Down Goes McKinney

[Quinn]

According to CNN, it goes something like this:

With 66 percent of precincts reporting, McKinney was trailing at 42 percent to her challenger's 58 percent.

That's right, this idiotic low-life is going away -- and she won't be coming back. Finally, the electorate actually seems to be getting something right. I'm actually drinking a bit of Champagne to celebrate. The little things really do make all of the difference.

-Quinn

[twowaybro]

All i have 2 say is that i hope the people of Dekalb County like what they r gonna get...another bought and paid 4 "Republicrat" stooge. Another cronie of this current American Corporatocracy. And if they used those Diebold machines down there in all likelihood the election was rigged anyway. Long live Ms Cynthia McKinney!!!!! 8) 8)

[Quinn]

Hank Johnson is a good Democrat who won't loose that seat to a Republican challenger. Face it, McKinney was just an embarrassment to everyone. Striking a police officer was bad enough. However, her decision to play the race card so as not be held accountable for said behavior was a disgusting act that imperils the cause of anyone who has legitimate issues with racial profiling, etc.

Her decision to, among other things, blame the voting machines for 18 point trouncing was similarly farcical. The woman is a clown and won't be coming back.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

All i have 2 say is that i hope the people of Dekalb County like what they r gonna get...another bought and paid 4 "Republicrat" stooge. Another cronie of this current American Corporatocracy. And if they used those Diebold machines down there in all likelihood the election was rigged anyway. Long live Ms Cynthia McKinney!!!!! 8) 8)

Hank johnson is a Republican !?

He`s a liberal`s liberal. Mckinney`s a kook neo-marxist. That seat is safe for the left.

Shortly after the polls opened on Tuesday, allegations of voting irregularities began appearing on U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s campaign Web sitehttp://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/elections/entries/2006/08/08/mckinney_allege.html

"My mother was hurt by someone in the press in this room tonight," McKinney said after losing to challenger Hank Johnson Tuesday. "One of my assistants needs stitches because of the press that are in this room tonight." Her campaign manager, John Evans, blamed the loss on the ABC - Anybody But Cynthia - movement and the Capitol Hill incident.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_MCKINNEY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-08-23-26-26

[Jamie Michelle]

Hank Johnson is a good Democrat who won't loose that seat to a Republican challenger. Face it, McKinney was just an embarrassment to everyone. Striking a police officer was bad enough. ...


As I wrote previously on this matter:

---

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

Cynthia McKinney has been far too conciliatory in this case by making concessions which hurt her case. She should have simply stated the facts in the case and filed charges on the police officer for his physical assault upon her. But instead she's been apologizing even though she did no wrong. Kind of like Harry Whittington apologizing to Dick Cheney for Dick Cheney having shot him (assuming the White House's claimed details of that shooting incident are to be believed).



... However, her decision to play the race card so as not be held accountable for said behavior was a disgusting act that imperils the cause of anyone who has legitimate issues with racial profiling, etc.

Her decision to, among other things, blame the voting machines for 18 point trouncing was similarly farcical. The woman is a clown and won't be coming back.

-Quinn

With the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want, as they did in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election (of which the actual winner, Bonesman Kerry, was more than happy to roll over for his good buddies, the Bushes):

"Science proves that vote fraud is real!," Joseph Cannon, April 2, 2005:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/04/science-proves-that-vote-fraud-is-real.html

"Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies," Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., Kathy Dopp, MS mathematics, Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D., Prof. Brian Joiner, Prof. Frank Stenger, Prof. Richard G. Sheehan, Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. Lecturer, Campbell B. Read, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Jonathan Simon, Ron Baiman, Bruce O'Dell, US Count Votes' National Election Data Archive Project, March 31, 2005:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

"The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, November 11, 2004:

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Unexplained_exit_poll_discrep_v00l.pdf

In "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Dr. Steven F. Freeman says:

"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

The odds of those exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are, according to Dr. Freeman, "250,000,000 to one."

See also:

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen?: Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted--enough to have put John Kerry in the White House," Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Rolling Stone, June 15, 2006 issue:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Sources and Commentary," Rolling Stone, June 1, 2006:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10463875/was_the_2004_election_stolen_sources_and_commentar y

"The stolen election of 2004," Michael Parenti, Columbus Free Press, July 11, 2006:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/2073

[Quinn]

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

Your understanding of the facts – and the law – leaves much to be desired. McKinney attempted to bypass a metal detector and gain entrance to a House office building without showing her ID (she has admitted to not wearing her Congressional pin). She also refused to heed multiple verbal warnings to stop, requiring the police officer to actually have to chase after her. Under those circumstances it is legal for a Capitol Hill police officer to use reasonable force to prevent an individual from gaining entrance. McKinney’s use of force, by contrast, was clearly illegal. The Capitol Hill police believe she received special treatment, and so, most obviously, do a significant portion of her former constituents.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

You understanding of the facts – and the law – leaves much to be desired. McKinney attempted to bypass a metal detector and gain entrance to a House office building without showing her ID (she has admitted to not wearing her Congressional pin). She also refused to heed multiple verbal warnings to stop, requiring the police officer to actually have to chase after her. Under those circumstances it is legal for a Capitol Hill police officer to use reasonable force to prevent an individual from gaining entrance. McKinney’s use of force, by contrast, was clearly illegal. The Capitol Hill police believe she received special treatment, and so, most obviously, do a significant portion of her former constituents.

-Quinn

"You understanding" of English leaves much to be desired.

McKinney's use of force wasn't illegal. Charges weren't even brought against her. With the political Establishment's utter despisement of McKinney (coming from both the Democratic Party and Republican Party top-tier), it makes no sense to say that she got off because of insider special treatment. The political Establishment was looking to burn her by hook or by crook. The whole incident could very well have been a set-up to begin with.

As far as her "former constituents" go, with the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want, as they did in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election (of which the actual winner, Bonesman Kerry, was more than happy to roll over for his good buddies, the Bushes):

"Science proves that vote fraud is real!," Joseph Cannon, April 2, 2005:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/04/science-proves-that-vote-fraud-is-real.html

"Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies," Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., Kathy Dopp, MS mathematics, Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D., Prof. Brian Joiner, Prof. Frank Stenger, Prof. Richard G. Sheehan, Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. Lecturer, Campbell B. Read, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Jonathan Simon, Ron Baiman, Bruce O'Dell, US Count Votes' National Election Data Archive Project, March 31, 2005:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

"The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, November 11, 2004:

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Unexplained_exit_poll_discrep_v00l.pdf

In "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Dr. Steven F. Freeman says:

"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

The odds of those exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are, according to Dr. Freeman, "250,000,000 to one."

See also:

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen?: Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted--enough to have put John Kerry in the White House," Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Rolling Stone, June 15, 2006 issue:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Sources and Commentary," Rolling Stone, June 1, 2006:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10463875/was_the_2004_election_stolen_sources_and_commentar y

"The stolen election of 2004," Michael Parenti, Columbus Free Press, July 11, 2006:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/2073

[Quinn]

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

You understanding of the facts – and the law – leaves much to be desired. McKinney attempted to bypass a metal detector and gain entrance to a House office building without showing her ID (she has admitted to not wearing her Congressional pin). She also refused to heed multiple verbal warnings to stop, requiring the police officer to actually have to chase after her. Under those circumstances it is legal for a Capitol Hill police officer to use reasonable force to prevent an individual from gaining entrance. McKinney’s use of force, by contrast, was clearly illegal. The Capitol Hill police believe she received special treatment, and so, most obviously, do a significant portion of her former constituents.

-Quinn

"You understanding" of English leaves much to be desired.

McKinney's use of force wasn't illegal. Charges weren't even brought against her. With the political Establishment's utter despisement of McKinney (coming from both the Democratic Party and Republican Party top-tier), it makes no sense to say that she got off because of insider special treatment. The political Establishment was looking to burn her by hook or by crook. The whole incident could very well have been a set-up to begin with.

As far as her "former constituents" go, with the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want, as they did in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election (of which the actual winner, Bonesman Kerry, was more than happy to roll over for his good buddies, the Bushes):

Citing a single spelling error on my part does nothing to change the fact that you lack an understanding of both the facts and the legal considerations appropriate to this incident (I’ve fixed it nonetheless). My original points stand factually undisputed:

A) The police officer was within his legal rights to use force in order to restrain McKinney, something you have yet to effectively dispute;
B) Striking a police officer – which McKinney clearly did do – while said officer is performing his or her duty is illegal, something else you have yet to effectively dispute.

The Capitol Hill police officers union has made it clear that they wanted charges pressed and were surprised when they weren’t – as were the majority of legal analysts. That she received special treatment is obvious enough so as not to warrant debate.

So far as any assertions of electoral fraud are concerned, no one in their right mind is taking them seriously in this instance. Why? The election results mirror the polling data produced by numerous organizations in the week prior to the election. In the end, she lost because her former constituents figured out what so many people across the political spectrum already understand: McKinney is an idiot.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

You understanding of the facts – and the law – leaves much to be desired. McKinney attempted to bypass a metal detector and gain entrance to a House office building without showing her ID (she has admitted to not wearing her Congressional pin). She also refused to heed multiple verbal warnings to stop, requiring the police officer to actually have to chase after her. Under those circumstances it is legal for a Capitol Hill police officer to use reasonable force to prevent an individual from gaining entrance. McKinney’s use of force, by contrast, was clearly illegal. The Capitol Hill police believe she received special treatment, and so, most obviously, do a significant portion of her former constituents.

-Quinn

"You understanding" of English leaves much to be desired.

McKinney's use of force wasn't illegal. Charges weren't even brought against her. With the political Establishment's utter despisement of McKinney (coming from both the Democratic Party and Republican Party top-tier), it makes no sense to say that she got off because of insider special treatment. The political Establishment was looking to burn her by hook or by crook. The whole incident could very well have been a set-up to begin with.

As far as her "former constituents" go, with the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want, as they did in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election (of which the actual winner, Bonesman Kerry, was more than happy to roll over for his good buddies, the Bushes):

LOL…. Ok, citing me on that specific, and uncommon, misspelling was more than appropriate (I’ve fixed it). However, my original points stands factually undisputed:

A) The police officer was within his legal rights to use force in order to restrain McKinney, something you have yet to effectively dispute;


Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons.



B) Striking a police officer – which McKinney clearly did do – while said officer is performing his or her duty is illegal, something else you have yet to effectively dispute.


If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her. They didn't think they had a case.



The Capitol Hill police officers union has made it clear that they wanted charges pressed and were surprised when they weren’t – as were the majority of legal analysts. That she received special treatment should be obvious to you by this point.


It's obvious that they didn't have so much as even a flimsy case, because if the political Establishment thought that they could have credibly prosecuted her then they would have taken great joy in throwing the book at her.



So far as any assertions of electoral fraud are concerned, no one in their right mind is taking them seriously in this instance. Why? The election results mirror the polling data produced by numerous organizations in the week prior to the election. In the end, she lost because her former constituents figured out what so many people across the political spectrum already understand: McKinney is an idiot.

-Quinn

If McKinney is an idiot, then at least she's a far, far smarter idiot than all the other idiot politicians in Washington, D.C., with the possible exception of Congressman Ron Paul (Republican from Texas). Not to mention far, far more moral and brave, and with a great deal more integrity.

[Quinn]

Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons.
If you are attempting to argue that there is any sort of legal or moral equivalence between Stalin murdering tens of millions of people and a single police officer preventing an unidentified woman from bypassing a metal detector into a sensitive area – that is the best example of fallacious reasoning I have yet to see anywhere.

Stalin’s actions were illegal by the standards of any liberal democracy and international law. By contrast, the actions of the Capitol Hill police officer would be deemed legal within any of those same courts.


If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her. They didn't think they had a case.


It's obvious that they didn't have so much as even a flimsy case, because if the political Establishment thought that they could have credibly prosecuted her then they would have taken great joy in throwing the book at her.
The union to which the Capitol Hill police belong as well as the legal analysts monitoring this case don’t share your opinions. Since they obviously have a far greater command of both the facts and the law than you do, I’ll defer to their judgment.


If McKinney is an idiot, then at least she's a far, far smarter idiot than all the other idiot politicians in Washington, D.C., with the possible exception of Congressman Ron Paul (Republican from Texas). Not to mention far, far more moral and brave, and with a great deal more integrity.
Someone who chooses to play the race card in order to avoid personal accountability is neither moral nor brave. The fact that McKinney has, among other things, blamed her loss upon electoral fraud militates against any reasonable assessment of integrity.

Judging from the electoral trouncing that she received, McKinney’s former electorate sees it much the same way.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

DOWN GOES MCKINNEY ! DOWN GOES MCKINNEY !

DOWN GOES MCKINNEY !

[Jamie Michelle]

Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons.
If you are attempting to argue that there is any sort of legal or moral equivalence between Stalin murdering tens of millions of people and a single police officer preventing an unidentified woman from bypassing a metal detector into a sensitive area – that is the best example of fallacious reasoning I have yet to see anywhere.

Stalin’s actions were illegal by the standards of any liberal democracy and international law. By contrast, the actions of the Capitol Hill police officer would be deemed legal within any of those same courts.


You were the one that was arguing with legal positivism. Stalin's actions were legal according to the law in his country. I simply used his case as an example of the absurdity of arguing according to legal positivism.




If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her. They didn't think they had a case.


It's obvious that they didn't have so much as even a flimsy case, because if the political Establishment thought that they could have credibly prosecuted her then they would have taken great joy in throwing the book at her.

The union to which the Capitol Hill police belong as well as the legal analysts monitoring this case don’t share your opinions. Since they obviously have a far greater command of both the facts and the law than you do, I’ll defer to their judgment.


The problem with that logic is that it is so easy to refute logically. If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her. They didn't think they had a case. It's obvious that they didn't have so much as even a flimsy case, because if the political Establishment thought that they could have credibly prosecuted her then they would have taken great joy in throwing the book at her.

Of course the police and the TV talking heads are going to say such things, as they're Establishment minions and shills.




If McKinney is an idiot, then at least she's a far, far smarter idiot than all the other idiot politicians in Washington, D.C., with the possible exception of Congressman Ron Paul (Republican from Texas). Not to mention far, far more moral and brave, and with a great deal more integrity.

Someone who chooses to play the race card in order to avoid personal accountability is neither moral nor brave. The fact that McKinney has, among other things, blamed her loss upon electoral fraud militates against any reasonable assessment of integrity.


"Personal accountability" for what? The only thing that I can see that she's done that is morally wrong is be a non-libertarian politician in the first place (as contrasted with Ron Paul, Republican from Texas). She certainly had every proper right to give that officer a push on the chest when he initiated force by physically assaulting her.



Judging from the electoral trouncing that she received, McKinney’s former electorate sees it much the same way.

-Quinn

Even if that were true, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch, and the purest form of democracy in action is the lynch mob.

[Quinn]

Jamie, the reality is that you have completely failed to refute the central facts:

1) The police officer was within his legal rights to use force in order to restrain McKinney, something you clearly do not understand and have yet to effectively dispute;

2) Striking a police officer – which McKinney has admitted to – while said officer is performing his or her duty is illegal, something else you have yet to effectively dispute.

That she hasn’t been prosecuted for her conduct does not take away from the fact that the conduct she has admitted to is illegal. To state otherwise is faulty logic. Seriously, powerful politicians avoid prosecution for crimes all of the time.

Unfortunately, rather than attempt to refute these points with verifiable facts, you have chosen to rely upon unsupported assumptions and fallacious logic, just some of which is as follows:



it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.
An uninformed opinion not supported by any interpretation of the law.


The whole incident could very well have been a set-up to begin with.
Unsupported speculation that shows a lack of familiarity with McKinney’s history. This isn't the first dispute that she has had with Capitol Hill police officers because she refused to show proper ID as required.


She certainly had every proper right to give that officer a push on the chest when he initiated force by physically assaulting her.
Once again, an uninformed opinion not supported by any interpretation of the law.


Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons. Stalin's actions were legal according to the law in his country.
Stalin’s actions were illegal according to international law and the laws of any liberal democracy in the world. Furthermore, your assertion that Stalin’s actions were legal according to the laws of his own country is factually incorrect:

"Stalin originated the concept 'enemy of the people.' This term automatically made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven. It made possible the use of the cruelest repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent… On the whole, the only proof of guilt actually used, against all norms of current legal science, was the 'confession' of the accused himself. As subsequent probing has proven, 'confessions' were acquired through physical pressures against the accused. This led to glaring violations of revolutionary legality and to the fact that many entirely innocent individuals… became victims."


Of course the police and the TV talking heads are going to say such things, as they're Establishment minions and shills.
Unsupported speculation not congruent with a logical analysis of the facts.


With the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want.
Your support of her assertion that she lost the election due to electoral fraud is, yet again, without an ounce of objectively factual support. As previously stated, the election results mirror the polling data supplied by a range of independent organizations in the week prior to the election.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, the reality is that you have completely failed to refute the central facts:

1) The police officer was within his legal rights to use force in order to restrain McKinney, something you clearly do not understand and have yet to effectively dispute;


Even if that were true, how is it relevant to any valid point? Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons.



2) Striking a police officer – which McKinney has admitted to – while said officer is performing his or her duty is illegal, something else you have yet to effectively dispute.


Not only did I dispute it, I logically disproved it. If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her. They didn't think they had a case. It's obvious that they didn't have so much as even a flimsy case, because if the political Establishment thought that they could have credibly prosecuted her then they would have taken great joy in throwing the book at her.



That she hasn’t been prosecuted for her conduct does not take away from the fact that the conduct she has admitted to is illegal. To state otherwise is faulty logic. Seriously, powerful politicians avoid prosecution for crimes all of the time.


