan Burisch, Benjamin Fulford, Andrew D. Basiago, Sorcha, Monarch And Bluebeam proponents." I doubt most of those people would want to talk to me but if they're ever in the mood for a knock-down, drag-out donnybrook they know where to look.

Winding down Nick Redfern asks if he saw me on the VH1 series Metal Evolution, specifically the early US and early UK metal scene episodes. To which I plead guilty. Check the series out- it's an amazing bit of history with some awesome footage.

Venus checks in again, writing:
Where we may part ways is with my belief that the mystery religions, most formally preserved through the upper echelons of Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, have been involved in refining predatory mind control techniques as well, and that ultimately there may be many connections between the two opposing camps (Vatican/P2 masonic lodge money laundering scandal, anyone?). Of course, "satanism" is a modern invention so the idea that some ancient brotherhood has been practicing it for centuries is absurd.
To which I reply, "Why not stop looking for hidden scapegoats and cabals and put the blame squarely where it belongs- on the abusers and the hierarchies that shelter them?" I realize it goes against our cultural conditioning and hence the need to disbelieve the unassailable historical fact that the clergy have never believed that the law applies to them too, but isn't breaking out of cultural conditioning what we're all about?

The founder of modern Fundamentalism Billy James Hargis didn't talk about Adam Kadmon when he was seducing choirboys- he cited David's relationship with Jonathan as Biblical precedent, which I'm sure is pretty common with the Abrahamic abuser crowd.

Finally, Chuck suggests Goro Adachi, who's also popped in around these parts in the past. Goro, if you're out there, drop me a line.

All in all great stuff, both here and on the Facebook page. I feel like you lot are putting the wind in my sails and I am already laying the groundwork for this new adventure. Thanks to everyone who pitched in.

28 comments:

  1. Hey Chris,

    On the FB thread I only suggested John Lash, but I'd be fascinated to see Sun interviews with many of the names suggested, including Gary Lachman, Michael Tsarion, and any other left-of-field artists not mentioned but who might be able to provide us some lateral kind of insights. I'm definitely excited!

    Also, I wanted to suggest something that I've posted on the Sun's FB page before. I think the more wild and wacky stuff in the conspiratainment crowd stems from a misunderstanding of subconscious, underworld imagery. I've noticed that talk of Illuminati and hidden cabals and various cloak and dagger hijinks - it captures certain nuances of the under-realm quite effectively (in terms of raw imagery and association) but it doesn't stand the test of rational scrutiny.

    What I'm saying is that I think the wilder aspects of conspiratainment are storehouses of collective modern mythology - the roots of which can be traced back to humanity's earliest attempts to figure the underworld. Sinister rites, hidden cabals, robes, hooded figures skulking at the edges of perception - this all says far more about the layers beneath rational consciousness than it does about the genuine darker aspects of occultism. You know what I mean?

    To try and bring this idea into focus - I've noticed that in my studies of cryptozoology and Fortean events and high-weirdness, there's an x factor that seems to imply a fluidity to the reality of these events beyond the real/imagined, either/or paradigm that we're used to. I believe Nick Redfern has explored this idea too. I sense a similar atmosphere in certain kinds of high-strangeness encounters as I do when I try to ‘read’ the imagery of conspiratainment.

    This makes me have the following thought. A lot of what passes for the revealing of hidden truth in the alt-media is simply nonsense with little basis in fact, but some of it is the natural dark poetry, odd poetry, or elusive poetry that the human mind generates when trying to unite various layers of awareness – or when the underworld figuratively gets ‘too close’ to the world we know. But then absurd dialogues and rhetoric are constructed around certain imageries and sold as fact, as what is literally occurring behind the scenes – when in actuality it is the potency of archetypal imagery that sells it to the mind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (Continued)

    This says to me that humankind is trying to grow holistically, but this process is continually being hijacked (by our own wilful ignorance as well as any kind of sinister social engineering) - the counterculture being commodified and used as a tool of distraction.

    The magical denizens of the imagination are a world of robed, hooded eidolons who dwell in forgotten places and hidden cavities – and the power of this half-remembered image is used to sell a tool of distraction, to divert psychic and rational energy away from the true power-brokers – as with fundie religious groups and paedophilia.