McKinney is not a powerful politician. She was a politician hated by the political Establishment because she spoke out against the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks. They were looking to destroy her by hook or by crook because of that.



Unfortunately, rather than attempt to refute these points with verifiable facts, you have chosen to rely upon unsupported assumptions and fallacious logic, just some of which is as follows:



it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.
An uninformed opinion not supported by any interpretation of the law.


That sentence of yours doesn't even make coherent sense. I gave an "interpretation of the law" in the very comment of mine that you are responding to, so obviously your assertion is untrue on its face, as well as being bizarre and self-contradictory, as it is precisely an "interpretation of the law" that you are here responding to--one which you disagree with, but one nonetheless.

But moreover, my comment is mainly grounded not in positive law, but in objectively correct rights theory.




The whole incident could very well have been a set-up to begin with.
Unsupported speculation that shows a lack of familiarity with McKinney’s history. This isn't the first dispute that she has had with Capitol Hill police officers because she refused to show proper ID as required.


Even if that were true, that would be a good thing. McKinney ought not be dancing to the tune of government minions.




She certainly had every proper right to give that officer a push on the chest when he initiated force by physically assaulting her.
Once again, an uninformed opinion not supported by any interpretation of the law.


Once again, an incoherent and self-contradictory statement by you. See my above comments on this matter for more on this.




Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons. Stalin's actions were legal according to the law in his country.
Stalin’s actions were illegal according to international law and the laws of any liberal democracy in the world. Furthermore, your assertion that Stalin’s actions were legal according to the laws of his own country is factually incorrect:

"Stalin originated the concept 'enemy of the people.' This term automatically made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven. It made possible the use of the cruelest repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent… On the whole, the only proof of guilt actually used, against all norms of current legal science, was the 'confession' of the accused himself. As subsequent probing has proven, 'confessions' were acquired through physical pressures against the accused. This led to glaring violations of revolutionary legality and to the fact that many entirely innocent individuals… became victims."


Yet it was all legal and done according to the law in the U.S.S.R., even if those laws supposedly violated the principles of the Communist revolution (which are not themselves the positive law).

As far as "liberal democracy" is concerned, the U.S. government is far from liberal, and indeed far from a democracy. No government in the world is or ever has been. Indeed, the very notion of a "liberal government" is a contradiction in terms, since government by its nature is anti-liberal. Nor has any genuine governmental democracy ever existed, as the ruling elite control the very process of supposed "democracy," and structure it in such a way that they cannot lose.

Not that actual democracy would be at all desirable, as democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch, and the purest form of democracy in action is the lynch mob.

Concerning liberalism:

The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 in France. When the French Estates-General (États-Généraux) met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was under King Louis XIII from October 27, 1614 to February 23, 1615.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, all drugs to be legal, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

The term "liberal" as it is commonly used today is purely and simply a misnomer meaning the opposite of what it originally meant, as those commonly called "liberals" today are about giving government more power, not in stripping government of power. Those commonly called "liberals" today are in fact *right-wing conservatives* in the original sense of that political term. So also, socialism and communism are exceedingly *right-wing* and *conservative* political philosophies, as they put all power into the hands of government, rather than strip government of power.




Of course the police and the TV talking heads are going to say such things, as they're Establishment minions and shills.
Unsupported speculation not congruent with a logical analysis of the facts.


Well, let's see. The police are employed by the government, so they are its minions by definition. And the major media outlets are all owned by the political Establishment, so their employees are its shills by definition.

So, my above comment is "Unsupported speculation not congruent with a logical analysis of the facts," other than the fact that it is logically and necessarily true.




With the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want.
Your support of her assertion that she lost the election due to electoral fraud is, yet again, without an ounce of objectively factual support. As previously stated, the election results mirror the polling data supplied by a range of independent organizations in the week prior to the election.

-Quinn

I didn't say that she lost because of that. The point that I made is such arguments are on their own terms illegitimate, because the voting system in the U.S. is quite rigged and phoney.

Possibly she actually did lose the election fair and square. Even if she did, this also wouldn't make any relevant point, because as I said before, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch, and the purest form of democracy in action is the lynch mob.

[Quinn]

Jamie-Michelle,

A functional debate requires that the participants, no matter how divergent their perspectives, can agree upon a common framework for factual reference (2+2=4, etc). Unfortunately, when debating you there can be no objective point of reference because you reinterpret or simply ignore the facts according to whatever subjective criteria you find convenient at the moment. These criteria, in turn, invariably rely upon unsupported assumptions and faulty logic. This is precisely why many others choose not to engage in any debates with you (Vicki a couple of weeks ago, etc.).

Let’s review again:

1) The police officer was within his legal rights to use force in order to restrain McKinney, something you clearly do not understand and have yet to effectively dispute with this argument:


Even if that were true, how is it relevant to any valid point? Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons.

It’s relevant because it utterly refutes your assertion that “If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.” Your argument that “Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace” has already been thoroughly refuted.

2) Striking a police officer – which McKinney has admitted to – while said officer is performing his or her duty is illegal, something else you have yet to effectively dispute with this argument:


If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her.

First of all, It all came down to a single DA, not the “Establishment.” Furthermore, your argument is completely illogical because it requires us to accept that an illegal act has only been committed if it is prosecuted. If I follow your faulty logic, I’m not breaking the law when I do 95 mph down the West Side Highway at 5 AM simply because I haven’t received a ticket. Seriously, what part of her admitting to striking a police officer while he was performing his duty do you not understand?

Let’s take a look at some of your other problematic assertions:


McKinney is not a powerful politician. She was a politician hated by the political Establishment because she spoke out against the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks. They were looking to destroy her by hook or by crook because of that.

Not a powerful politician? A member of Congress certainly does qualify as a powerful politician. Furthermore, McKinney was a black, female making allegations of harassment and racism – while being supported by noted celebrities like Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte. Such a position can not be reasonably construed as being anything but one of power.

Also, where is the support for your allegation that some vaguely defined “political Establishment” was looking to destroy her?


That sentence of yours doesn't even make coherent sense. I gave an "interpretation of the law" in the very comment of mine that you are responding to, so obviously your assertion is untrue on its face, as well as being bizarre and self-contradictory, as it is precisely an "interpretation of the law" that you are here responding to--one which you disagree with, but one nonetheless.

You do, of course, realize that by stating “If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson” you absolutely engaged in an interpretation of the incident’s legality and by extension the law itself. Once again, your position remains unsupported by any legal precedent or interpretation of the law.




She certainly had every proper right to give that officer a push on the chest when he initiated force by physically assaulting her. Once again, an uninformed opinion not supported by any interpretation of the law. Once again, an incoherent and self-contradictory statement by you. See my above comments on this matter for more on this.

Once again, your statement relies upon an erroneous legal interpretation. She has no such right according to even the most forgiving of legal standards. That you choose to simply ignore this fact is to your determent.


Yet it was all legal and done according to the law in the U.S.S.R., even if those laws supposedly violated the principles of the Communist revolution (which are not themselves the positive law).

Wrong. Stalin’s actions violated international law, the laws of every liberal democracy – and the laws of the then Soviet Union itself. Read Khrushchev's Secret Speech given at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, in 1956.


As far as "liberal democracy" is concerned, the U.S. government is far from liberal, and indeed far from a democracy).

The definition of “liberal democracy is as follows: A state or political system which combines the right to individual freedom with the right to representative government. As such, the US absolutely qualifies as a liberal democracy.

I could go on exposing the fallacious nature of your arguments all day, but I think I've made my point.

Look, Jamie-Michele, while I do think you are a bit crazy and disagree with most of what you post in any given thread, the fact is that I do enjoy reading some of your posts. I’m not trying to break you down or take anything away from you as you are obviously not stupid. Still, the degree to which you will go in order to ignore or reinterpret an obvious fact makes any reasonable discussion impossible. It’s for this reason, and not other, that people on this forum avoid debating you.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie-Michelle,

A functional debate requires that the participants, no matter how divergent their perspectives, can agree upon a common framework for factual reference (2+2=4, etc). Unfortunately, when debating you there can be no objective point of reference because you reinterpret or simply ignore the facts according to whatever subjective criteria you find convenient at the moment. These criteria, in turn, invariably rely upon unsupported assumptions and faulty logic. This is precisely why many others choose not to engage in any debates with you (Vicki a couple of weeks ago, etc.).


Your memory is faulty. You're thinking of Tara Emory. At first she didn't like the fact that I didn't fit into her stereotype of what a Christian is supposed to be and so didn't know how to respond to me. That is to say, she blew a mental gasket, so to speak (I have this effect on most people, since most people are caught up in false paradigms). Upon which she said that she wasn't going to debate any further with me. But now in reviewing the thread in which that discussion took place in, I see that she's come around quite a bit. Not only is she still talking to me, I seem to have broken some of her previous armor and gotten that intellectual light to go off in her to at least some extent.

"Hey Girls! What is your sexual fantasy?":

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=126604

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=9420



Let’s review again:

1) The police officer was within his legal rights to use force in order to restrain McKinney, something you clearly do not understand and have yet to effectively dispute with this argument:


Even if that were true, how is it relevant to any valid point? Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons.

It’s relevant because it utterly refutes your assertion that “If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.” ...


And they should. How is saying that wrong? Remember, I'm not a legal positivist (of which is a self-contradictory position), as you are.


Your argument that “Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace” has already been thoroughly refuted.


Where is this non-existent refutation? Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons. His actions were all legal and done according to the law in the U.S.S.R., even if those laws supposedly violated the principles of the Communist revolution (which are not themselves the positive law)



2) Striking a police officer – which McKinney has admitted to – while said officer is performing his or her duty is illegal, something else you have yet to effectively dispute with this argument:


Not only did I dispute it, I logically disproved it. If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her. They didn't think they had a case. It's obvious that they didn't have so much as even a flimsy case, because if the political Establishment thought that they could have credibly prosecuted her then they would have taken great joy in throwing the book at her.




If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her.

First of all, It all came down to a single DA, not the “Establishment.” ...


I see. So the political Establishment has no influence over prosecutors. Uh hu. They just operate in a vacuum.

But even if that were true, then that still demonstrates my point that they didn't have a case.



... Furthermore, your argument is completely illogical because it requires us to accept that an illegal act has only been committed if it is prosecuted. If I follow your faulty logic, I’m not breaking the law when I do 95 mph down the West Side Highway at 5 AM simply because I haven’t received a ticket. Seriously, what part of her admitting to striking a police officer while he was performing his duty do you not understand?


Heck, it is legal to kill officers in the "performance of their duty" if that duty is against a citizen's rights. Take the Waco case, for example. The survivors were aquitted of all charges concerning assaulting law enforcement officers (because it's legal to defend oneself against assault, even if committed by law enforcement officers during the "performance of their duty"), but were convicted on false weapons charges. The jury later said that the only reason they even found them guilty on the phoney weapons charges was to throw the government a bone, and that they never imagined that such minor charges could carry such long sentences, and had they known that then they would have never found them guilty on any charges.

So McKinney showed great restraint.



Let’s take a look at some of your other problematic assertions:


McKinney is not a powerful politician. She was a politician hated by the political Establishment because she spoke out against the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks. They were looking to destroy her by hook or by crook because of that.

Not a powerful politician? A member of Congress certainly does qualify as a powerful politician. Furthermore, McKinney was a black, female making allegations of harassment and racism – while being supported by noted celebrities like Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte. Such a position can not be reasonably construed as being anything but one of power.

Also, where is the support for your allegation that some vaguely defined “political Establishment” was looking to destroy her?


As I said before, McKinney is not a powerful politician. She was a politician hated by the political Establishment because she spoke out against the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks. They were looking to destroy her by hook or by crook because of that.




That sentence of yours doesn't even make coherent sense. I gave an "interpretation of the law" in the very comment of mine that you are responding to, so obviously your assertion is untrue on its face, as well as being bizarre and self-contradictory, as it is precisely an "interpretation of the law" that you are here responding to--one which you disagree with, but one nonetheless.

You do, of course, realize that by stating “If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson” you absolutely engaged in an interpretation of the incident’s legality and by extension the law itself. ...


Yes, thank you for agreeing with me that you were spouting self-contradictory nonsense previously when you said "An uninformed opinion not supported by any interpretation of the law," as obviously I was giving an "interpretation of the law," hence refuting you own statement.



... Once again, your position remains unsupported by any legal precedent or interpretation of the law.


See my, and your, previous comment. You yourself say that you are wrong on this matter.






She certainly had every proper right to give that officer a push on the chest when he initiated force by physically assaulting her. Once again, an uninformed opinion not supported by any interpretation of the law. Once again, an incoherent and self-contradictory statement by you. See my above comments on this matter for more on this.

Once again, your statement relies upon an erroneous legal interpretation. She has no such right according to even the most forgiving of legal standards. That you choose to simply ignore this fact is to your determent.


So you here again agree that you were wrong in your previous statement on this matter, in that I did indeed give an "interpretation of the law"--but one which you happen to disagree with.

Nevertheless, I am glad to see you admitting that your previous comments on this matter were fallacious.




Yet it was all legal and done according to the law in the U.S.S.R., even if those laws supposedly violated the principles of the Communist revolution (which are not themselves the positive law).

Wrong. Stalin’s actions violated international law, the laws of every liberal democracy – and the laws of the then Soviet Union itself. Read Khrushchev's Secret Speech given at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, in 1956.


There is no such thing as a "liberal democracy"--it is a contradiction in terms.

I already addressed this matter, yet you haven't responded to my comments.

Joseph Stalin's actions were all legal and done according to the law in the U.S.S.R., even if those laws supposedly violated the principles of the Communist revolution (which are not themselves the positive law).

As far as "liberal democracy" is concerned, the U.S. government is far from liberal, and indeed far from a democracy. No government in the world is or ever has been. Indeed, the very notion of a "liberal government" is a contradiction in terms, since government by its nature is anti-liberal. Nor has any genuine governmental democracy ever existed, as the ruling elite control the very process of supposed "democracy," and structure it in such a way that they cannot lose.

Not that actual democracy would be at all desirable, as democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch, and the purest form of democracy in action is the lynch mob.

Concerning liberalism:

The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 in France. When the French Estates-General (États-Généraux) met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was under King Louis XIII from October 27, 1614 to February 23, 1615.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, all drugs to be legal, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

The term "liberal" as it is commonly used today is purely and simply a misnomer meaning the opposite of what it originally meant, as those commonly called "liberals" today are about giving government more power, not in stripping government of power. Those commonly called "liberals" today are in fact *right-wing conservatives* in the original sense of that political term. So also, socialism and communism are exceedingly *right-wing* and *conservative* political philosophies, as they put all power into the hands of government, rather than strip government of power.




As far as "liberal democracy" is concerned, the U.S. government is far from liberal, and indeed far from a democracy).

The definition of “liberal democracy is as follows: A state or political system which combines the right to individual freedom with the right to representative government. As such, the US absolutely qualifies as a liberal democracy.


Yet there is no individual freedom in the U.S., unless what is meant by that is the "freedom" a slave-master allows his slaves. We are quite literal slaves owned by the U.S. government.

Other than the fact that we are quite literally slaves, then it is a free country. So, other than the fact that it is not a free country, it is a free country. Sort of how other than the fact that 2 + 2 does not equal 5, then 2 + 2 = 5.

As just one among many examples of this, the government's drug-law tyranny is itself a de facto claim of owership by the government on all the human bodies under its rule, and hence is literal slavery, as the government thereby says, in effect (i.e., logically), "You do not own your body, we own that body of yours; we'll tell you what you can and cannot put into that body of yours of which is owned by us."

And if you violate their de facto claim of ownership on your body, then you can be sent to prison where you can very well be gang-raped several times a day for the rest of your life, quite possibly catching sexually transmitted diseases in the process, some of which may be terminal.

Most rape victims in the U.S. are not females (i.e., of all ages combined), but are grown men, due to the jail and prison system in the U.S. Due to this U.S. system, almost three times the number of female rape victims in the U.S. are males. See Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights by Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law at New York Law School and President of the ACLU (New York University Press, 2000), and Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women by Christina Hoff-Sommers, Ph.D. (Simon & Schuster, 1995).

Furthermore, the U.S. has the highest prisoner population of any country in the entire world. This is both in terms of absolute numbers, as well as on a per capita basis. See:

"World Prison Population List (Sixth Edition)," Roy Walmsley, International Centre for Prison Studies (King's College London--School of Law), 2005:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/world-prison-population-list-2005.pdf

So yes, other than the fact that we live under brutal, sadistic, cruel and horrific tyranny and slavery, we do indeed live in a free country.

To find out what a genuinely free country would entail, see the below.

Below are some excellent articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

"The Anatomy of the State," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974):

http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

"Defense Services on the Free Market," Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City, Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970):

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/marketdefense.html

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/power&market.pdf

"The Private Production of Defense," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52:

http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf

"Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security," Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46:

http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf

"Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market," Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, Prof. David D. Friedman (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971):

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

The Ethics of Liberty, Prof. Murray N. Rothbard (New York, New York: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982):

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp



I could go on exposing the fallacious nature of your arguments all day, but I think I've made my point.

Look, Jamie-Michele, while I do think you are a bit crazy and disagree with most of what you post in any given thread, the fact is that I do enjoy reading some of your posts. I’m not trying to break you down or take anything away from you as you are obviously not stupid. Still, the degree to which you will go in order to ignore or reinterpret an obvious fact makes any reasonable discussion impossible. It’s for this reason, and not other, that people on this forum avoid debating you.