    The hooded sinister figures of the imagination are vessels and signposts of potencies that exist beyond our conscious awareness, designed to generate interest, intrigue and a frisson of strangeness – but they are intended to lead us into a deeper awareness of self. The conspiratainment Illuminati steal much of the same imagery, but serve little except the promotion of fear, the lining of pockets and the implicit justification of theological dogmas.

    The real black magic in this world is the reversal of what people like Alan Moore and Robert Anton Wilson often talk about, and it’s something that happens every day in virtually every sphere of art and culture and politics – the removal of lucidity, acuity, open-mindedness and pattern-recognition. The most insidious forms of ‘black magic’ imaginable, in my opinion.

    All the Horror-movie-theme-park stuff we often hear about in alt-media kind of DIVERTS attention from the real sicko shit that happens every day. Lucifer and blood-rituals and antichrists don’t hold a candle to human trafficking, child pornography and abuse, and all the other forms of degeneracy that occur with the lights on and the majority turning a blind eye.

    Because then we’d have to get into facts and real research – we’d have to get off our asses and stop chasing shadows. I guess the boogieman is kind of exciting and not as threatening when he’s a paper-thin shadow, but when he’s standing right in front of you with impunity, dressed in a suit or a collar or camouflage fatigues, decimating your society and culture in broad daylight, suddenly things get a lot more real.

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Why not stop looking for hidden scapegoats and cabals and put the blame squarely where it belongs- on the abusers and the hierarchies that shelter them"
    Well Chris, that is exactly the purpose of exposing the Monarch Project in the first place, because it is a product of the global plutocracy just the same as so many other social injustices. And it wasn't my intention to sound patronizing but, after spending huge amounts of time dealing with people who've been emotionally wrecked, perhaps permanently, on account of said project, it does get a bit frustrating to see people deny its existence without attempting to learn from anyone with first hand experience themselves. Surely it's more than obvious that the nature of a classified project means that information about it isn't necessarily going to be plastered all over the net. I don't know what else to say because I am not an academic or a published author so no credentials will be able to verify my statements. However, I have known more than a handful of Monarch survivors first hand and have also been subjected to military brainwashing experiments myself, so I think this gives me a certain amount of credibility when speaking about the subject. Recognizing that occult organizations have been involved in enabling abuse does not automatically translate to supporting fundamentalism, since many Monarch Project researchers have not hesitated to implicate Christian churches where applicable--and many of them are not even close to being Christian conservatives either. Again, I do respect your work very much but at the same time it pains me to see you trivialize a situation that has destroyed so many people's lives.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chris,I'd like you to have a banter with Raj on various topics,as most of his comments look interesting,but I just don't have the time to read the really big comments,so I just skim over them.
    Maybe you two could do a monthly pod-cast on some subject that takes your fancy.
    Some of my other suggestions for conversations would involve people like Jake Kotze (he's always good),Michael Tsarion (he was out here Two weeks ago,but I had to work unfortunately),or just about anyone on your "sync list" would be entertaining,maybe even enlightening (whether I agree with their views or not).
    But being a syncronaut myself I will just take whatever comes my way.
    Looking forward to listening,I'm sure no matter who you pick it will be worth a mulling over.
    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chris: Have you seen "The Escapist?" I think that it qualifies as a "gnostic film."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've read this for a while, but generally don't comment on this, because I am a theoretical physicist in UK academia, well at least for the time being.

    While some of your ideas are intriguing, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them, I feel compelled to comment of some of the recent anti-science views expressed on here, in relation to the suggestion of talking to string theorists ie Cox/Green/etc.

    At points, there have been comparisons made between religion and science. This is rather dependent on the field such that on the low energy, application driven side, I find this comment rather unreasonable.

    In certain fields, however it is spot on

    In the high energy physics and quantum information (my area of expertise), the comparisons are sadly rather justified, right down to the ad hominem attacks on critics, as can be witnessed in the soon to be published article (replace || with /)

    arxiv.org||abs||1112.0788

    Taking the religion comparison to a rather tenuous extreme, Greene/Cox are the high priests, Kaku (as the founder of string field theory) is Jesus, and the multiverse/supersymmetry/superstrings are God.