-Quinn

Rather, Quinn, you are a government-indoctrinated dupe who is trying furiously to hold on to your old paradigm--the one you were pounded with since birth.

Of course I am "obviously not stupid." That much should be obvious to the densest of person. But you've been raised on lies. Not everyone telling you those lies were themselves lying to you, as most of them probably believed the lies themselves. But lies disseminated to the believing are still lies, however many times they pass through discussion among said believing.

And the lies you've been raised on were told to you for a very important reason. The vitally important reason they were told to you was so as to keep you and your loved-ones enslaved.

You are a resource, not so much different than cattle. You and your loved-ones are raised from birth and harvested, by a violent parasitical elite who subsist on your production (i.e., by the theft and slavery called taxes). But unlike cattle, humans have minds that are--at least in theory--capable of realizing their situation. And so a panoply of false philosophies, political factions, religions, etc., have to be disseminated in order to keep the masses continuously running down false anevues, so that they may never realize that they were born into this world as slaves.

For more on this, see my below article:

"Government Causes the Crime," James Redford, first published at Anti-State.com circa October 2001:

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/govcause.html

[chefmike]

I've always heard that they grow some good 'shrooms down thar in Florida...either that or the legendary Owsley has some kinfolk down thar cooking up the primo lysergic... :roll:

[Quinn]

Jamie-Michele, The fact remains that you have yet to support your statements, let alone refute any of my assertions. In fact, you have strayed so far from any objective reality that, at this point, you are taking part in a debate to which only could be a part. Once again, it comes back to your inability to work from even the most basic objective point of reference. It’s my guess that this is either the result of not having a good formal education or, perhaps, doing too much acid.

I quickly googled your name and came up with some interesting statements on your part that support the latter part of my speculation. In a thread asking “Have you ever done psychedelics,” you answered with the following:


There is nothing so smart as experiencing God first-hand.

And God is a truly odd entity. He does not come in the form you expect. Rather, He warps your mind. He warps your mind in such a manner that you experience all the horrors or all the pleasures of the world--sometimes all at once. It is enough to make a grown man run out screaming in terror.

Experiencing God is the weirdest activity which any human can engage in. There is nothing which can adequatly describe it to the uninitiated, other than the experience itself.

The main part of this problem of God's weirdness is that we do not know our own true nature. Coming into contact with God is experiencing our own selves many degrees seperated. We can often glimpse a part of it on a psychedelic trip, yet the seeming weirdness of all that we are experiencing--and indeed, all of reality--being a part of our own body is often too much for our limited minds to accept. And so said minds forget.

But a few are able to break through. A few are able to remember what it is their enthoegenic experience is trying to tell them.

To those who have been there, it all made sense at one time. Everything seemed connected. Everything made sense. But you were not able to bring that knowledge back with you. You came down, and everything which once made sense no longer made sense. Things were no longer connected.

The reason is because when you came down, you forgot who you are.

But I broke through, and it took me many a number of times before I was able to remember what I had learned.

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=10881;st art=60

Is this that what you meant when you included the following Bio in one of the essays that you posted:


Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, the native-born Augustinian James Redford [aka Jamie Michelle] is a young born again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who considers that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists' technical term for God) is an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics. His personal website can be found here: http://geocities.com/vonchloride.

I think we have the answer as to why you have drifted so far from objective reality into an existence fueled by afactual flights of fancy.

-Quinn

[specialk]

Jamie-Michele, The fact remains that you have yet to support your statements, let alone refute any of my assertions. In fact, you have strayed so far from any objective reality that, at this point, you are taking part in a debate to which only could be a part. Once again, it comes back to your inability to work from even the most basic objective point of reference. It’s my guess that this is either the result of not having a good formal education or, perhaps, doing too much acid.

I quickly googled your name and came up with some interesting statements on your part that support the latter part of my speculation. In a thread asking “Have you ever done psychedelics,” you answered with the following:

-Quinn

I'm sorry to have to give this to you Quinn, but................ :banghead :D

[Quinn]

LOL.... No doubt, I should have cut bait earlier. For all the clarity of thought Jamie Michelle has shown, I could have had a more logical debate with my cat. The word for today boys and girls is “insane.” Can you say insane? Come on, say it with me!

-Quinn

P.S. I think I'll give myself one for of these while I'm at it: :banghead

Jamie-Michele, The fact remains that you have yet to support your statements, let alone refute any of my assertions. In fact, you have strayed so far from any objective reality that, at this point, you are taking part in a debate to which only could be a part. Once again, it comes back to your inability to work from even the most basic objective point of reference. It’s my guess that this is either the result of not having a good formal education or, perhaps, doing too much acid.

-Quinn


LOL!

[specialk]

LOL.... No doubt, I should have cut bait earlier. For all the clarity of thought Jamie Michelle has shown, I could have had a more logical debate with my cat. The word for today boys and girls is “insane.” Can you say insane? Come on, say it with me!

-Quinn

P.S. I think I'll give myself one for of these while I'm at it: :banghead


BIG :lol: :lol:

[Quinn]

Not so subtle debating metaphor:

[tsluver247]

All i have 2 say is that i hope the people of Dekalb County like what they r gonna get...another bought and paid 4 "Republicrat" stooge. Another cronie of this current American Corporatocracy. And if they used those Diebold machines down there in all likelihood the election was rigged anyway. Long live Ms Cynthia McKinney!!!!! 8) 8)

Hank johnson is a Republican !?

He`s a liberal`s liberal. Mckinney`s a kook neo-marxist. That seat is safe for the left.

Shortly after the polls opened on Tuesday, allegations of voting irregularities began appearing on U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s campaign Web sitehttp://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/elections/entries/2006/08/08/mckinney_allege.html

"My mother was hurt by someone in the press in this room tonight," McKinney said after losing to challenger Hank Johnson Tuesday. "One of my assistants needs stitches because of the press that are in this room tonight." Her campaign manager, John Evans, blamed the loss on the ABC - Anybody But Cynthia - movement and the Capitol Hill incident.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_MCKINNEY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-08-23-26-26

You are always using labels to brand are Democrats as liberals and neo-marxists. Please explain to me how the GOP and Bush's new senior prescription plan is not a Marxist idea. So I can label them as neo-marxists now, huh?

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie-Michele, The fact remains that you have yet to support your statements, let alone refute any of my assertions. ...


All you have is assertions. Not only have I disproved them, but I have done so apodictically. See our previous discussions in this thread for that, the latter of which you have here avoided addressing.



... In fact, you have strayed so far from any objective reality that, at this point, you are taking part in a debate to which only could be a part. ...


Once again, your grasp of English leaves much to be desired.



... Once again, it comes back to your inability to work from even the most basic objective point of reference. It’s my guess that this is either the result of not having a good formal education or, perhaps, doing too much acid.


My erudition is exceptionally exquisite and refined. I am extensively learned in economics, politics, and theology.



I quickly googled your name and came up with some interesting statements on your part that support the latter part of my speculation. In a thread asking “Have you ever done psychedelics,” you answered with the following:


There is nothing so smart as experiencing God first-hand.

And God is a truly odd entity. He does not come in the form you expect. Rather, He warps your mind. He warps your mind in such a manner that you experience all the horrors or all the pleasures of the world--sometimes all at once. It is enough to make a grown man run out screaming in terror.

Experiencing God is the weirdest activity which any human can engage in. There is nothing which can adequatly describe it to the uninitiated, other than the experience itself.

The main part of this problem of God's weirdness is that we do not know our own true nature. Coming into contact with God is experiencing our own selves many degrees seperated. We can often glimpse a part of it on a psychedelic trip, yet the seeming weirdness of all that we are experiencing--and indeed, all of reality--being a part of our own body is often too much for our limited minds to accept. And so said minds forget.

But a few are able to break through. A few are able to remember what it is their enthoegenic experience is trying to tell them.

To those who have been there, it all made sense at one time. Everything seemed connected. Everything made sense. But you were not able to bring that knowledge back with you. You came down, and everything which once made sense no longer made sense. Things were no longer connected.

The reason is because when you came down, you forgot who you are.

But I broke through, and it took me many a number of times before I was able to remember what I had learned.

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=10881;st art=60

Is this that what you meant when you included the following Bio in one of the essays that you posted:


Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, the native-born Augustinian James Redford [aka Jamie Michelle] is a young born again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who considers that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists' technical term for God) is an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics. His personal website can be found here: http://geocities.com/vonchloride.

I think we have the answer as to why you have drifted so far from objective reality into an existence fueled by afactual flights of fancy.

-Quinn

What I am is correct, factual, and true. Although I realize that for you to overcome your government-indoctrination and conditioning is very difficult, as it is with many people.

To find out what some of the world's foremost physicists--including the world's leading quantum physicist and inventor of the quantum computer--have discovered about God, please see:

"Demystifying God":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/learngod.html

And to understand why acceptence of the known laws of physics requires acceptence of the existence of God, please see:

"Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point (i.e., the Physicists' Technical Term for God)":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/physicsgod.html

See also:

"Theology is Now a Branch of Physics":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/tiplerreview.html

To understand what all this means for us here and now--and how it relates to religions--please see:

"Biblical Scripture which Gives Evidence of Tipler's Omega Point Theory":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/bibleomega.html

And definitely see also:

Transhumanity Interview with Frank J. Tipler, November 2, 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021124063944/http://transhumanism.com/2002/tipler0201.shtml

Read the below excellent and very informative article by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

"The Omega Point and Christianity" by Frank Tipler, Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 2003, pp. 14-23:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031113125255/http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/tipler.htm

For the version in Dutch, see below:

"Het Punt Omega en het christendom," Frank J. Tipler, Gamma, Jrg. 10, Nr. 2, April 2003, pp. 14-23:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040205030349/http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/jrg10_nr2_p1423.htm

-----

See also Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (i.e., the CTMU, which is on the logical necessity of God's existence), which compliments Prof. Frank Tipler's work quite well (Prof. Tipler and Chris Langan are fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design [ISCID] along with the famous Intelligent Design scientists Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski, and on Chris Langan's website he lists Frank Tipler's work as supporting his CTMU). Chris Langan is known as the smartest man in America, with an IQ of 195.

Probably the best way to be introduced to the CTMU is by reading the "ISCID Live Moderated Chat: Christopher Langan":

http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan-chat.php

Here is Christopher Langan's ISCID page:

http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan.php

See the ABC News transcript of the 20/20 program done on Chris Langan:

"The Smart Guy," Cynthia McFadden, 20/20 (ABC News), December 9, 1999:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000818083819/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html

Chris was also profiled in Popular Science magazine discussing his theory of reality:

"Wise Guy," John R. Quain, Popular Science, October 14, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011015064515/http://www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/

Here is Chris Langan's ISCID paper, "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory":

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/langan_ctmu.php

And below is Chris Langan's own website about his CTMU:

http://www.ctmu.org

[Jamie Michelle]

All i have 2 say is that i hope the people of Dekalb County like what they r gonna get...another bought and paid 4 "Republicrat" stooge. Another cronie of this current American Corporatocracy. And if they used those Diebold machines down there in all likelihood the election was rigged anyway. Long live Ms Cynthia McKinney!!!!! 8) 8)

Hank johnson is a Republican !?

He`s a liberal`s liberal. Mckinney`s a kook neo-marxist. That seat is safe for the left.

Shortly after the polls opened on Tuesday, allegations of voting irregularities began appearing on U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s campaign Web sitehttp://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/elections/entries/2006/08/08/mckinney_allege.html

"My mother was hurt by someone in the press in this room tonight," McKinney said after losing to challenger Hank Johnson Tuesday. "One of my assistants needs stitches because of the press that are in this room tonight." Her campaign manager, John Evans, blamed the loss on the ABC - Anybody But Cynthia - movement and the Capitol Hill incident.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_MCKINNEY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-08-23-26-26

You are always using labels to brand are Democrats as liberals and neo-marxists. Please explain to me how the GOP and Bush's new senior prescription plan is not a Marxist idea. So I can label them as neo-marxists now, huh?

The Bush administration are quite literal Marxists. Neo-cons are "former" followers of Marxist theorist Leon Davidovich Trotsky.

George Bush, Jr. is Bill Clinton on steroids (which goes a long way in explaining why Clinton has called the Bushes his surrogate family). Virtually all the Democrat and Republican politicians are on the exact same page (with one notable exception being Congressman Ron Paul, Republican from Texas), just with different rhetoric and window dressings. For more on the Bush, Jr. administration's so-called neo-conservative "former" Trotskyites, see:

"Communist Bush Finally Goes too Far," Alan Stang, Ether Zone, December 12, 2003:

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang121203.shtml

"Neo-CONNED!," Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, July 10, 2003:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

This same speach that Rep. Ron Paul gave in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 10, 2003 is also available in the below article:

"We've Been Neo-Conned," Rep. Ron Paul, MD:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

[Quinn]

Jamie Michelle,

The fact remains that, in addition to your glaringly obvious failure to support your own arguments, you have completely failed to refute any of my own.

Unfortunately for you, it’s more than obvious that, while fairly intelligent, you lack a formal education. Your unwavering adherence to faulty logic, your inability to function from an objective point of reference, and the exceedingly subjective, undisciplined nature of your though process clearly demonstrates as much. It’s my guess that taking excessive amounts of acid also contributes to your lack of intellectual clarity.

Sadly, given your inability to function within the confines of any objective reality, it is quite impossible for you to engage in any genuine dialectic process. Stick to ranting about conspiracy theories because you aren’t intellectually equipped to take part in a genuine debate.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

George Bush, Jr. is Bill Clinton on steroids (which goes a long way in explaining why Clinton has called the Bushes his surrogate family). Please show us the date and origin of this alleged quote...I hold my nose when I vote dem, as it is the lesser of two evils, but back up your BS...and I'm not talking about fantasy sites like infowars....
Too much acid...or just batshit crazy...

Theodore Kaczynski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Theodore "Ted" KaczynskiTheodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942) is an American mathematician and academic turned hermit who became infamous as a mail bomber, sending bombs to several universities and airlines from the late 1970s through the early 1990s, killing three people and wounding 29. In Industrial Society and Its Future (the "Unabomber Manifesto") he argued that his actions were necessary in order to fight against the subjugation caused and facilitated by technological progress. He was the target of the most expensive manhunt in the FBI's history.

Kaczynski is best known as the Unabomber; the FBI's codename for him before his identity was known was "UNABOM" ("university and airline bomber"), and variants (including Unabomer, Unibomber, and Unabomber) appeared when the media started using the name.


Early life and mathematical career
Kaczynski was born in Chicago, Illinois to second-generation Polish Americans Theodore Richard Kaczynski and Wanda Theresa Dombek. He was an intellectually gifted child, known to be extremely shy and aloof. While an infant, Kaczynski had a severe allergic reaction to medication. He was in the hospital for several weeks and allowed only infrequent visits from his parents, who were barred from holding their child. The once happy baby reportedly was never the same.[1] According to his mother, he initially cried incessantly and would plead for her comfort. Afterwards he became increasingly withdrawn and unresponsive to human contact, developing "an institutionalized look". By all accounts Kaczynski's parents were warm and loving towards both him and younger brother David.

Kaczynski attended kindergarten and grades one through four at Sherman Elementary school in Chicago. He attended fifth through eighth grade at Evergreen Park Central school. As the result of testing conducted in the fifth grade, it was determined that he could skip the sixth grade and enroll with the seventh grade class. According to various accounts, testing showed him to have a high IQ and, by his account, his parents were told he was a genius. He claims that his IQ was in the 160 to 170 range. Testing supposedly conducted at that time has not been made available for review, but Kaczynski's academic performance throughout his early life was nothing less than stellar.[citation needed] Kaczynski described this skipping a grade as a pivotal event in his life. He remembers not fitting in with the older children and being the subject of considerable verbal abuse and teasing from them. He did not describe having any close friends during that period of time.

Friends and neighbors noticed the boy's intellectual gifts, but thought his social skills were severely lacking: "I would see him coming in the alley. He'd always walk by without saying hello. Just nothing," said Dr LeRoy Weinberg, a former Kaczynski neighbor. "Ted is a brilliant boy, but he was most unsociable ... This kid didn't play. No, no. He was an old man before his time."

He attended high school at Evergreen Park Community High School. He did well overall from an academic standpoint but reports some difficulty with mathematics in his sophomore year. He was subsequently placed in a more advanced math class and mastered the material, then skipped the 11th grade. As a result, he completed his high school education two years early, although this did require him to take a summer school course in English. During the latter years of high school he was encouraged to apply to Harvard, and was subsequently accepted as a student, beginning in the fall of 1958. He was 16 years old.

While a student at Harvard, Kaczynski participated in psychological experiments. Kaczynski is mentioned in an article about a long-ignored personality profile of Adolf Hitler, written by Dr Henry A. Murray, who worked for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during World War II. It says: "Dr Murray himself was a controversial figure. Having returned to Harvard after the war, he was involved in psychological experiments in 1959–1962 in which a stress test similar to one the OSS had used to assess recruits was administered to student volunteers. Among them was the young Theodore J Kaczynski, a precocious student at Harvard who later became known as the Unabomber. Lawyers for Mr Kaczynski, who pleaded guilty in 1998 to letter bomb attacks that killed three people and wounded 28 others, traced some of his emotional instability and fear of mind control to those tests."