    The point of this rant is essentially to say:
    If you're going to consider getting academic scientists (to distinguish academics from those working of more practical applications.)
    Avoid string theorists
    as excluding the founders of the discipline, you probably won't get anymore of an interesting/reasonable conversation out of them, than you would from a religious fundamentalist over the validity of their holy book.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aye Raj; as usual i find your comment pointing to the most interesting and meaty bits of the topic. There are multiple levels from which to view any topic we care to consider, and i have a theory that disagreements and arguments actually stem from the lack of awareness of the different level the person we are disagreeing with is actually operating from; and vice cersa. This is exacerbated by whether we are taking things literally, or operating from the more productive (psychologically) mythical viewpoint with the ramifications that has from a subconscious perspective. When you touch on the 'negative magical denizens' it brought to mind the concept that "the archons are are doing exactly what we have employed them too; fulfilling their contractual obligations and playing their necessarily unpleasant role in our voyage of self discovery." Which all leads, albeit long windedly, to my request for guests. Recently on the facebook page a link for a video by a guy called David Halperin was posted. It was a 'Jungian, Mythological Interpretation of UFO's.' Whilst enjoying the video, i reached into the library bag to check out some of the books i'd grabbed earlier in the week. The first book i pulled out was "Journal of a UFO Investigator." - by David Halperin. (ding!ding!). So synchronicity demands that I nominate him as a potential interviewee.He is the 'professor of religious studies', not the 'gay activist' of the same name who may come up with a google search. Also as i mentioned at Facebook, Wayne Herschel might prove to be worth a chat.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Some others I would like to hear you in conversation with,would be Daniel Pinchbeck,Whitley Strieber,Robert Crumb,Sting,
    James O'Barr,Banksy,Timothy Freke,
    Dolores Cannon,Grant Morrison,Anthony Peake and David Icke.

    Hey, why not shoot for the moon ?-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. 57 X 'round the Sun12:40 AM, December 11, 2011

    This comment goes to the quoted comments in the article...not in these comments on the SS of which I find reasonable and fairly openminded.

    It seems to me that a group of such open-minded,progressive people (on Fakebook no less!"Step right up and get your official Facebook retina scan transhumanist implant while you still can. Hook up to the Matrix today!")who are attempting to save humanity with magical thinking and ultra-progressive ideas...people who acknowledge fear as a primary obstacle to their goal...suffer from fear themselves and rigid ultra-closemindedness. They also seem very regressive in their rigid ideas of what thoughts should occupy the same mind. Perhaps I am the sole exception to this rigid rule but I doubt it. I visit only 3 websites on a regular almost daily basis (plus tons of others not so regularly...I have too many books to read!)to assist in my search for the truth and continually find truth non- exclusive of the other in two of those sites...one being this one(I avoid facebook as "I wouldn't belong to a club that would have me as a member" to quote my favorite Marx, the funny one! Plus I relish my privacy, a pleasure in short supply these days)and the other being one run by Alex Jones (of which I won't mention the name here out of common courtesy and to avoid a mass pants pissing). The 3rd I will reserve as my own business which a fascist libertarian like Ron Paul would like to preserve as my right (oops he said "right")...as well as the right (again! tsk tsk) to fill my mind with what other progressive minded people appear to think should not fit there. Open-minded indeed. Physicians heal thyselves! (The guilty know who I refer to in this comment...I hope) Come down off your high horses and step out of your soft boxes. Then maybe you can BEGIN your quest for "gnosis". I have found no complete truths in either of the sites (or people) mentioned in this post or it's comments...but those with discernment and wisdom understand important kernels of truth are buried in the most unlikely places and fear NO information. Connect THOSE dots! Sometimes it is best to step INTO the forest to see beyond the trees and not peek in from the worn path pointing knowingly.
    I say interview Mr. Jones or Paul (or would that disrupt the paradigm of this little group?)

    PS Not too inflammatory I hope (I did a lot of editing)...I guess we'll see. Just adding a POV to the mix. In the interest of truth of course.
    Peace and Wisdom

    ReplyDelete
  10. @57 X 'Round the Sun,

    I don't really see folks in the Sun community displaying ultra rigid close-mindedness, generally speaking. And I'm always paying attention to every word spoken (or at least as much attention as I possibly can).

    If anything I see the Sun folks as displaying a wide variety of beliefs, backgrounds, thresholds and inclinations. I think there are a ton of people who use Alex Jones type information as a resource - discerningly, I'd hope, as with any resource.

    I think we've got ex-mainstream types who are only recently testing the conspiracy/metaphysical waters, as well as hardcore veterans of the conspiracy world and the spiritual domains. Also, I've noticed that usually people on the Sun are not too concerned with propping up Chris Knowles' own personal belief-system - they simply respect his views considering he is our host here.

    So, while I respect your willingness to travel wide in your search for insight and truth - and while there may be kernels of truth to what you've described - I think that it's too big of a generalisation to make, unless I've completely misconstrued your point and its context, in which case I apologise.

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  11. Re:
    @57 X 'Round the Sun.

    I couldn't have expressed it any better myself Raj.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Raj( and Brizdaz)...thanks for the response. I don't wish to turn this comment section into a forum discussion...however...I believe I stand corrected after rereading the post. My reaction was to Mr. Knowles assumption that Ron Paul is guilty by association with a specific group or even a personal belief of allowing that to influence his politics. The Alex Jones reference was to what I deemed a blanket statement of "right wing extremist" of which AJ (and RP) have most often been labeled as representative. Thus my suggestion to interview them as well as to promote the idea of staying open-minded and fearing no information.
    I don't wish to get in a political debate because it is a messy business that I no longer participate in. My comments are about misinformation and erred thinking. I will just say this to our host here about a
    certain "brand of libertarianism". RP more correctly calls himself a constitutionalist and his voting record confirms that. He has stated often that he believes strongly in a separation of church and state. As the only politician who appears genuine in his beliefs(no script,consistancy etc.) I take him at his word until I see proof otherwise. I don't see how his association with a particular religious/political group gives that proof when the constitution was designed to keep religion out of government and vise versa. I don't vote because I refuse to participate in a sham and pretend it is not so because of pressure to "do my duty"....I really have no horse in the race. My only duty to my country at this stage is to point out misinformation since the real war as AJ so correctly states is an information war. We can't very well rule ourselves with incorrect information.
    My argument was with blanketting a person unfairly and assuming because he is endorsed by a group of(who in my personal view are a bunch of nutjobs)people who believe they have the right to unpopular thoughts and actions as long they break no laws or harm another, that he carries their misguided views and that even if he did he would allow them to influence his political decisions when the very nature of his campaign says that would not be so. RP is about as far away from the corporate fascist state developing as it gets.I guess my true argument and reactionary comment was to the old saw left/right paradigm being brought into the mix once again. My apologies to the commentors. It was late and I guess I was tired. I react badly to the blame game of which I see only as the basic distraction for the dumbed down masses. I am tired of(and dismayed at)that as well.
    Beg Pardon
    My social skills have eroded since crawling into my hermitage of contemplation. I'll work on that.
    Peace
    PS Now you see why I wouldn't belong to a club that would have me as a member! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  13. 57X writes: "RP more correctly calls himself a constitutionalist and his voting record confirms that. He has stated often that he believes strongly in a separation of church and state."

    This is what I'm talking about- Ron Paul's been so effective at hiding his true agenda that people don't realize what his true agenda is. He absolutely does NOT believe in separation of church and state: In a December 2003 article entitled "Christmas in Secular America", Paul wrote:

    "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

    Then he wrote this amazing bit of ahistorical nonsense about the largely Deist Founders:

    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.


    Then this utter foolishness, ignoring the tens of thousands of documented sexual abuse incidents committed by the clergy:

    "Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[145]

    That's the real Ron Paul- spouting propaganda and gross mistruths straight from the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell toilet bowl.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OK...this is what I'm talking about. Show me once were Paul has said he would force his religious views using political power. He is talking about keeping government OUT of the peoples right to use religion if they choose. He is talking about individual freedom
    ...states rights...community rights...democracy...the right to worship as you please. Government out of peoples lives. I am a former catholic as I believe you to be (I may be wrong...but I know you had a christian upbringing). I need no lecture on the dangers of religion to scare into thinking that I should look for government to ban it! I got hip to their lies at a very young age using reason and I stepped away from it never to return as soon as I was old enough to decide for myself. Yet (like Jefferson) Jesus Christ is still one of my favorite philosophers...why? Because I can think for myself. I can discern what is right and healthy to believe in.
    There are laws against child-molestation...murder and any other crimes the church is guilty of. Who's fault is it that they are not enforced? Would bigger government do that job? How big? At what cost? At the cost of stifling your right to think such strange psuedo-religious notions as mysticism? The beauty of this country is that if you don't like what is going on in your community...or your city...or your state...is you can move and go live with other like-minded people and preserve individual rights to be stupid as well as smart. And contrary to what you seem to be trying to say...religion has not created ALL the evil in the world. They certainly have done the good things Paul has stated they did. Is he guilty of omission by stating the good things...not the bad...perhaps...but that was not the point he was making at the time. Let me quote Paul here as I just finished watching him in the debates before returning here "Government is force."