Young Theodore Kaczynski at University of California, BerkeleyIn 1962 Kaczynski graduated from Harvard. After graduation, he attended the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, earning a master's degree and a PhD in mathematics. Kaczynski began a research career at Michigan, though he made few friends. One of his professors at Michigan, George Piranian, said: "It is not enough to say he was smart." He earned his PhD by solving, in less than a year, a math problem that Piranian had been unable to solve. Kaczynski's specialty was a branch of complex analysis known as geometric function theory. "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 people in the country understood or appreciated it," said Maxwell O. Reade, a retired math professor who served on Kaczynski's dissertation committee. In 1967, Kaczynski received a $100 prize recognizing his dissertation, entitled "Boundary Functions", as the school's best in math that year. At Michigan he held a National Science Foundation fellowship, taught undergraduates for three years, and published two articles related to his dissertation in mathematical journals. After he left Michigan, he published four more papers.

In the fall of 1967 Kaczynski was hired as an assistant professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. Kaczynski's aloofness and reserve made students rate him poorly. Despite the attempt at persuasion by the department staff, Kaczynski resigned without explanation in 1969. Calvin Moore, vice chairman of the department in 1968, said that given Kaczynski's "impressive" thesis and record of publications, "he could have advanced up the ranks and been a senior member of the faculty today."

After resigning his position at Berkeley, he held no permanent employment. He lived a simple life in a remote shack on very little money, occasionally worked odd jobs, and received some financial support from his family. In 1978, he worked briefly with his father and brother at a foam rubber factory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski

[Jamie Michelle]

All i have 2 say is that i hope the people of Dekalb County like what they r gonna get...another bought and paid 4 "Republicrat" stooge. Another cronie of this current American Corporatocracy. And if they used those Diebold machines down there in all likelihood the election was rigged anyway. Long live Ms Cynthia McKinney!!!!! 8) 8)

Hank johnson is a Republican !?

He`s a liberal`s liberal. Mckinney`s a kook neo-marxist. That seat is safe for the left.

Shortly after the polls opened on Tuesday, allegations of voting irregularities began appearing on U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s campaign Web sitehttp://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/elections/entries/2006/08/08/mckinney_allege.html

"My mother was hurt by someone in the press in this room tonight," McKinney said after losing to challenger Hank Johnson Tuesday. "One of my assistants needs stitches because of the press that are in this room tonight." Her campaign manager, John Evans, blamed the loss on the ABC - Anybody But Cynthia - movement and the Capitol Hill incident.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_MCKINNEY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-08-23-26-26

You are always using labels to brand are Democrats as liberals and neo-marxists. Please explain to me how the GOP and Bush's new senior prescription plan is not a Marxist idea. So I can label them as neo-marxists now, huh?

The Bush administration are quite literal Marxists. Neo-cons are "former" followers of Marxist theorist Leon Davidovich Trotsky.

George Bush, Jr. is Bill Clinton on steroids (which goes a long way in explaining why Clinton has called the Bushes his surrogate family). Virtually all the Democrat and Republican politicians are on the exact same page (with one notable exception being Congressman Ron Paul, Republican from Texas), just with different rhetoric and window dressings. For more on the Bush, Jr. administration's so-called neo-conservative "former" Trotskyites, see:

"Communist Bush Finally Goes too Far," Alan Stang, Ether Zone, December 12, 2003:

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang121203.shtml

"Neo-CONNED!," Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, July 10, 2003:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

This same speach that Rep. Ron Paul gave in the U.S. House of Representatives on July 10, 2003 is also available in the below article:

"We've Been Neo-Conned," Rep. Ron Paul, MD:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html


George Bush, Jr. is Bill Clinton on steroids (which goes a long way in explaining why Clinton has called the Bushes his surrogate family).

Please show us the date and origin of this alleged quote...I hold my nose when I vote dem, as it is the lesser of two evils, but back up your BS...and I'm not talking about fantasy sites like infowars....
Too much acid...or just batshit crazy...


"Bill Clinton Talks Heart Surgery on 'Letterman,'" Associated Press, June 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159851,00.html :

""
During a recent appearance together in Houston, Clinton noted that Barbara Bush had taken to calling Clinton "son."

"I told the Republicans in the audience not to worry, every family has one--you know, the black sheep, kind of drifts off," he said. "I told them, I said, 'This just shows you the lengths at which the Bushes would go to get another president in the family and I wish I could get them to adopt Hillary.'"
""

See also:

"Opposites attract," Julian Borger, Guardian (U.K.), July 1, 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1518633,00.html

"Inside Politics," transcript, CNN, June 17, 2005 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/17/ip.01.html

"Verbatim," Time, June 20, 2005 http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501050627-1074169,00.html



Theodore Kaczynski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Theodore "Ted" KaczynskiTheodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942) is an American mathematician and academic turned hermit who became infamous as a mail bomber, sending bombs to several universities and airlines from the late 1970s through the early 1990s, killing three people and wounding 29. In Industrial Society and Its Future (the "Unabomber Manifesto") he argued that his actions were necessary in order to fight against the subjugation caused and facilitated by technological progress. He was the target of the most expensive manhunt in the FBI's history.

Kaczynski is best known as the Unabomber; the FBI's codename for him before his identity was known was "UNABOM" ("university and airline bomber"), and variants (including Unabomer, Unibomber, and Unabomber) appeared when the media started using the name.


Early life and mathematical career
Kaczynski was born in Chicago, Illinois to second-generation Polish Americans Theodore Richard Kaczynski and Wanda Theresa Dombek. He was an intellectually gifted child, known to be extremely shy and aloof. While an infant, Kaczynski had a severe allergic reaction to medication. He was in the hospital for several weeks and allowed only infrequent visits from his parents, who were barred from holding their child. The once happy baby reportedly was never the same.[1] According to his mother, he initially cried incessantly and would plead for her comfort. Afterwards he became increasingly withdrawn and unresponsive to human contact, developing "an institutionalized look". By all accounts Kaczynski's parents were warm and loving towards both him and younger brother David.

Kaczynski attended kindergarten and grades one through four at Sherman Elementary school in Chicago. He attended fifth through eighth grade at Evergreen Park Central school. As the result of testing conducted in the fifth grade, it was determined that he could skip the sixth grade and enroll with the seventh grade class. According to various accounts, testing showed him to have a high IQ and, by his account, his parents were told he was a genius. He claims that his IQ was in the 160 to 170 range. Testing supposedly conducted at that time has not been made available for review, but Kaczynski's academic performance throughout his early life was nothing less than stellar.[citation needed] Kaczynski described this skipping a grade as a pivotal event in his life. He remembers not fitting in with the older children and being the subject of considerable verbal abuse and teasing from them. He did not describe having any close friends during that period of time.

Friends and neighbors noticed the boy's intellectual gifts, but thought his social skills were severely lacking: "I would see him coming in the alley. He'd always walk by without saying hello. Just nothing," said Dr LeRoy Weinberg, a former Kaczynski neighbor. "Ted is a brilliant boy, but he was most unsociable ... This kid didn't play. No, no. He was an old man before his time."

He attended high school at Evergreen Park Community High School. He did well overall from an academic standpoint but reports some difficulty with mathematics in his sophomore year. He was subsequently placed in a more advanced math class and mastered the material, then skipped the 11th grade. As a result, he completed his high school education two years early, although this did require him to take a summer school course in English. During the latter years of high school he was encouraged to apply to Harvard, and was subsequently accepted as a student, beginning in the fall of 1958. He was 16 years old.

While a student at Harvard, Kaczynski participated in psychological experiments. Kaczynski is mentioned in an article about a long-ignored personality profile of Adolf Hitler, written by Dr Henry A. Murray, who worked for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during World War II. It says: "Dr Murray himself was a controversial figure. Having returned to Harvard after the war, he was involved in psychological experiments in 1959–1962 in which a stress test similar to one the OSS had used to assess recruits was administered to student volunteers. Among them was the young Theodore J Kaczynski, a precocious student at Harvard who later became known as the Unabomber. Lawyers for Mr Kaczynski, who pleaded guilty in 1998 to letter bomb attacks that killed three people and wounded 28 others, traced some of his emotional instability and fear of mind control to those tests."


Young Theodore Kaczynski at University of California, BerkeleyIn 1962 Kaczynski graduated from Harvard. After graduation, he attended the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, earning a master's degree and a PhD in mathematics. Kaczynski began a research career at Michigan, though he made few friends. One of his professors at Michigan, George Piranian, said: "It is not enough to say he was smart." He earned his PhD by solving, in less than a year, a math problem that Piranian had been unable to solve. Kaczynski's specialty was a branch of complex analysis known as geometric function theory. "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 people in the country understood or appreciated it," said Maxwell O. Reade, a retired math professor who served on Kaczynski's dissertation committee. In 1967, Kaczynski received a $100 prize recognizing his dissertation, entitled "Boundary Functions", as the school's best in math that year. At Michigan he held a National Science Foundation fellowship, taught undergraduates for three years, and published two articles related to his dissertation in mathematical journals. After he left Michigan, he published four more papers.

In the fall of 1967 Kaczynski was hired as an assistant professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. Kaczynski's aloofness and reserve made students rate him poorly. Despite the attempt at persuasion by the department staff, Kaczynski resigned without explanation in 1969. Calvin Moore, vice chairman of the department in 1968, said that given Kaczynski's "impressive" thesis and record of publications, "he could have advanced up the ranks and been a senior member of the faculty today."

After resigning his position at Berkeley, he held no permanent employment. He lived a simple life in a remote shack on very little money, occasionally worked odd jobs, and received some financial support from his family. In 1978, he worked briefly with his father and brother at a foam rubber factory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski

As far as Theodore Kaczynski, who was convicted in the Unabom case (not Unibomb), he was indeed an Office of Strategic Services (OSS; later to become the CIA) mind-control subject. For more on that, see the below articles:

"Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber," Alston Chase, Atlantic Monthly, June 2000, Vol. 285, No. 6, pp. 41-65:

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/unabomber%20article.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/06/chase.htm

"We're Reaping Tragic Legacy From Drugs; Culture: From government LSD experiments to overuse of drugs like Ritalin, the consequences are overwhelming," Alexander Cockburn, Los Angeles Times, July 6, 1999, Metro, Part B, Page 5:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/99/07/Kaczynski1.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/tedk.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/ciashrinks.html

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie Michelle,

The fact remains that, in addition to your glaringly obvious failure to support your own arguments, you have completely failed to refute any of my own.

Unfortunately for you, it’s more than obvious that, while fairly intelligent, you lack a formal education. ...


Concerning your latter sentence, you say that as if it's a bad thing. No doubt many critics in the U.S.S.R. and in present-day Communist China were and/or are called to task for "lack[ing] a formal education." Whatever that is intended to mean, as it can't be literal. The reason it can't be literal is because I do indeed have an extensive formal education, as do almost all rabble-rousing citizens in the former U.S.S.R. and in present-day Communist China.



... Your unwavering adherence to faulty logic, your inability to function from an objective point of reference, and the exceedingly subjective, undisciplined nature of your though process clearly demonstrates as much. It’s my guess that taking excessive amounts of acid also contributes to your lack of intellectual clarity.

Sadly, given your inability to function within the confines of any objective reality, it is quite impossible for you to engage in any genuine dialectic process. Stick to ranting about conspiracy theories because you aren’t intellectually equipped to take part in a genuine debate.

-Quinn

You can say that the moon is made of blue cheese, but in so saying, it wouldn't make it true. I'll let those who are interested in our previous debate see for themselves how you fared. Thus:

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:10 pm http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=10286&start=10

[Quinn]

Jamie Michelle,

With each new post, you are just reaffirming my assertions concerning your inability to deal with any objective reality. Given that you have already shown yourself incapable of effectively addressing the debate at hand, the only relevant question remaining is "why?" Unfortunately for you, your inane ratings have provided the answer – clearly proving at least one of my assertions as to why you lack certain basic intellectual capabilities necessary to take part in this or any other dialectic process:



There is nothing so smart as experiencing God first-hand.

And God is a truly odd entity. He does not come in the form you expect. Rather, He warps your mind. He warps your mind in such a manner that you experience all the horrors or all the pleasures of the world--sometimes all at once. It is enough to make a grown man run out screaming in terror.

Experiencing God is the weirdest activity which any human can engage in. There is nothing which can adequatly describe it to the uninitiated, other than the experience itself.

The main part of this problem of God's weirdness is that we do not know our own true nature. Coming into contact with God is experiencing our own selves many degrees seperated. We can often glimpse a part of it on a psychedelic trip, yet the seeming weirdness of all that we are experiencing--and indeed, all of reality--being a part of our own body is often too much for our limited minds to accept. And so said minds forget.

But a few are able to break through. A few are able to remember what it is their enthoegenic experience is trying to tell them.

To those who have been there, it all made sense at one time. Everything seemed connected. Everything made sense. But you were not able to bring that knowledge back with you. You came down, and everything which once made sense no longer made sense. Things were no longer connected.

The reason is because when you came down, you forgot who you are.

But I broke through, and it took me many a number of times before I was able to remember what I had learned.

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=10881;st art=60

Keep dropping that acid; it's doing you a world of good. Seriously, why do you think people are chiming in to laugh at you? Everyone but you realizes that you are crazy.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie Michelle,

With each new post, you are just reaffirming my assertions concerning your inability to deal with any objective reality. Given that you have already shown yourself incapable of effectively addressing the debate at hand, the only relevant question remaining is "why?" Unfortunately for you, your inane ratings have provided the answer – clearly proving at least one of my assertions as to why you lack certain basic intellectual capabilities necessary to take part in this or any other dialectic process:


In our previous discussion in this thread, you asked for documentation on Bill Clinton saying that he is a surrogate member of the Bush family. You acted like it couldn't possibly be true--not in a million years. To quote you on this matter: "but back up your BS .... Too much acid...or just batshit crazy...."

And so I provided said documentation from the Associated Press (via Fox News), the Guardian (U.K.), CNN, and Time magazine.

For this discussion, see:

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:50 am http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=10286&start=20

Hence, it becomes clear that your accusations of me being "crazy" are simply a disingenuous debating tactic in order to attempt to divert people's attention away from the fact that you have been repeatedly intellectually demolished by me. Not to mention that such accusations on your part are a classic textbook example of the logical fallacy known as ad hominem attack. But then, you are well-accustomed to being fallacious.




There is nothing so smart as experiencing God first-hand.

And God is a truly odd entity. He does not come in the form you expect. Rather, He warps your mind. He warps your mind in such a manner that you experience all the horrors or all the pleasures of the world--sometimes all at once. It is enough to make a grown man run out screaming in terror.

Experiencing God is the weirdest activity which any human can engage in. There is nothing which can adequatly describe it to the uninitiated, other than the experience itself.

The main part of this problem of God's weirdness is that we do not know our own true nature. Coming into contact with God is experiencing our own selves many degrees seperated. We can often glimpse a part of it on a psychedelic trip, yet the seeming weirdness of all that we are experiencing--and indeed, all of reality--being a part of our own body is often too much for our limited minds to accept. And so said minds forget.

But a few are able to break through. A few are able to remember what it is their enthoegenic experience is trying to tell them.

To those who have been there, it all made sense at one time. Everything seemed connected. Everything made sense. But you were not able to bring that knowledge back with you. You came down, and everything which once made sense no longer made sense. Things were no longer connected.

The reason is because when you came down, you forgot who you are.

But I broke through, and it took me many a number of times before I was able to remember what I had learned.

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=10881;st art=60

Keep dropping that acid; it's doing you a world of good. Seriously, why do you think people are chiming in to laugh at you? Everyone but you realizes that you are crazy.

-Quinn

In an insane world, the sanest of people are often accused of being crazy.

And I thank you for digging up this quote by me. I'm very pleased that you have done so, as every word of it is correct, factual, and true.

You are God. It's just that you've split-up parcels of your consciousness and made the divided parcels of your consciousness undergo a voluntary forgetting in order so that you could experience companionship in the universe (and hence love, discovery, conversation, adventure, etc.). It's all just You. You are all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist. You are the totality of existence, forever and all times. Now of course the conscious portion of your presently limited viewpoint is not the totality of existence, it is just an infinitely small part of the infinitely greater consciousness of God. But at the ultimate level, you are that greater consciousness, i.e., God.

You are God experiencing and discovering Yourself.

God (i.e., You), in order to have companionship in the universe (and hence love, discovery, conversation, adventure, etc.) split-up His (i.e., Your) previously singular consciousness into consciously-distinct parcels and had the divided parcels of His consciousness undergo a voluntary forgetting in order so that He could experience companionship in the universe (and hence love, discovery, conversation, adventure, etc.). The voluntary forgetting was a necessary component in this plan, since the whole thing that makes conversation possible is that we each have traveled a different life-path, and hence do not know exactly what each other knows. If we each had the same knowledge and life-path, then conversation, and hence true companionship, would be impossible. But in so doing, He also had to give the divided parcels of His consciousness free-will, otherwise He could not have true companionship in the universe (and hence love, discovery, conversation, adventure, etc.): without free-will the divided parcels of His consciousness would be nothing more than puppets--it would be like one having a conversation with a sock-puppet on their own hand. God can perfectly render any environment or experience which is not logically contradictory (such as a "square-circle," a stone so large that even He could not move it, or 2+2=5, etc.). But given that the divided parcels of His consciousness necessarily had to have free-will in order for God's plan in having companionship in the universe to work, this means that these divided parcels of His consciousness can choose to do evil as well as good. And hence the necessary reason for the "Problem of Evil."