    ReplyDelete
  15. First I have to say...your opening to the class "This is what I am saying" class. Brought me back to catholic school. Denigration in front of the group was a tactic the nuns used often. I truly laughed out loud at your religious upringing showing. It's amazing how they get in your head..No? Every catholic reared person I know...still can write a hell of a letter LOL
    "Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government" from your RP quote. I can't argue with that part. "There own sense of right and wrong" Yet the church tells me we are all evil and sinners and must be controlled. We don't need religion to be taught morality...that is why fairy tales with "morals" to the story were created...to teach morality and consequence to the non-religious. Children do need to be taught this somehow...correct? Or should we just let them rear themselves and hope they don't turn out to be sociopaths/psychopaths.
    Correct me if I'm wrong...but Deist believe in a god the last I checked. Deism is a religion is it not? Would that not make the founders religious? That he says they are christians says something about him...but we really are talking semantics...no? I ask you Mr.K. Should you be able to force me to believe something? Would a man who believes that try to? Is he lying when he says that? Maybe. I haven't caught him lying yet. Should you have the right to tell me and my family what to believe? My community how to think...by force? The church is dying of a natural death...brought on by it's own actions exposed by the information age. No more priest....no more nuns. It resorts to desperate pandering about ufo's and aliens. It's old history. Churches are closing all around me in my small city...the old religious are in a state of panic...they can't get to church...their neighborhood church has abandoned them...because they are losing the information war the church is dying. Not because of anything government has done. In spite of it. Ron Paul is religious. His views on the Founders (who were Deist as you say) is clouded by that. Maybe he is worse than that..(you choose) it still has nothing to do with the idea that he believes in small government. A limited government. And letting people be. One of the first lies I was taught by religion (and caught on to at an early age) was that man is inherantly evil...original sin nonsense. I knew then...and still know in my heart that man is born good and manipulated into evil. I trust mankind enough to push government out of his way (with a minimum of basic laws to insure that it stays that way...including protection from tyranny of the majority (pure democracy) and let the chips fall as they may. I'll take my chances on that anyday. If I fear anything for humanity...it is the monster of big government. Like I said...I don't join clubs for a reason. I'm a loner. I like it that way. It pisses people off. Too bad. I hae that right because of the US constitution. The Founders believed each person is capable of greatness if given life liberty and (property) the pursuit of happiness. I use to grow roses...overpampered fawned over little hybrids...always sick...diseased...on the verge of dying. But they were pretty! Then I saw the weeds...stomped on...ignored...left to there own. Poisoned...under attack. I saw which was the strongest. And I know why. Pretty and perfect ain't all it's cracked up to be. Your house your rules, your conversation on religion and politics. I hope I didn't disrespect that. Only you will deem if I did.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 57X- You made a statement in direct contradiction to Ron Paul's stated beliefs. It simply wasn't true. Now, your reply is very interesting and obviously impassioned but the fact remains that too many of Paul's fans don't know his history and don't know what his actual beliefs are. I'm sure he will lose a huge chunk of his following as soon as the media begins to treat him like they do the other candidates.

    He is very closely aligned with extreme religious right- Gary North used to work as his speechwriter and he endorsed Rev. Chuck Baldwin of the ultra-right Constitution Party. His Libertarianism is not the kind people think it is- it's a tactic meant to weaken government protections of religious and other minorities in order to install a theocracy. It's all very well documented. Click the link provided.