To find out what some of the world's foremost physicists--including the world's leading quantum physicist and inventor of the quantum computer--have discovered about God, please see:

"Demystifying God":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/learngod.html

And to understand why acceptence of the known laws of physics requires acceptence of the existence of God, please see:

"Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point (i.e., the Physicists' Technical Term for God)":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/physicsgod.html

See also:

"Theology is Now a Branch of Physics":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/tiplerreview.html

To understand what all this means for us here and now--and how it relates to religions--please see:

"Biblical Scripture which Gives Evidence of Tipler's Omega Point Theory":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/bibleomega.html

And definitely see also:

Transhumanity Interview with Frank J. Tipler, November 2, 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021124063944/http://transhumanism.com/2002/tipler0201.shtml

Read the below excellent and very informative article by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

"The Omega Point and Christianity" by Frank Tipler, Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 2003, pp. 14-23:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031113125255/http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/tipler.htm

For the version in Dutch, see below:

"Het Punt Omega en het christendom," Frank J. Tipler, Gamma, Jrg. 10, Nr. 2, April 2003, pp. 14-23:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040205030349/http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/jrg10_nr2_p1423.htm

-----

See also Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (i.e., the CTMU, which is on the logical necessity of God's existence), which compliments Prof. Frank Tipler's work quite well (Prof. Tipler and Chris Langan are fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design [ISCID] along with the famous Intelligent Design scientists Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski, and on Chris Langan's website he lists Frank Tipler's work as supporting his CTMU). Chris Langan is known as the smartest man in America, with an IQ of 195.

Probably the best way to be introduced to the CTMU is by reading the "ISCID Live Moderated Chat: Christopher Langan":

http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan-chat.php

Here is Christopher Langan's ISCID page:

http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan.php

See the ABC News transcript of the 20/20 program done on Chris Langan:

"The Smart Guy," Cynthia McFadden, 20/20 (ABC News), December 9, 1999:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000818083819/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html

Chris was also profiled in Popular Science magazine discussing his theory of reality:

"Wise Guy," John R. Quain, Popular Science, October 14, 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011015064515/http://www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/

Here is Chris Langan's ISCID paper, "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory":

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/langan_ctmu.php

And below is Chris Langan's own website about his CTMU:

http://www.ctmu.org

[Quinn]

Jamie Michelle,

You posts are so intellectually incoherent and illogical that, honestly, I've stopped reading most of them. Seriously, if I want to read fiction, I'd rather reread the Frank Herbert's Dune than anything you post. As such, we are just left with one very humorous and proven assertion point to consider:

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie Michelle,

You posts are so intellectually incoherent and illogical that, honestly, I've stopped reading most of them. Seriously, if I want to read fiction, I'd rather reread the Frank Herbert's Dune than anything you post. As such, we are just left with one very humorous and proven assertion point to consider:

"You posts are so intellectually incoherent ..."? Once again, your grasp of English--more pointedly, lack thereof--leaves much to be desired.

Talk about irony! You accuse me of being "intellectually incoherent" in a sentence by you that is itself incoherent!

I'm having great fun "debating" with you. (Although, I use the word "debating" loosely, as all you do now is respond with ad hominem attacks against me, of which is a well-known logical fallacy.) You make it so easy for me to intellectually destroy you.

As I said in my quondam post above:

In our previous discussion in this thread, you asked for documentation on Bill Clinton saying that he is a surrogate member of the Bush family. You acted like it couldn't possibly be true--not in a million years. To quote you on this matter: "but back up your BS .... Too much acid...or just batshit crazy...."

And so I provided said documentation from the Associated Press (via Fox News), the Guardian (U.K.), CNN, and Time magazine.

For this discussion, see:

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:50 am http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=10286&start=20

Hence, it becomes clear that your accusations of me being "crazy" are simply a disingenuous debating tactic in order to attempt to divert people's attention away from the fact that you have been repeatedly intellectually demolished by me. Not to mention that such accusations on your part are a classic textbook example of the logical fallacy known as ad hominem attack. But then, you are well-accustomed to being fallacious.

[Quinn]

You have to give me credit for at least trying to read your intellectually bereft nonsense. This time, I made it far enough through your inane post so as to actually reach the point where you put debating in quotes. Your hypocrisy was, like most of your posts, genuinely amusing.

Now, let’s begin. Since you enjoy analyzing spelling so much, let’s take a look at just some of your own:




There is nothing so smart as experiencing God first-hand.

And God is a truly odd entity. He does not come in the form you expect. Rather, He warps your mind. He warps your mind in such a manner that you experience all the horrors or all the pleasures of the world--sometimes all at once. It is enough to make a grown man run out screaming in terror.

Experiencing God is the weirdest activity which any human can engage in. There is nothing which can adequatly [adequately] describe it to the uninitiated, other than the experience itself.

The main part of this problem of God's weirdness is that we do not know our own true nature. Coming into contact with God is experiencing our own selves many degrees seperated [separated].We can often glimpse a part of it on a psychedelic trip, yet the seeming weirdness of all that we are experiencing--and indeed, all of reality--being a part of our own body is often too much for our limited minds to accept. And so said minds forget.

But a few are able to break through. A few are able to remember what it is their enthoegenic [entheogenic] experience is trying to tell them.

To those who have been there, it all made sense at one time. Everything seemed connected. Everything made sense. But you were not able to bring that knowledge back with you. You came down, and everything which once made sense no longer made sense. Things were no longer connected.

The reason is because when you came down, you forgot who you are.

But I broke through, and it took me many a number of times before I was able to remember what I had learned.


LMAO…. Nice job, Noah Webster. Still, I have to give you credit. Not only did you manage to misspell multiple words, you also managed to sound completely crazy while doing it….. That’s quite an accomplishment.

So far my own alleged intellectual incoherence is concerned, when I start making ridiculous statements about “coming into contact with God,” then you will have a point. Until then, you, alone, hold such a distinction.

-Quinn

P.S. I, too, am enjoying this. I haven't laughed this hard in a good week or two. As such, I see fit to continue until this ceases to amuse me.

P.S.S. I almost forgot:

[Jamie Michelle]

You have to give me credit for at least trying to read your intellectually bereft nonsense. This time, I made it far enough through your inane post so as to actually reach the point where you put debating in quotes. Your hypocrisy was, like most of your posts, genuinely amusing.

Now, let’s begin. Since you enjoy analyzing spelling so much, let’s take a look at just some of your own:




is nothing so smart as experiencing God first-hand.

And God is a truly odd entity. He does not come in the form you expect. Rather, He warps your mind. He warps your mind in such a manner that you experience all the horrors or all the pleasures of the world--sometimes all at once. It is enough to make a grown man run out screaming in terror.

Experiencing God is the weirdest activity which any human can engage in. There is nothing which can adequatly [adequately] describe it to the uninitiated, other than the experience itself.

The main part of this problem of God's weirdness is that we do not know our own true nature. Coming into contact with God is experiencing our own selves many degrees seperated [separated].We can often glimpse a part of it on a psychedelic trip, yet the seeming weirdness of all that we are experiencing--and indeed, all of reality--being a part of our own body is often too much for our limited minds to accept. And so said minds forget.

But a few are able to break through. A few are able to remember what it is their enthoegenic [entheogenic] experience is trying to tell them.

To those who have been there, it all made sense at one time. Everything seemed connected. Everything made sense. But you were not able to bring that knowledge back with you. You came down, and everything which once made sense no longer made sense. Things were no longer connected.

The reason is because when you came down, you forgot who you are.

But I broke through, and it took me many a number of times before I was able to remember what I had learned.


LMAO…. Nice job, Noah Webster. Still, I have to give you credit. Not only did you manage to misspell multiple words, you also managed to sound completely crazy while doing it….. That’s quite an accomplishment.

So far my own alleged intellectual incoherence is concerned, when I start making ridiculous statements about “coming into contact with God,” then you will have a point. Until then, you, alone, hold such a distinction.

-Quinn

P.S. I, too, am enjoying this. I haven't laughed this hard in a good week or two. As such, I see fit to continue until this ceases to amuse me.

P.S.S. I almost forgot:

Perhaps you would care to show where I accuse you of incoherency in my Anti-State.com post which you quote above, Mr. "You posts are so intellectually incoherent ..." Quinn. Oh, that's right, I didn't.

One should hope that when accusing a person of incoherency that the person making the accusation could at least form a coherent sentence wherein the accusation is made! You are quite a rich source of irony.

Just so you know, it's P.S., then P.P.S., then P.P.P.S., etc., for postscript, post-postscript, post-post-postscript, etc., respectively.

As I said in my prior post above:

---

"You posts are so intellectually incoherent ..."? Once again, your grasp of English--more pointedly, lack thereof--leaves much to be desired.

Talk about irony! You accuse me of being "intellectually incoherent" in a sentence by you that is itself incoherent!

I'm having great fun "debating" with you. (Although, I use the word "debating" loosely, as all you do now is respond with ad hominem attacks against me, of which is a well-known logical fallacy.) You make it so easy for me to intellectually destroy you.

As I said in my quondam post above:

In our previous discussion in this thread, you asked for documentation on Bill Clinton saying that he is a surrogate member of the Bush family. You acted like it couldn't possibly be true--not in a million years. To quote you on this matter: "but back up your BS .... Too much acid...or just batshit crazy...."

And so I provided said documentation from the Associated Press (via Fox News), the Guardian (U.K.), CNN, and Time magazine.

For this discussion, see:

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:50 am http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=10286&start=20

Hence, it becomes clear that your accusations of me being "crazy" are simply a disingenuous debating tactic in order to attempt to divert people's attention away from the fact that you have been repeatedly intellectually demolished by me. Not to mention that such accusations on your part are a classic textbook example of the logical fallacy known as ad hominem attack. But then, you are well-accustomed to being fallacious.

[chefmike]

Quinn, do you recall the posts by Manica stooge MacSkirt where he stated that he and Jamie the jesusfreakbomber were somewhat sympatico? Perhaps there is an order to the Universe after all... :lol:

[Jamie Michelle]

Quinn, do you recall the posts by Manica stooge MacSkirt where he stated that he and Jamie the jesusfreakbomber were somewhat sympatico? Perhaps there is an order to the Universe after all... :lol:

The word is simpatico, not "sympatico."

Nor have I ever bombed anything. But then, little things like *facts* certainly don't stand in the way of you and your buddy Quinn making fallacious accusations.

[Quinn]

Quinn, do you recall the posts by Manica stooge MacSkirt where he stated that he and Jamie the jesusfreakbomber were somewhat sympatico? Perhaps there is an order to the Universe after all... :lol:

LOL.... Yes, I do. It was a proud moment for moonbat's everywhere.

Hey, Chef, if you want a good laugh, check out a website called anti-state.com. Jamie Michelle (aka James redford) posts on there under the ID Tetrahedron Omega.

The funny thing is that, even over at moonbat central, they think she is crazy too. In fact, members have even written about her insanity in some of their blogs. Here's but one such entry written on September 8, 2004 (God-Trips):

http://www.stephankinsella.com/archive/2004_09_01_archive.php

If those two things aren't funny enough, check out her personal conspiracy site:

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/

You would be hard pressed find more inane babbling anywhere. Fortunately, for people like us, there are months worth of laughs in all of this.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

While you two, Quinn and chefmike, are busy attacking me because I speak hard, hated and feared truths, below is what the U.S. government has planned for you and all of your loved ones: to be permanently physically tagged like cattle, and to have your every movement, action and transaction tracked, traced and recorded via satelite. Also note that the U.S. government has had this planned for you and your family members long before the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks.

But due to your cowardice, it's easier for you two to live in denial and attack me for disrupting your denial than it is for you to stand up against your real enemy.

-----

http://stateterror.web1000.com/us-government-brain-chips.htm

You are Slated for Total Dehumanization:

Brain Chips for You and Your Entire Family

[By the year 2025:] "The civilian populace will likely accept an implanted microscopic chips that allow military members to defend vital national interests."
--from Chapter 4 of "Information Operations: A New War-Fighting Capability," contained in Volume 3 of Air Force 2025: Final Report by the U.S. Department of Defense (August 1996)

Air Force 2025 is the final report on a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense presented on June 17, 1996 which seeks to identify the technologies and practices that will need to be implemented by the year 2025 in order for the United States government to "remain the dominant air and space force in the 21st century."

The report actually uses the term "brain chip" for the implantable microchips which can perform a number of functions such as satelite tracking at all times, personal information storage and retrieval, and behavior modification, among other things. You can actually find the above quote at the below Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama website (archived by Archive.org):

http://web.archive.org/web/20021209115213/http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap02/v3c2-4.htm

Or in PDF format:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030410111306/http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap02/vol3ch02.pdf

http://stateterror.web1000.com/vol3ch02.pdf (Backup copy.)

Below is this document from the Air University Center for Strategy and Technology at the Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama website:

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch02.pdf

The Federation of American Scientists has this report mirrored on their website as well:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c2/v3c2-4.htm

[Jamie Michelle]

Quinn, do you recall the posts by Manica stooge MacSkirt where he stated that he and Jamie the jesusfreakbomber were somewhat sympatico? Perhaps there is an order to the Universe after all... :lol:

LOL.... Yes, I do. It was a proud moment for moonbat's everywhere.

Hey, Chef, if you want a good laugh, check out a website called anti-state.com. Jamie Michelle (aka James redford) posts on there under the ID Tetrahedron Omega.

The funny thing is that, even over at moonbat central, they think she is crazy too. In fact, members have even written about her insanity in some of their blogs. Here's but one such entry written on September 8, 2004 (God-Trips):

http://www.stephankinsella.com/archive/2004_09_01_archive.php

If those two things aren't funny enough, check out her personal conspiracy site:

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/

You would be hard pressed find more inane babbling anywhere. Fortunately, for people like us, there are months worth of laughs in all of this.

-Quinn

Stephan Kinsella and I have had a number of friendly discussions with each other. He initiated email contact with me because he was interested in my derivations of rights theory, which compliments his own quite nicely. Below are my favorite articles by Stephan Kinsella:

"Against Intellectual Property," N. Stephan Kinsella, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 1-53:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

(For the above article Stephan Kinsella was awarded the Ludwig von Mises Institute's O. P. Alford III Prize for scholarly article published during 2001-2002 that best advances libertarian scholarship, at the eighth Austrian Scholars Conference, March 16, 2002.)

"New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory," N. Stephan Kinsella, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Fall 1996), pp. 313-326:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_5.pdf

"Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach," N. Stephan Kinsella, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring 1996), pp. 51-73:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf


So far as conspiracies go, they are ubiquitous. Everyone is in agreement that the 9/11 attacks were the result of a conspiracy. But those who are genuinely knowledgeable and care about the truth reject fallacious conspiracy theories, such as the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, a-historical, a-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks.

More than four times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government.

Needless to say, all of these government mass-slaughters were conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that.

Relating to the foregoing, see also the below:

##########

Crushing Children's Testicles

John Choon Yoo ( http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/ , http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=235 ) is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), one of the authors of the Patriot Act, and is one of the main White House legal advisers on the use of torture to President George Bush, Jr. Prof. John Yoo emigrated from South Korea with his parents when he was an infant, and is now married to Elsa Arnett, the daughter of reporter Peter Arnett.

Douglass Cassel ( http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/faculty/facultypages/cassel.html ) is the Lilly Endowment Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil and Human Rights at Notre Dame Law School.

The below excerpt is from a debate between Prof. John Yoo and Prof. Doug Cassel on December 1, 2005 in Chicago:

""
Prof. Doug Cassel: If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Prof. John Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: And also no law by Congress. That's what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
""

You can listen to the above exchange on the below audio clip:

http://rwor.org/downloads/file_info/download1.php?file=yoo_on_torture.mp3 (317,712 bytes)

The below audio clip is a longer recording which includes the above exchange:

http://rwor.org/audio/yoo%20excerpt.mp3

See also:

"John Yoo Argues Pres. George Bush Has Legal Power to Torture Children," Philip Watts, Revolution Newspaper (revcom.us):

http://rwor.org/johnyoo/index.html

##########

Since H.R. 3162, i.e., the "USA Patriot Act," was passed into law on October 26, 2001 without the Congress or Senate even being allowed to read it before voting on it, the police can now secretly search your house and take whatever they want from it without having to tell you about it until they issue you a warrant up to six months later (see SEC. 213). Also, the legal definition of "domestic terrorism" was changed to include any "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State" (see SEC. 802)--which could quite literally be jaywalking.

Indeed, smoking a joint could quite literally be domestic terrorism as defined under this law, since the U.S. government considers such drug use to be dangerous to human life, and since it is illegal after all. But such an act is supposed to only qualify if it "appear[s] to be intended to influence the policy of a Government by intimidation or coercion." So smoking a joint would only be an act of "domestic terrorism" if the U.S. Government thinks a person is doing it as a protest against their drug laws--the clause for "intimidation" already applies, otherwise the U.S. government would have no law against it.

And since P.L. 107-40 (September 18, 2001) was enacted and Bush, Jr. signed the November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order, *habeas corpus* has been done away with as U.S. citizens can now be held indefinitely and in secret on the mere suspicion that they are in some way involved in "terrorism" (which can now be virtually anything--see the above redefined definition of "domestic terrorism") without even being charged; they can be tried by a secret military tribunal where they will not have the right to cross-examine their accusers; and they can be executed in secret. Indeed, U.S. citizens have already been held for years without any charges even having been filed against them (such as José Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi), and the U.S. government says that it can keep U.S. citizens that way indefinitely.

So it's not surprising to find that the U.S. government has been torturing innocent people, including U.S. citizens. This includes U.S. soldiers torturing people in U.S. custody to death.

"Pakistan: U.S. Citizens Tortured, Held Illegally--FBI Participated in Interrogations Despite Apparent Knowledge of Torture, Abduction," Human Rights Watch, May 24, 2005:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/05/24/pakist11005.htm

"Exclusive: Secret Memo--Send to Be Tortured," Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, August 8, 2005 issue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769416/site/newsweek/

"Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America's 'extraordinary rendition' program," Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, Issue of February 14, 2005, posted February 7, 2005:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

"CIA kidnapped terror suspects in the EU: lawmaker," Reuters, April 26, 2006:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:awFkYdKtEeAJ:go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml%3Ftype%3DtopNews%26storyID%3D119 68389

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=11968389

Khalid El-Masri, an innocent German citizen, was abducted from Macedonia and held by the U.S. military without charges from January 23 to May 28, 2004, during which time he was sodomized and tortured by the U.S. military. He was taken by the U.S. military to Baghdad, Iraq and then to the "Salt Pit" clandestine CIA torture center located north of Kabul in Afghanistan.

"Khalid El-Masri," Wikipedia, June 25, 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalid_El-Masri&oldid=60497313

"Lawsuit Against CIA Is Dismissed: Mistaken Identity Led to Detention," Jerry Markon, Washington Post, May 19, 2006; Page A13:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051802107.html

An innocent Algerian man, Laid Saidi, was held without charges in one of the same clandestine CIA torture centers in Afghanistan that Khalid El-Masri was held, from May 2003 to August 2004, wherein the two saw each other. Mr. Saidi was abducted from Tanzania and held by the U.S. military, during which time he was sodomized and tortured by the U.S. military.

"Algerian Tells of Dark Term in U.S. Hands," Craig S. Smith and Souad Mekhennet, New York Times, July 7, 2006:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/world/africa/07algeria.html

"CIA sent me to be tortured in Afghan prison, says Algerian," Jerome Taylor, Independent (U.K.), July 8, 2006:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1166575.ece

In the Bagram, Afghanistan U.S. military base, U.S. government officials publicly admit that they're murdering Afghan inmates there by torturing them to death:

"Afghan prisoners beaten to death at US military interrogation base: 'Blunt force injuries' cited in murder ruling," Duncan Campbell, The Guardian (U.K.), March 7, 2003:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,909164,00.html

"Prisoners 'killed' at US base," BBC News, March 6, 2003:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2825575.stm

"Army Details Scale of Abuse of Prisoners in an Afghan Jail," Douglas Jehl, New York Times, March 12, 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12detain.html

Included in the U.S. government's use of torture against innocent people is the rape of women and male children:

"US military confirms existence of horrific pictures and video," Andrew Buncombe, Independent (U.K.), May 9, 2004:

http://www.rense.com/general52/erh.htm

Among other tortures, U.S. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's report details homosexual anal rape committed by U.S. soldiers. Also detailed in U.S. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's report and by other U.S. military sources, Military Intelligence and the CIA ordered the torture at the Abu Ghaib prison.

"U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoner abuse: Executive summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba," NBC News, May 4, 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/

"Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade," Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/taguba.pdf

"Green light for Iraqi prison abuse came right from the top: Classified documents show the former US military chief in Iraq personally sanctioned measures banned by the Geneva Conventions," Andrew Buncombe, Independent (U.K.), April 3, 2005:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0403-03.htm

"Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture: Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued," Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2004:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0607-01.htm

As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said to reporters on May 7, 2004 concerning the pictures and videos of U.S. military torture of Iraqis that the U.S. government still refuses to release: "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges." See:

"Rumsfeld: Worst Still To Come--Pentagon Boss Apologizes To Iraqis; Says More Videos, Photos Exist," CBS News and Associated Press (AP), May 7, 2004:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml

"Rueful Rumsfeld: 'Cruel' truth hurts: Rape and murder feared in Iraq abuse," Noelle Straub, Boston Herald, May 8, 2004:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/53904eefc5efc3fa

And as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on May 7, 2004 before Congress concerning the pictures and videos of U.S. military torture of Iraqis that the U.S. government still refuses to release: "Beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman ... There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist ... If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact. I mean, I looked at them last night and they're hard to believe." See:

"In quotes: Rumsfeld faces Congress," BBC News, May 7, 2004:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3694995.stm

----------

The U.S. government has been training its troops and foreign NATO and U.N. military for a long time (i.e., well before the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks) in putting U.S. citizens in concentration camps and for total gun confiscation.

Watch Alex Jones's first two Police State video documentaries (both published well before the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks) where you can see U.S. troops training with U.N. troops in disarming American citizens and putting them into concentration camps, and anouncing over their loudspeakers: "Be calm, there is food, there is water in the camp ... violation of camp rules will not be tolerated ..."

They had American role-players screaming back at the U.S. and foreign U.N. troops, "I'm an American! I'm an American! You can't do this to me! I have rights!"

On Alex Jones's first two Police State video documentaries you can see many more of these training exercizes conducted in other cities and towns. Below you can watch Alex Jones's first two Police State videos in full and for free:

Police State 2000 (published 1999):

http://www.archive.org/details/PS2000

Police State II: The Takeover (published 2000):

http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceStateII

There have literally been hundreds of these type of training exercizes going on in the U.S. since the early 1990s. For example, see:

Operation Urban Warrior, Oakland, California 1999:

http://www.infowars.com/ouwmar9901.html

---
http://www.infowars.com/Images/newouw/foreign_troops.jpg
Australian, British and other foreign troops training with U.S. troops for total gun confiscation of U.S. citizens and in rounding up U.S. citizens into concentration camps at Operation Urban Warrior, Oakland, California 1999
---

For more on this subject, see below:

"U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules," Jerry Markon, Washington Post, September 10, 2005; Page A01:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

"Reagan Aides and the 'Secret' Government," Alfonso Chardy, Miami Herald, July 5, 1987:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_white_house_plans.htm

"Martial Law Concerns," Congressman Jim McDermott, House of Representatives, March 11, 2003:

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp030311.shtml

Below are some archives for mainstream major media news articles dealing with these gulag matters:

Primary Prison Planet Mainstream-Media News Archive on FEMA Concentration Camps:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_concentration_camps.html

FEMA Camps/Martial Law Archive:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_fema.html

Habeas Corpus Archive:

The below archived news articles deal with how the U.S. government can indefinitely hold U.S. citizens who have not been charged with any crime (as the U.S. government has already been doing), and how U.S. citizens in general can be tried by a secret military tribunal where they will not have the right to cross-examine their accusers, and they can be executed in secret:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_habeas.html

Model States Emergency Health Powers Act (which has been passed on the Federal level) Archive:

The below news articles talk about how the U.S. government can quarantine whole cities and round U.S. citizens up to be put in concentration camps in the event of, e.g., a bio-weapons release:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives_modelstates.html

Below are some additional documentation resources to learn more about the FEMA concentration/extermination camps in the U.S.:

http://infowars.com/goodphotos.html

"Concentration Camps in Okanagon County?," Associated Press (via KXLY News), February 25, 2003:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030408233829/http://www.kxly.com/common/getStory.asp?id=26857

http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_022703_camps.html

Interview of Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/schultz_02_27_03.mp3

And see also:

"Foundations are in place for martial law in the US," Ritt Goldstein, Sydney Morning Herald, July 27, 2002:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html

"Secret FEMA Plan To Use Pastors as Pacifiers in Preparation For Martial Law: Nationwide initiative trains volunteers to teach congregations to 'obey the government' during seizure of guns, property, forced inoculations and forced relocation," Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, May 24, 2006:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/240506femaplan.htm

"Paramilitary Secret Police Kidnap, Detain, Torture Bilderberg Investigators: Interrogators threatened to 'cut off arms' during 6 hour marathon of hell," Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, June 29, 2006:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/060706manraided.htm

"Terror Canadian Style," Joe Burd, TruthMovement.CA, [accessed June 28, 2006]:

http://www.fathers.ca/anyone_can_be_called_an_insurgent.htm

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/terror_canadian_style.htm

"Man Raided By FBI, ATF, Canadian Law Enforcement After Handing Out 'Subversive' Alex Jones Material: Gun seller questioned on militia, ownership of George Washington speeches," Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, Prison Planet.com, July 6, 2006:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/060706manraided.htm

[chefmike]

About six months ago, I hired an art major as my AM pantry guy. He was a very laid-back and mellow guy but was also a bit spaced-out, and needless to say, he had to be kept on a somewhat short leash while on the job...so I'm attempting to talk politics with him one day...and what website does he mention? infowars.com...acid casualties are everywhere...

[Quinn]

About six months ago, I hired an art major as my AM pantry guy. He was a very laid-back and mellow guy but was also a bit spaced-out, and needless to say, he had to be kept on a somewhat short leash while on the job...so I'm attempting to talk politics with him one day...and what website does he mention? infowars.com...acid casualties are everywhere...

Unfortunately, in this case, the problem goes far beyond a simple overindulgence in acid:


I've paid for sex a number of times. But I don't believe I was ever able to "get it up" at the time, so to speak. This had to do with me smoking crack at the time. (Although I enjoyed the company of smoking crack with the ladies I had payed for prostitution.) Cocaine, particularly smokable cocaine, really has a way of putting a guy's dick in the dirt. But as well, I tend to need to warm up to a person (i.e., get to feel comfortable with them) before I can get a hard-on for them

That's half of the problem right there. The other half goes back to my original assertion about our favorite moonbat not having a proper, formal education:


One can drop out of school and still get a high school deploma. I got my high school deploma when I was 16 year of age.

Perhaps if she had stayed in school, she might have actually learned to spell "diploma."

Here you go, Jamie Michelle:

[Jamie Michelle]

About six months ago, I hired an art major as my AM pantry guy. He was a very laid-back and mellow guy but was also a bit spaced-out, and needless to say, he had to be kept on a somewhat short leash while on the job...so I'm attempting to talk politics with him one day...and what website does he mention? infowars.com...acid casualties are everywhere...

The latter sentence in the above doesn't follow from the former sentences.

But here indeed are some "acid casualties":

Bill Gates
Cary Grant
Richard Feynman
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Steve Jobs

For many more, see:

"List of notable psychedelic self-experimenters," Wikipedia, August 9, 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_psychedelic_self-experimenters&oldid=68641179


Below are some works by one of my favorite "acid casualties" (and my favorite painter):

http://alexgrey.net/img/painting-550.jpg

http://alexgrey.net/a-gallery/8-24/prms.jpg

http://alexgrey.net/a-gallery/8-24/nbrn.jpg

http://alexgrey.net/a-gallery/8-24/nrsng.jpg

http://alexgrey.net/img/despair.jpg

http://alexgrey.net/a-gallery/8-24/journey.jpg

http://alexgrey.net/img/one.jpg

http://fusionanomaly.net/alexgrey.html

A Vision

In 1976 my wife, Allyson, and I had an experience that changed our lives and our art. We sacramentally ingested a large dose of LSD and lay down. Eventually a heightened state of consciousness emerged in which I was no longer aware of physical reality or my body in any conventional sense. I felt and saw my interconnectedness with all beings and things in a vast and brilliant Universal Mind Lattice. Every being and thing in the universe was a toroidal fountain and drain of self-illuminating love energy, a cellular node or jewel in a network that linked omnidirectionally without end. All duality of self and other was overcome in this infinite dimension of spiritual light. I felt I had been there before, or perhaps in some way was always there. This was the state beyond birth and death, beyond time, our true nature, which seemed more real than any physical surrounding and more real even than my physical body. The clear light matrix arose out of a field of pure emptiness. As utterly convincing as it was, when the light receded, I opened my eyes to behold Allyson and our bedroom once again. I was somewhat shocked to learn that she had experienced the exact same transpersonal dimension at the same time, which we determined by our descriptive drawings and discussion of the awesome beauty of the state. This experience of the infinite net of spirit transformed our lives and gave us a subject that became the focus of our art and our mission.

--Alex Grey

[Quinn]

How to demonstrate that you have no connection with reality in twenty-five words or less:


It's not logically impossible that I could jump to the moon.


I am a messenger of truth sent by God.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

About six months ago, I hired an art major as my AM pantry guy. He was a very laid-back and mellow guy but was also a bit spaced-out, and needless to say, he had to be kept on a somewhat short leash while on the job...so I'm attempting to talk politics with him one day...and what website does he mention? infowars.com...acid casualties are everywhere...

Unfortunately, in this case, the problem goes far beyond a simple overindulgence in acid:


I've paid for sex a number of times. But I don't believe I was ever able to "get it up" at the time, so to speak. This had to do with me smoking crack at the time. (Although I enjoyed the company of smoking crack with the ladies I had payed for prostitution.) Cocaine, particularly smokable cocaine, really has a way of putting a guy's dick in the dirt. But as well, I tend to need to warm up to a person (i.e., get to feel comfortable with them) before I can get a hard-on for them

That's half of the problem right there. The other half goes back to my original assertion about our favorite moonbat not having a proper, formal education:


One can drop out of school and still get a high school deploma. I got my high school deploma when I was 16 year of age.

Perhaps if she had stayed in school, she might have actually learned to spell "diploma."

Here you go, Jamie Michelle:

You have a truly warped and pathetic obsession with me. Both of those quotes are from around a year ago on the Anti-State.com forum. But if finding mispellings of mine from years past on different forums is what strokes your fetish, then have at it. And of course, I can spell diploma, and every other word contained in any dictionary. That, after all, is one reason dictionaries are made, Mr. "You understanding of the facts ..." and "You posts are so intellectually incoherent ..." Quinn. As well, people need government miseducation and indoctrination like they need a gaping hole in their head. As a group, the highest-scoring students are home-schooled.


How to demonstrate that you have no connection with reality in twenty-five words or less:


It's not logically impossible that I could jump to the moon.


I am a messenger of truth sent by God.

-Quinn

The former quote above is from http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=14213;st art=40 , and concerns a discussion pertaining to Georgism. Below is the context of the quote:



Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


... Nor does this require a government, merely a private court to enforce the exchanges.


Sure, and if you believe that then I've got a time machine located on Mars to sell you. The purchase price includes a free trip in Santa's slay to pick up your merchandise.


So you're saying in an anarchist society it's logically impossible that everyone could collectively sue a landholder for not paying them for the privilege of excluding them from his land, and that an anarchist judge would rule in their favor?


It's not logically impossible that I could jump to the moon.

The point is, there is no way for everyone in society to collect their fraction of what they are supposedly owed under this scheme without a ruling elite administering this scheme.

Nor is there any way that the mass of society would even want to bother with this intrusive scheme without some serious Soviet-style indoctrination convincing them that people (including themselves) owning land somehow enslaves them and that therefore they are owed compensation from this supposed aggression. People prefer to own their own land outright, and tend not to take kindly to others butting into their business without some serious statist indoctrination.


I was making the point that just because something isn't a *logical contradiction* doesn't mean that it is possible in the universe we live in, as you still have, e.g., the laws of physics to deal with. So I was making the point that it's not possible for me to jump to the moon, because the laws of physics prevent that. But obviously the discussion was over your head.

In a previous discussion in this thread, you asked for documentation on Bill Clinton saying that he is a surrogate member of the Bush family. You acted like it couldn't possibly be true--not in a million years. To quote you on this matter: "but back up your BS .... Too much acid...or just batshit crazy...."

And so I provided said documentation from the Associated Press (via Fox News), the Guardian (U.K.), CNN, and Time magazine.

For this discussion, see:

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:50 am http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=10286&start=20

Hence, it becomes clear that your accusations of me being "crazy" are simply a disingenuous debating tactic in order to attempt to divert people's attention away from the fact that you have been repeatedly intellectually demolished by me. Not to mention that such accusations on your part are a classic textbook example of the logical fallacy known as ad hominem attack. But then, you are well-accustomed to being fallacious.

[Quinn]

Obsession with you? ROTFLMAO....... Don't flatter yourself, James. You are the one who keeps posting nonsense in my thread, and it was you who initiated contact with me, not the other way around. Additionally, I don't date crossdressers, let alone ones so far from being passable. So don't get upset with me because it only took about five minutes worth of searches to expose you for the complete clown you are.

Here, let's do it again:



You see, this is what Satan wants. This is utlimately the real reason behind certain pharmacueticals being illegal.

Satan doesn't want people being happy. Satan doesn't want people to have fun or to experience pleasure. Satan wants mankind to experience maximal pain, and all the time.

This is what the New World Order is all about. The elite Satanists are setting up a global system wherein the masses will be reduced to the level of cattle. The globalist elite get off on inflicting pain upon others. They are not happy unless they have victims in which to brutalize, terrorize, and make suffer. It is the excercise of power--the power over other human beings--which they crave.

So, are you still having fun? I know that I am :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

Obsession with you? ROTFLMAO....... Don't flatter yourself, James You are the one who keeps posting nonsense in my thread, and it was you who initiated contact with me, not the other way around. Additionally, I don't date crossdressers, let alone ones so far from being passable. So don't get upset with me because it only took about five minutes worth of searches to expose you for the complete clown you are.


Indeed, your truly warped and pathetic obsession with me runs quite deep. Combing around to dig up mispellings of mine from years past on different forums is pretty darn obsessive behavior. I never said it was a sexual obsession; yet for some reason you feel the need to deny a charge that was never made, as if you feel guilty about it.



Here, let's do it again:



You see, this is what Satan wants. This is utlimately the real reason behind certain pharmacueticals being illegal.

Satan doesn't want people being happy. Satan doesn't want people to have fun or to experience pleasure. Satan wants mankind to experience maximal pain, and all the time.

This is what the New World Order is all about. The elite Satanists are setting up a global system wherein the masses will be reduced to the level of cattle. The globalist elite get off on inflicting pain upon others. They are not happy unless they have victims in which to brutalize, terrorize, and make suffer. It is the excercise of power--the power over other human beings--which they crave.

So, are you still having fun? I know that I am :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

Satanism is quite literally the religion of the ruling elite, and the religion of the highest levels of Freemasonry. Although most Freemasons are simply dues-paying dupes who don't know that Freemasonry the highest levels is Lucifer-worship (see further below for more on that).