    I've known about Ron Paul since the mid 80s when he was closely aligned with militia and Bircher interests. He still very much is but his campaign very wisely obscures all that. If he gets a win or two his opponents will be glad to remind people who he really is, never mind the media.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I read the article. I read fast and comprehend quickly. You implied he was a danger because of his religious beliefs. I said if he is truthful then he is not a danger because of his political beliefs forbid the idea. I asked for proof that he was going to force a state religion on the nation. You showed him saying he wanted government out of religion and that he thinks religion is important. Some founders were christian. most were Deist. The colonist left england to get away
    from tyranny and state religion. RP sounds like the Founders. I csn only go by facts. Anything else is bordering a conspiracy theory. We wouldn't want to do that would we?
    A libertarian is one rare bird who can actually believe one thing and govern contrary to it because the very tenent is personal freedom and minimal government power. My other two choices (yeah right) are marxist socialism or nation socialism...both ideals and bordering on state religions in themselves. RP has a snowballs chance in hell of winning. He is a messenger. A voice shouting "leave us alone!" He is the (I don't participate in the sham called voting anymore) "none of the above" vote. I am much more annoyed at the rest of the dog and pony show that simply flaunts it's
    power over the dumbed down masses. They are an insult to humanity and they cause me to weep for (and pity) my fellow man. I don't find any joy in that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 57 X - I'm not going to discuss politics here,because I believe the political game died with the Kennedy's.I believe the Banksters of London and their elite buddies call the shots world wide and any real threat in politics would meet with the same fate as the Kennedy's.
    And I'm not saying they were choir boys either...their old man made a fortune as a bootlegger and I don't think they entered politics on strictly pure motives,but I respect their courage to take these guys on.
    Politics world-wide has become a joke,and it's something I don't wish to waste my breath on.
    Politics is just a money game.That much you can bank on for sure.-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. What I really came here to suggest before wading through the political comments above was - what about a conversation with Tony Vigorito author of the book "Nine Kinds of Naked"?
    A book he claims to have written synchronistically.

    http://www.tonyvigorito.com/

    I really enjoyed reading this book...even if I did get the meaning of cherry s#!t right away.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Timing is everything- Ron Paul shows his true colors in this story published on Monday:

    Saint Paul: Inside Ron Paul’s effort to convince Christian conservatives that he’s their man

    DES MOINES, Iowa--Ron Paul, standing backstage before a Republican presidential debate in Spartanburg, South Carolina not long ago, was talking to Doug Wead, one of his senior advisers, about his Christian faith.

    In the moments before the debate, Paul explained how his beliefs in limited government and even his opposition to the Federal Reserve had their foundations in scripture, combined with his study of the Constitution. Before he left to take the stage that night in November, Paul smiled and said to Wead, who told this story to Yahoo News, "You know, the libertarians are just baffled by me. They didn't think it was possible for someone to come this direction. A person of faith."

    In stark contrast to how he campaigned four years ago, Paul has made a concerted push during this presidential campaign to emphasize how religion has shaped his policy ideas. Through public addresses, campaign advertisements and conversations with voters, Paul has engaged in an intentional effort to articulate the biblical roots of his philosophy. These efforts are most on display here in Iowa, where most Republican caucusgoers align themselves with socially conservative views, and where Paul is building what has become a robust organizational machine to connect with them. Paul has surged into second place in Iowa, according to several recent polls. The Real Clear Politics polling average for the state has Paul tied with Mitt Romney at 17 percent, behind Newt Gingrich's 30 percent.

    Paul has brought several Christian conservatives onto his campaign in an ambitious effort to reach believers for his cause. Michael Heath, the campaign's Iowa director, previously worked for a New England-based group called the Christian Civic League of Maine that fought against adding sexual orientation to the state's Human Rights Act.

    The national campaign has tasked Heath with leading church outreach in Iowa, where for months he has met with pastors and Christian congregations. "That's the biggest part of what I'm doing as state director," Heath told Yahoo News after a day of knocking on church doors with campaign literature. "Going to churches with a message in support of Dr. Paul's campaign that is very much faith-based and is also rooted in his commitment to a constitutionally defined limited federal government."