To begin with, see the below very important article series which contains extensive documentation on the child sex-slave and snuff-film rings run by the globalist elite:

"The Pedophocracy," Parts I through VI, by David McGowan, Center for an Informed America ( http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com ), August 2001:

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo1.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo2.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo3.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo4.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo5.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo6.html

Concerning the hidden video caught by journalist Alex Jones of a dark occultic ritual performed every year at Bohemian Grove, see:

http://www.infowars.com/bg1.html

See also the full video Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove by journalist and documentary film-maker Alex Jones, which you can view in full for free below:

Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove:

http://www.archive.org/details/DSIBG

Additionally, you can view clip excerpts Part 1 and Part 2 of Jon Ronson's documentary Secret Rulers of the World, which also documents Alex Jones' infiltration of Bohemian Grove, at the below link:

http://www.sacredcow.com/allnew/index_content.php?n=multimedia_video_alex

Below can be found audio and a transcript of ABC News' Monday, April 23, 2001 World News Tonight with anchor Peter Jennings program concerning nightvision video secretly captured on Saturday, April 14, 2001 by New York Observer reporter Ron Rosenbaum of an occultic ritual conducted by the Brotherhood of Death at Yale:

"April 23, 2001 ABC News Report on Hidden Video Captured of Skull & Bones Ritual," PsyOp911, October 4, 2005:

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/skull-and-bones-2001-04-23-abc-report.html

Also revealing, on the Nixon tapes from May 13, 1971, Nixon says of Bohemian Grove:

""
"But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco."
""

(From "All The Philosopher King's Men--President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman," James Warren, Harper's Magazine, February 2000 http://www.prisonplanet.com/032604nixontape.html .)

Here's another interesting article on Bohemian Grove:

"Gay Porn Star Serves Moguls," New York Post, July 22, 2004:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/220704gaypornstar.htm

Yet the Bush patriarchs just can't get enough of Bohemian Grove. Concerning Bush, Sr.'s connection with a "faggy goddamned thing" (to quote Nixon again) not just at Bohemian Grove, but in the White House, see the below Washington Times article:

"Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush: 'Call boys' took midnight tour of White House," Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald, Washington Times, June 29, 1989:

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/wtpage1smaller.gif

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/WTpage1.gif

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/WTpage2.gif

The below documentary, Conspiracy of Silence, was produced by Yorkshire Television (U.K.) under contract by the Discovery Channel. The documentary was scheduled to air nation-wide in the U.S. on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994. It was listed in the April 30th-May 6th edition of TV Guide and in newspapers for that day.

This documentary exposed a network of business leaders, Washington politicians and other high officials involved in a child sex-slave ring that flew children to Washington, D.C. and elsewhere in the U.S. for sex orgies. This documentary film turned out to be very presciently named, because close to the time before airing, various congressmen threatened the cable TV industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired. Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased for some half-million dollars by unnamed persons who ordered all copies destroyed. A copy of the rough-edited version of the film was furnished anonymously to attorney and former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp, among others.

Former CIA Director William E. Colby is also interviewed on the documentary Conspiracy of Silence, wherein William E. Colby backs up the legitimacy of these charges and also talks about the real risks of assassination that John DeCamp faces for taking up this case (other investigators into the Franklin, Nebraska child sex-slave scandal were assassinated).

Below is an RM file (33.3 MB) of Conspiracy of Silence:

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/conspiracyofsilence56k.rm

You can download this same video in the below higher resolution format. Windows media (39.6 MB):

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/conspiracyofsilence2.wmv

Conspiracy of Silence doesn't attempt to go into the Satanic and human-sacrifice angle of the Franklin incident, although that is very much part of this case, as this case is directly connected to Bohemian Grove and other child sex-slave rings. For more on this aspect, see the below book by former State Senator John DeCamp:

The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska by John W. DeCamp (AWT, 2nd edition, December 1, 1996), ISBN: 0963215809:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0963215809/

One of the best introductions to the background and subsequent cover-up of the above film, Conspiracy of Silence, is from the below excerpts from the book The Franklin Cover-Up by former State Senator John DeCamp, wherein he also talks about his relationship to former CIA Director William E. Colby (who himself was assassinated, as the evidence demonstrates). Do a search for "Yorkshire" to go directly to the section concerning this film:

http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/coverups/decamp.html

http://mysite.users2.50megs.com/coverups/decamp.html

One of the victims, Paul Bonacci, testified in court to being forced into depraved sexual acts with men and other boys, including snuff films made at Bohemian Grove, with U.S. Senior District Judge Warren K. Urbom presiding. Bonacci won the court case and was awarded one million dollars by Judge Urbom.

Below is the text of the ruling by Judge Warren K. Urbom mentioned above:

Paul A. Bonacci, Plaintiff vs Lawrence E. King, Defendant, 4:CV91-3037, Memorandum of Decision Filed February 22, 1999:

http://www.raven1.net/ra1.htm

Below you can read more on the above case. Scroll down to the section entitled "Snuff kiddie porn at Bohemian Grove," where you can read a transcript of an interview of former State Senator John DeCamp:

Bohemian Grove Dirt:

http://www.geocities.com/bohemian_grove_dirt/

For much, much more on this subject, see the below post by me:

Re:National Geographic kicks creationist asses
« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2004, 11:31:40 AM »

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=11993;st art=40

##############################

"Jesus says: 'Whoever has come to know the world has found a corpse. And whoever has found this corpse, of him the world is not worthy.' "--the Gospel of Thomas, No. 56, translated by Stephen J. Patterson and James M. Robinson: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm

The Hypostasis of the Archons (i.e., The Reality of the Rulers):

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

The above ancient Christian scripture is from the Nag Hammadi texts. As Elaine Pagels wrote in her book The Gnostic Gospels ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html ) concerning the Nag Hammadi texts:

""
What Muhammad 'Alí [al-Sammán] discovered at Nag Hammadi, it soon became clear, were Coptic translations, made about 1,500 years ago, of still more ancient manuscripts. The originals themselves had been written in Greek, the language of the New Testament: as Doresse, Puech, and Quispel had recognized, part of one of them had been discovered by archeologists about fifty years earlier, when they found a few fragments of the original Greek version of the Gospel of Thomas.
""

The above text of The Hypostasis of the Archons starts off with a reference to Paul writing in Ephesians 6:12 (for more on this, see below).

It should be noted that in Genesis, the word which is usually translated as "God" is in the Hebrew *gods* (i.e., *elohim*), which is plural. This is the reason that the English translations have "God" referring to "himself" (rather, themselves) in the plural (e.g., "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ..." [Gen. 1:26]).

Jesus and the New Testament teach that Satan (a.k.a. Samael*) is the god of this world and that Satan is the ultimate ruler over all of the earthly governments, and that Jesus in His Second Coming is to utterly abolish all forms of mortal government and destory all of the mortal rulers of the earth, making the truth-seekers in this world absolute self-rulers and kings of their own domain upon the earth.

It's interesting to note that the Satanists also recognize Satan as being the god of this world--to quote Madame Blavatsky (i.e., the Mother of the New Age movement), 32° of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France and founder of the Theosophical Society, on this, "It is 'Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god,' and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity." That quote is opposite a page entitled "HOLY SATAN" in her book The Secret Doctrine (1888), Vol. II, pg. 234. For many more such quotes from highly regarded, high-level Masonic authors, see further below.

Indeed, the Yezidis, most of whom are in Iraq, and who quite literally worship Lucifer, likewise recognize Lucifer as the god and ruler of the Earth. Their religion has existed since at least the 12th century. For more on that, see "Sympathy for the devil in a land where Lucifer reigns," Lynne O'Donnell, Irish Times, April 21, 2003 ( http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2003/0421/4209123277FR21LUCIFER.html ).

Directly below is the New Testament doctrine on this matter:

1 Corinthians 2:6-8: However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [NKJV, as below.]

1 Corinthians 15:23,24: But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

2 Corinthians 4:3,4: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Ephesians 6:12: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Luke 4:5-8: Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."

And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'" [See also Matt. 4:8-10.]

Revelation 13:2: Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon [Satan] gave him his power, his throne, and great authority [i.e., over all the governments of the earth].

John 12:31: [Jesus:] "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out."

John 14:30: [Jesus:] "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me."

John 16:8-11: [Jesus:] "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged."

Revelation 19:19-21: And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest [i.e., all the kings of the earth and their armies] were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

To properly understand the context of all of what is presented within this post, see my below article, first published at Anti-State.com:

"Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (originally published on December 19, 2001):

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf

####################

* http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6712/levibaphomet7gi.gif
Freemason writer Eliphas Levi's head of Baphomet, i.e., the Devil, or Satan. Here's an interesting quote from Eliphas Levi:

"What is more absurd and more impious than to attribute the name of Lucifer to the devil, that is, to personified evil. The intellectual Lucifer is the spirit of intelligence and love; it is the paraclete, it is the Holy Spirit, while the physical Lucifer is the great agent of universal magnetism."--Eliphas Levi, Freemason of the Grand Orient of France, The Mysteries of Magic, pg. 428

Albert Pike's magnum opus, Morals and Dogma, is still pased out to members of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in the U.S., and he has been termed by a number of well known Masonic authors as the Plato of Freemasonry, and even the Masonic Pope. Here is some interesting quotes of Albert Pike from his book Morals and Dogma:

"LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darknesss! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!"--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), "19°—Grand Pontiff," pg. 321: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

What's particularly interesting about Albert Pike's above quote, beyond his praising Lucifer, is that in said quote Pike is asserting that Freemasonry at the highest levels is Luciferianism, since Pike identifies Lucifer as the bearer of the "Light" which is the goal of Freemasonry. As Albert Pike says of this "Light" below:

"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled, to conceal the truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), pg. 104: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

As Albert Pike further states:

"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry ... It is well enough for the mass of those called Masons, to imagine that all is contained in the Blue Degrees; and whoso attempts to undeceive them will labor in vain."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871): http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

"Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instruction in religion."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), pg. 213: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

"If your wife, child, or friend should ask you anything about your invitation--as for instance, if your clothes were taken off, if you were blind folded, if you had a rope tied around you neck, etc., you must conceal ... hence of course you must deliberately lie about it. It is part of your obligation ..."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), pg. 74: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

""
There is in nature one most potent force, by means whereof single man, who could possess himself of it, and should know how to direct it, could revolutionize and change the face of the world.

This force was known to the ancients. It is a universal age whose supreme law is equilibrium; and whereby, if science can but learn how to control it, it will be possible to change the order of the Seasons, to produce in night the phenomena of day, to send a thought in an instant round the world, to heal or slay at a distance, to give our words universal success, a make them reverberate everywhere.

This agent, partially revealed by the blind guesses of the disciples of Mesmer, is precisely what the Adepts of the middle ages called the elementary matter of the great work. The Gnostics held that it composed the igneous body of the Holy Spirit; it was adored in the secret rites of the Sabbat or the Temple, under the hieroglyphic figure of Baphomet or the hermaphrodic goat of Mendes.
""
--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871): http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

Below are quotes from other high-level, highly influential, and highly regarded Masonic authors:

""
There exists in the world today, and has existed for thousands of years, a body of enlightened humans united in what might be termed, an Order of the Quest. It is composed of those whose intellectual and spiritual perceptions have revealed to them that civilization has secret destiny ...

The outcome of this "secret destiny" is a World Order ruled by a King with supernatural powers.

This King was descended of a divine race; that is, he belonged to the Order of the Illumined, for those who come to a state of wisdom then belong to a family of heroes--perfected human beings.
""
--Manly Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, The Secret Destiny of America (1958)

"Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity. ... an outer organization concealing an inner Brotherhood of the elect ... it is necessary to establish the existence of these two separate and yet interdependent orders, the one visible the other invisible. The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of 'free and accepted' men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic, and humanitarian concerns. The invisible society is a secret and most August fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious arcannum arcandrum."--Manley Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, pg. 433

"When The Mason learns that the Key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply this energy."--Manly Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, The Lost Keys Of Freemasonry, pg. 48

"I hereby promise the Great Spirit Lucifuge, Prince of Demons, that each year I will bring unto him a human soul to do with as it may please him, and in return Lucifuge promises to bestow upon me the treasures of the earth and fulfil my every desire for the length of my natural life. If I fail to bring him each year the offering specified above, then my own soul shall be forfeit to him. Signed ....... {Invocant signs pact with his own blood}"--Manly Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, The Secret Teachings of All Ages (1928), pg. CIV: http://web.archive.org/web/19981203083524/http://www.brotherblue.org/libers/manly.htm , http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven/Text/Magick/Misc/manly.txt

"Manly Hall's great work is a classic in the world's literature. It will guide historians, philosophers, and lay seekers of esoteric wisdom for centuries."--Edgar Mitchell, Sc.D., Apollo 14 Astronaut, on Manly Palmer Hall's The Secret Teachings of All Ages, published by The Philosophical Research Society (P.R.S.): http://www.prs.org/secret.htm

""
Illustrious Manly Palmer Hall, often called "Masonry's Greatest Philosopher" ...

Like Grand Commander Albert Pike before him, [Illustrious] Hall did not teach a new doctrine but was an ambassador of an ageless tradition of wisdom that enriches us to this day. ... The world is a far better place because of Manly Palmer Hall, and we are better persons for having known him and his work.
""
--Scottish Rite Journal, September 1990

"Lucifer comes to give us the final gift of wholeness. If we accept it, then he is free and we are free. That is the Luciferic initiation. It is one that many people now, and in the days ahead, will be facing, for it is an initiation into the New Age."--David Spangler, Director of United Nations Planetary Initiative, Reflections on the Christ (1978), pg. 45

The influence that these high-level occultist writers have had on recent history cannot be underestimated. For example, Hitler's obsession with the concept of the Aryan Race is very much an occultic doctrine which can be traced back to, in part, Madame Blavatsky's writings.

""
The true esoteric view about "Satan," the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled "The Secret of Satan," to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford's "Perfect Way." No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length: --

...

It is "Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god," and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity. For he is one with the Logos, "the first son, eldest of the gods," in the order of microcosmic (divine) evolution; Saturn (Satan), astronomically, "is the seventh and last in the order of macrocosmic emanation, being the circumference of the kingdom of which Phoebus (the light of wisdom, also the Sun) is the centre." The Gnostics were right, then, in calling the Jewish god "an angel of matter," or he who breathed (conscious) life into Adam, and he whose planet was Saturn.

34. "And God hath put a girdle about his loins (the rings of Saturn), and the name of the girdle is Death."

In anthropogony this "girdle" is the human body with its two lower principles, which three die, while the innermost man is immortal.
""
--Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, the "mother of the New Age movement," and 32° Freemason of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France, The Secret Doctrine (1888), Vol. II, pp. 233-235 (starting on a page entitled "HOLY SATAN"): http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm

"Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the 'Holy Ghost' and 'Satan,' at one and the same time, visible Space being truly filled with the differentiated Breath invisibly; and the Astral Light, the manifested effects of the two who are one, guided and attracted by ourselves, is the Karma of humanity, both a personal and impersonal entity: personal, because it is the mystic name given by St. Martin to the Host of divine Creators, guides and rulers of this planet; impersonal, as the Cause and effect of universal Life and Death."--Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, the "mother of the New Age movement," and 32° Freemason of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France, The Secret Doctrine (1888), Vol. II, pg. 513: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm

"First Conjuration Addressed to Emperor Lucifer. Emperor Lucifer, Master and Prince of Rebellious Spirits, I adjure thee to leave thine abode, in what-ever quarter of the world it may be situated and come hither to communicate with me."--Arthur Edward Waite, 33° Freemason, The Book of Black Magic, pg. 244

"For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim."--Aleister Crowley, "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Magick in Theory and Practice (Castle Books, 1929), pg. 95

"Those magicians who object to the use of blood have endeavoured to replace it with incense ... But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is best."--Aleister Crowley, "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Magick in Theory and Practice (Castle Books, 1929)

""
I bind my blood in Satan's hands,
All this that lieth betwixt my hands.
To thee, the Beast, and thy control,
I pledge me; body, mind, and soul.
""
--Aleister Crowley, "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Satanic Extracts (Black Lodge Publishing, 1991), pg. 3

""
I swear to work my Work abhorred,
Careless of all but one reward,
The pleasure of the Devil our Lord.
""
--Aleister Crowley "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Satanic Extracts (Black Lodge Publishing, 1991), pg. 4

[Quinn]

With regard to obsessive behavior, you are free to engage in any degree of projection and/or displacement you find necessary to rationalize your current situation. It’s not like your perspective is regarded as having so much as an iota of credibility by me or the other posters who post in the politics forum. Statements like these don’t help:


I am the laughing Buddha. I am the one who knows the beginning from the end. I am the one who can laugh at all the pain of the world, because I know wherefrom we come and where it is that we go. I know our true nature

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

With regard to obsessive behavior, you are free to engage in any degree of projection and/or displacement you find necessary to rationalize your current situation. It’s not like your perspective is regarded as having so much as an iota of credibility by me or the other posters who post in the politics forum. Statements like these don’t help:


I'm not the one combing around to dig up mispellings and unreferenced, out-of-context, unrelated quotes of yours from years past on different forums. That is pretty darn obsessive behavior. As well, it's quite interesting that no one ever accused you of having a sexual obsession with me, yet for some reason you felt the need to offer up your denial that you have a sexual obsession with me, as if you feel guilty about it. Your truly warped and pathetic obsession with me runs quite deep. Although your obsession with me is pretty sad, in a way it is quite flattering to see that I have had such a profound and deep-seated effect on you.