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/saint-paul-inside-ron-paul-effort-convince-christian-150637605.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. Darren..I couldn't have said it better myself. If you read the whole discussion that will be evident.
    This was not a political discussion and surely not initiated by me. This was a discussion about fear. Fear that a person who's political views must always be affected (or infected) by his personal views and associations.
    Mr. K...I still do not see anywhere
    in your evidence were I should fear RP's presidency anymore than the others either in office or running. And actually I fear the others more because I know they impose themselves on the people from there high horses(on both "sides")from 57 years circling the Sun (I stole that from you heehee..sorry. It's good) with DemPublic rule. That being said I still maintain that RP is a constitutionalist who believes in minimal fed. government intrusion. I also maintain that in my view the closer the gov. control(states rights)is to the people and that radiates out from the people the easier we will be able to self-govern and not be swallowed or coddled by the monster (see Steppenwolfs song "Monster"). All you keep proving is that Paul's Lib. views attract and are endorsed by sometimes strange and outside thinking(maybe even dangerous)people. The Constitution has checks and balances in place to deal with such dangers if the thoughts become actions that break the law. Paul says he wants to restore those checks and balances. The rest act as though they are still in place. My initial criticism that started this exchange was that I felt you were rash in your condemnation of the man and unfair(and still unproven)labeling him a fascist right winger the like of Falwell and Robertson (yikes! They scared me when they ran for sure and told me I should be afraid of them outright Big Gov Republicans?! Holy crap!)because he appeared for a short paragragh in an article about fascist right wingers. I could provide link after link myself of Paul stating how he has difficulty courting the religious right because he won't promise to push personal views on the public as they so unconstitutionally require. Let me end with this...If Paul becomes President it will be a miracle. The only(outside from personal ones)miracles I have come to expect in this day and age from polyticks (many blood-suckers) would make me conclude that Paul was the Antichrist himself! That being the case...it would be the endgame for all of us,believers(of which I am not)or non-believers LOL
    I was simply trying to defend a man and truth.Unfortunately I felt the need to spell out his politics to prove my point that a man is not always guilty by association nor need govern by his religious beliefs.Cetainly not when his politics run contrary to that idea. To associate him with Falwell and Robertson was reactionary at best. I am sure you can find a link about Robertsons view on Paul and I doubt it favors Paul! Unless it's a lesser of two evils endorsement which in my mind don't count.I would supect he's a Newt Romney kinda guy. "politics makes strange bedfellows".

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mr.Knowles. Between you and me. I have read back in the comments and I don't think your readers are appreciating two hard heads debating politics. I didn't bring it up. You did. I was hoping you would see the error in your post in calling someone a fascist politician in the Falwell/Robertson mold because he is a religious politician who believes the Fed has no say in religious matters or policy. I respect you as a writer with a brilliant POV and an uncanny ability to articulate those views in words. Our discussion has become a political discussion about politics when I intended it to be about facts and misstatement.
    I'm sure you are a very busy man while I am a recently retired laborer...a once prolific part-time music composer...who now finds himself with time to compose and zero inspiration. My muse took a long vacation. So in the meantime I am not so busy as you as I wait for her return. We can go on if you like. I kind of enjoy it though I do hate talking politics I also like a good head banging specifically when I am right. It's the Irish/Italian in me. I will say this. Facts are facts. Truth is truth. If you can't see it or admit it then I think it's best we just stop for your readers sake. I feel I am in your house and disturbing your party even though you you do seem to enjoy it as well or you would just stop posting my comments(kick me out of your house) Maybe I should just leave the party. You do have the home advantage as evidenced by the comments directed at me as though I am the buzzkill who brought up polyticks even though you did in your blog. I am one reader. If I stop reading you the numbers won't change a lick. If I take you out of my top two daily website to visit because you dropped down in my admiration slot then it will be more my loss as I enjoy your writing and ideas. Come to think of it...it seems you are moving your blog to facebook. I don't go there. Too intrusive. Who knows..maybe this is some weird syncish goodbye.You are saving face. Remember to save your true face. Your the one who has to wear it. I wrote this to you personally and not to be posted but like I said...your house(class? I learn stuff here.). Speaking of learning...
    If I learned one important rule in my 57 year journey around the Sun (still gonna steal that "grin")it is this. As long as we remain trapped to this earth, make sure your feet are firmly grounded before sticking your head in the clouds. Just be ready to jump when the timing is right.
    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  23. @57x
    I used to be into Ron Paul and Alex Jones and considered myself a Libertarian so I'm very aquainted with their views. I'm also the person who requested that Knowles write a piece on Jones, Griffin and other right wing militia types. I broke away from that crowd when I got sick of hearing all the racist rants against Mexicans, historical inaccuracies that Alex spouts regarding the annexation of Mexico, and other assorted nationalistic bullshit. Nationalism isn't the answer and there's nothing inherently wrong with being one world. The lines on the map have nothing to do with personal freedom. God didn't draw the borders on the map with his magic finger, they are arbitrary political illusions. And trust me, the crowd that backs these uber-nationalists would be the most aggressive in pursuing a fascistic pax-Americana, probably in the name of fighting the godless, commie, new age, sharia islamo-fascist, enviro-fascist, luciferian new world order (did I leave a possible scapegoat out oh yeah obama the antichrist how could I forget). I suggest you watch how Alex Jones behaves towards people who were actually his fans at a pro-gun rally in Austin. The video is on youtube, just search Alex Jones uses cointelpro tactics. The guy is a slimy asshole.
    Anyway after "waking up" to Jones I kind of went throug a complete politcal transformation. Libertarianism and its defense of property rights basically ignores the fact that most if not all property is based on theft. How can you have a fair free market when so many people have been disenfranchised by the titans of industry. Will Ron Paul redistribute any of the wealth to at least attempt to create an even playing field for his great free market experiment (as if this hasn't been done before and been disastrous) or will he just deregulate everything and let the Rockefellers and Koch brothers keep their vast fortunes and use their position to buy up everything. How free will you be 57x when a single corporation owns the country or the whole world. But I guess according to your Libertarian philosophy that wouldn't be tyranny, they would be the landlord and therefore have the right to boss you around. This is the world Ron Paul would usher in. Also, despite all of the hysterical exercises in apologetics by Jones and his staff of flunky hack "journalists" to the contrary, Ron Paul is a fucking racist. Don't just believe Jones' defense that it's mainstream Soros propaganda. Actually read what Ron Paul wrote in his newsletters.
    Also, don't try to minimize Ron Paul's affiliation with the John Birch Society. This is a group that was instrumental in killing Kennedy (oh I forgot he was a commie so he deserved it right). I believe every faction of the
    Anglo-American oligarchy wanted Kennedy dead in the end, but the bircher neo-confederates were extremely involved in the operation. It's funny how Jones is making a film about Kennedy and Alex's father, according to AJ, is a member of JBS. Alex has people guest host his show who basically go on extended recruiting drives for JBS. Alex has Eagle forum people in his films. The Eagle Forum, started by Phyllis Schafly, uber right bitch who sent death squads to Latin America to put down real people's revolutions. But, according to Larry Pratt regular guest on Alex Jones show, the Sandinista's were the real killers. You can cry "guilt by association tactics" all you want 57x but Alex is guilty for not only associating with but popularizing and giving a platform to the beliefs of these disgusting people. Alex and Ron are the counter-revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I meant annexation of Texas.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Chris...Ya know. Your absolutely right. What a fool I have been to believe that in my 57 years I that learned anything. After the massive effort I put into bettering myself as a person, after staring at the man in the mirror critically for most of my years picking myself apart and reassembling in an effort to be the change I want to see in the world. After studying history and my fellow man until I am almost literally blind...After honing my skills of intuition to what I had hoped was a fine tool neccesary for mining the gray areas between the black and the white. After taking on proudly the moniker of 'Truthseeker' and all the effort that comes with it... After growing up on the streets of the city as a working lower class and thinking that struggling gave me some street wisdom... After turning away from television 15 year ago and never looking back....
    I find at this very moment it was all for nothing. Hell...I couldn't even get away using a "tactic" to trick someone into believing the lies I was pushing.
    The gig is up AJ and RP. They are on to you. I failed my mindfck mission.
    Now that I realize my life has been a complete failer I shall go now and see if I can salvage what is left of my years.
    57X walks away mumbling to himself
    "Dammit! Busted again! Slapping his forehead in rythmn to his words "Stupid..Stupid...Stupid!"
    "Never try to fool a Synchro-Mystic!"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why so sensitive? Look I enjoy debating this type of stuff and I was just trying to point out I too believed in these people at one time. Question everything, especially in the realm of conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi Chris,

    I'm surprised nobody wants this for 2012 :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu_AL1qDOcU

    absolutely riveting

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi there, just to correct you, I said that had you seen 'that' the incal film/animated film was coming out, not that i hoped it might.

    and it looks rather good.

    ReplyDelete