[Quinn]

I'm not the one combing around to dig up mispellings

LMFAO... In perhaps the greatest irony yet seen, you actually managed to misspell the word "misspellings." Wow, it certainly does seem to bother you that I have appropriately exposed you for the moonbat that you are. I guess this isn't as much fun as you thought. Don't worry though, it's not like you had any credibility to loose in the first place.

Let's take a trip down memory lane and look at two of your best:


It's not logically impossible that I could jump to the moon.


I am a messenger of truth sent by God.

See how easy and fun that was. Like I said before, you’re the one posting your inane tripe in this thread, and it is you who has continually initiated contact with me, not the other way around. That said, it’s perfectly legitimate for me to reference your external posts to prove what everyone already knows: you are nuts. This is even more appropriate given that you have a history of referencing your own external writings in the first place.

Rationalize it anyway you want; you created this situation. As such, I shall continue to enjoy the laughter you are providing me. This really is an exercise in pure hilarity because your insanity is the gift that keeps on giving.

-Quinn

[JRon]

The Voice of Reason says: "JamieMichelle spends WAY too much time on the internet."

[Jamie Michelle]

I'm not the one combing around to dig up mispellings

LMFAO... In perhaps the greatest irony yet seen, you actually managed to misspell the word "misspellings." Wow, it certainly does seem to bother you that I have appropriately exposed you for the moonbat that you are. I guess this isn't as much fun as you thought. Don't worry though, it's not like you had any credibility to loose in the first place.


Learn what *irony* is, Mr. "You understanding of the facts ..." and "You posts are so intellectually incoherent ..." Quinn. I wasn't critiquing your numerous misspellings when I said that, hence there was no irony contained therein. But obviously such a conceptual distinction is beyond your intellectual abilities.



Let's take a trip down memory lane and look at two of your best:


It's not logically impossible that I could jump to the moon.


I am a messenger of truth sent by God.

See how easy and fun that was. Like I said before, you’re the one posting your inane tripe in this thread, and it is you who has continually initiated contact with me, not the other way around. That said, it’s perfectly legitimate for me to reference your external posts to prove what everyone already knows: you are nuts. This is even more appropriate given that you have a history of referencing your own external writings in the first place.

Rationalize it anyway you want; you created this situation. As such, I shall continue to enjoy the laughter you are providing me. This really is an exercise in pure hilarity because your insanity is the gift that keeps on giving.

-Quinn

I never initiated contact with you. What I did was respond to a post of yours in a public forum. My response was intended to be read by all who may come across it. But since you are the one who considers that to be "initiat[ing] contact," the HungAngels.com forum records show that it is *you* who "initiated contact with me, not the other way around." You are the one who originally posted a reply to one of my posts:

"Re: the tranny(?) on american idol," Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:03 am, author: Quinn http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=91491#91491

Hence, according to your weird definition of "initiat[ing] contact," *you* are the one who "initiated contact" with *me*.

And I'm not the one combing around to dig up misspellings and unreferenced, out-of-context, unrelated quotes of yours from years past on different forums. That is pretty darn obsessive behavior. As well, it's quite interesting that no one ever accused you of having a sexual obsession with me, yet for some reason you felt the need to offer up your denial that you have a sexual obsession with me, as if you feel guilty about it. Your truly warped and pathetic obsession with me runs quite deep. Although your obsession with me is pretty sad, in a way it is quite flattering to see that I have had such a profound and deep-seated effect on you.

As well, it's classic textbook unethical behavior to misleadingly quote someone out of context; especially when providing no reference as to where the quote was taken from (as you have repeatedly done). The former quote above is from http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=14213;st art=40 , and concerns a discussion pertaining to Georgism. Below is the context of the quote:



Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


... Nor does this require a government, merely a private court to enforce the exchanges.


Sure, and if you believe that then I've got a time machine located on Mars to sell you. The purchase price includes a free trip in Santa's slay to pick up your merchandise.


So you're saying in an anarchist society it's logically impossible that everyone could collectively sue a landholder for not paying them for the privilege of excluding them from his land, and that an anarchist judge would rule in their favor?


It's not logically impossible that I could jump to the moon.

The point is, there is no way for everyone in society to collect their fraction of what they are supposedly owed under this scheme without a ruling elite administering this scheme.

Nor is there any way that the mass of society would even want to bother with this intrusive scheme without some serious Soviet-style indoctrination convincing them that people (including themselves) owning land somehow enslaves them and that therefore they are owed compensation from this supposed aggression. People prefer to own their own land outright, and tend not to take kindly to others butting into their business without some serious statist indoctrination.


I was making the point that just because something isn't a *logical contradiction* doesn't mean that it is possible in the universe we live in, as you still have, e.g., the laws of physics to deal with. So I was making the point that it's not possible for me to jump to the moon, because the laws of physics prevent that. But obviously the discussion was over your head.

In a previous discussion in this thread, you asked for documentation on Bill Clinton saying that he is a surrogate member of the Bush family. You acted like it couldn't possibly be true--not in a million years. To quote you on this matter: "but back up your BS .... Too much acid...or just batshit crazy...."

And so I provided said documentation from the Associated Press (via Fox News), the Guardian (U.K.), CNN, and Time magazine.

For this discussion, see:

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:50 am http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=10286&start=20

Hence, it becomes clear that your accusations of me being "crazy" and "nuts" are simply a disingenuous debating tactic in order to attempt to divert people's attention away from the fact that you have been repeatedly intellectually demolished by me. Not to mention that such accusations on your part are a classic textbook example of the logical fallacy known as ad hominem attack. But then, you are well-accustomed to being fallacious.

[Quinn]

The Voice of Reason says: "JamieMichelle spends WAY too much time on the internet."

LMFAO.......

What gave it away? Could it have been something like this little piece of insanity:


You see, this is what Satan wants. This is utlimately the real reason behind certain pharmacueticals being illegal.

Satan doesn't want people being happy. Satan doesn't want people to have fun or to experience pleasure. Satan wants mankind to experience maximal pain, and all the time.

This is what the New World Order is all about. The elite Satanists are setting up a global system wherein the masses will be reduced to the level of cattle. The globalist elite get off on inflicting pain upon others. They are not happy unless they have victims in which to brutalize, terrorize, and make suffer. It is the excercise of power--the power over other human beings--which they crave.

[Quinn]

Not a single sentence that was rational or worth reading

Let's see, what particularly crack addled piece of writing should we look at this time:


I've paid for sex a number of times. But I don't believe I was ever able to "get it up" at the time, so to speak. This had to do with me smoking crack at the time. (Although I enjoyed the company of smoking crack with the ladies I had payed for prostitution.) Cocaine, particularly smokable cocaine, really has a way of putting a guy's dick in the dirt. But as well, I tend to need to warm up to a person (i.e., get to feel comfortable with them) before I can get a hard-on for them.

Apparently crack, acid, and dropping out of high school aren't such a good combination after all. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

Not a single sentence that was rational or worth reading


Please provide a reference for this purported quote of me.



Let's see, what particularly crack addled piece of writing should we look at this time:


I've paid for sex a number of times. But I don't believe I was ever able to "get it up" at the time, so to speak. This had to do with me smoking crack at the time. (Although I enjoyed the company of smoking crack with the ladies I had payed for prostitution.) Cocaine, particularly smokable cocaine, really has a way of putting a guy's dick in the dirt. But as well, I tend to need to warm up to a person (i.e., get to feel comfortable with them) before I can get a hard-on for them.

Apparently crack, acid, and dropping out of high school aren't such a good combination after all. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

I didn't drop out of high school. I obtained my high school diploma when I was age 16. I also passed the college entrance exams and was awarded a Pell Grant when I was 16 years of age. All without even studying for either. I would have started college at age 16 if I had wanted to follow up on it.



The Voice of Reason says: "JamieMichelle spends WAY too much time on the internet."

LMFAO.......

What gave it away? Could it have been something like this little piece of insanity:


You see, this is what Satan wants. This is utlimately the real reason behind certain pharmacueticals being illegal.

Satan doesn't want people being happy. Satan doesn't want people to have fun or to experience pleasure. Satan wants mankind to experience maximal pain, and all the time.

This is what the New World Order is all about. The elite Satanists are setting up a global system wherein the masses will be reduced to the level of cattle. The globalist elite get off on inflicting pain upon others. They are not happy unless they have victims in which to brutalize, terrorize, and make suffer. It is the excercise of power--the power over other human beings--which they crave.

Satanism is quite literally the religion of the ruling elite, and the religion of the highest levels of Freemasonry. Although most Freemasons are simply dues-paying dupes who don't know that Freemasonry the highest levels is Lucifer-worship (see further below for more on that).

To begin with, see the below very important article series which contains extensive documentation on the child sex-slave and snuff-film rings run by the globalist elite:

"The Pedophocracy," Parts I through VI, by David McGowan, Center for an Informed America ( http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com ), August 2001:

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo1.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo2.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo3.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo4.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo5.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo6.html

Concerning the hidden video caught by journalist Alex Jones of a dark occultic ritual performed every year at Bohemian Grove, see:

http://www.infowars.com/bg1.html

See also the full video Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove by journalist and documentary film-maker Alex Jones, which you can view in full for free below:

Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove:

http://www.archive.org/details/DSIBG

Additionally, you can view clip excerpts Part 1 and Part 2 of Jon Ronson's documentary Secret Rulers of the World, which also documents Alex Jones' infiltration of Bohemian Grove, at the below link:

http://www.sacredcow.com/allnew/index_content.php?n=multimedia_video_alex

Below can be found audio and a transcript of ABC News' Monday, April 23, 2001 World News Tonight with anchor Peter Jennings program concerning nightvision video secretly captured on Saturday, April 14, 2001 by New York Observer reporter Ron Rosenbaum of an occultic ritual conducted by the Brotherhood of Death at Yale:

"April 23, 2001 ABC News Report on Hidden Video Captured of Skull & Bones Ritual," PsyOp911, October 4, 2005:

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/skull-and-bones-2001-04-23-abc-report.html

Also revealing, on the Nixon tapes from May 13, 1971, Nixon says of Bohemian Grove:

""
"But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco."
""

(From "All The Philosopher King's Men--President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman," James Warren, Harper's Magazine, February 2000 http://www.prisonplanet.com/032604nixontape.html .)

Here's another interesting article on Bohemian Grove:

"Gay Porn Star Serves Moguls," New York Post, July 22, 2004:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/220704gaypornstar.htm

Yet the Bush patriarchs just can't get enough of Bohemian Grove. Concerning Bush, Sr.'s connection with a "faggy goddamned thing" (to quote Nixon again) not just at Bohemian Grove, but in the White House, see the below Washington Times article:

"Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush: 'Call boys' took midnight tour of White House," Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald, Washington Times, June 29, 1989:

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/wtpage1smaller.gif

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/WTpage1.gif

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/WTpage2.gif

The below documentary, Conspiracy of Silence, was produced by Yorkshire Television (U.K.) under contract by the Discovery Channel. The documentary was scheduled to air nation-wide in the U.S. on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994. It was listed in the April 30th-May 6th edition of TV Guide and in newspapers for that day.

This documentary exposed a network of business leaders, Washington politicians and other high officials involved in a child sex-slave ring that flew children to Washington, D.C. and elsewhere in the U.S. for sex orgies. This documentary film turned out to be very presciently named, because close to the time before airing, various congressmen threatened the cable TV industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired. Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased for some half-million dollars by unnamed persons who ordered all copies destroyed. A copy of the rough-edited version of the film was furnished anonymously to attorney and former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp, among others.

Former CIA Director William E. Colby is also interviewed on the documentary Conspiracy of Silence, wherein William E. Colby backs up the legitimacy of these charges and also talks about the real risks of assassination that John DeCamp faces for taking up this case (other investigators into the Franklin, Nebraska child sex-slave scandal were assassinated).

Below is an RM file (33.3 MB) of Conspiracy of Silence:

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/conspiracyofsilence56k.rm

You can download this same video in the below higher resolution format. Windows media (39.6 MB):

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/conspiracyofsilence2.wmv

Conspiracy of Silence doesn't attempt to go into the Satanic and human-sacrifice angle of the Franklin incident, although that is very much part of this case, as this case is directly connected to Bohemian Grove and other child sex-slave rings. For more on this aspect, see the below book by former State Senator John DeCamp:

The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska by John W. DeCamp (AWT, 2nd edition, December 1, 1996), ISBN: 0963215809:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0963215809/

One of the best introductions to the background and subsequent cover-up of the above film, Conspiracy of Silence, is from the below excerpts from the book The Franklin Cover-Up by former State Senator John DeCamp, wherein he also talks about his relationship to former CIA Director William E. Colby (who himself was assassinated, as the evidence demonstrates). Do a search for "Yorkshire" to go directly to the section concerning this film:

http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/coverups/decamp.html

http://mysite.users2.50megs.com/coverups/decamp.html

One of the victims, Paul Bonacci, testified in court to being forced into depraved sexual acts with men and other boys, including snuff films made at Bohemian Grove, with U.S. Senior District Judge Warren K. Urbom presiding. Bonacci won the court case and was awarded one million dollars by Judge Urbom.

Below is the text of the ruling by Judge Warren K. Urbom mentioned above:

Paul A. Bonacci, Plaintiff vs Lawrence E. King, Defendant, 4:CV91-3037, Memorandum of Decision Filed February 22, 1999:

http://www.raven1.net/ra1.htm

Below you can read more on the above case. Scroll down to the section entitled "Snuff kiddie porn at Bohemian Grove," where you can read a transcript of an interview of former State Senator John DeCamp:

Bohemian Grove Dirt:

http://www.geocities.com/bohemian_grove_dirt/

For much, much more on this subject, see the below post by me:

Re:National Geographic kicks creationist asses
« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2004, 11:31:40 AM »

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=11993;st art=40

##############################

"Jesus says: 'Whoever has come to know the world has found a corpse. And whoever has found this corpse, of him the world is not worthy.' "--the Gospel of Thomas, No. 56, translated by Stephen J. Patterson and James M. Robinson: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm

The Hypostasis of the Archons (i.e., The Reality of the Rulers):

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

The above ancient Christian scripture is from the Nag Hammadi texts. As Elaine Pagels wrote in her book The Gnostic Gospels ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html ) concerning the Nag Hammadi texts:

""
What Muhammad 'Alí [al-Sammán] discovered at Nag Hammadi, it soon became clear, were Coptic translations, made about 1,500 years ago, of still more ancient manuscripts. The originals themselves had been written in Greek, the language of the New Testament: as Doresse, Puech, and Quispel had recognized, part of one of them had been discovered by archeologists about fifty years earlier, when they found a few fragments of the original Greek version of the Gospel of Thomas.
""

The above text of The Hypostasis of the Archons starts off with a reference to Paul writing in Ephesians 6:12 (for more on this, see below).

It should be noted that in Genesis, the word which is usually translated as "God" is in the Hebrew *gods* (i.e., *elohim*), which is plural. This is the reason that the English translations have "God" referring to "himself" (rather, themselves) in the plural (e.g., "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ..." [Gen. 1:26]).

Jesus and the New Testament teach that Satan (a.k.a. Samael*) is the god of this world and that Satan is the ultimate ruler over all of the earthly governments, and that Jesus in His Second Coming is to utterly abolish all forms of mortal government and destory all of the mortal rulers of the earth, making the truth-seekers in this world absolute self-rulers and kings of their own domain upon the earth.

It's interesting to note that the Satanists also recognize Satan as being the god of this world--to quote Madame Blavatsky (i.e., the Mother of the New Age movement), 32° of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France and founder of the Theosophical Society, on this, "It is 'Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god,' and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity." That quote is opposite a page entitled "HOLY SATAN" in her book The Secret Doctrine (1888), Vol. II, pg. 234. For many more such quotes from highly regarded, high-level Masonic authors, see further below.

Indeed, the Yezidis, most of whom are in Iraq, and who quite literally worship Lucifer, likewise recognize Lucifer as the god and ruler of the Earth. Their religion has existed since at least the 12th century. For more on that, see "Sympathy for the devil in a land where Lucifer reigns," Lynne O'Donnell, Irish Times, April 21, 2003 ( http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2003/0421/4209123277FR21LUCIFER.html ).

Directly below is the New Testament doctrine on this matter:

1 Corinthians 2:6-8: However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [NKJV, as below.]

1 Corinthians 15:23,24: But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

2 Corinthians 4:3,4: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Ephesians 6:12: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Luke 4:5-8: Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."

And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'" [See also Matt. 4:8-10.]

Revelation 13:2: Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon [Satan] gave him his power, his throne, and great authority [i.e., over all the governments of the earth].

John 12:31: [Jesus:] "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out."

John 14:30: [Jesus:] "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me."

John 16:8-11: [Jesus:] "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged."

Revelation 19:19-21: And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest [i.e., all the kings of the earth and their armies] were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

To properly understand the context of all of what is presented within this post, see my below article, first published at Anti-State.com:

"Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (originally published on December 19, 2001):

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf

####################

* http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6712/levibaphomet7gi.gif
Freemason writer Eliphas Levi's head of Baphomet, i.e., the Devil, or Satan. Here's an interesting quote from Eliphas Levi:

"What is more absurd and more impious than to attribute the name of Lucifer to the devil, that is, to personified evil. The intellectual Lucifer is the spirit of intelligence and love; it is the paraclete, it is the Holy Spirit, while the physical Lucifer is the great agent of universal magnetism."--Eliphas Levi, Freemason of the Grand Orient of France, The Mysteries of Magic, pg. 428

Albert Pike's magnum opus, Morals and Dogma, is still pased out to members of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in the U.S., and he has been termed by a number of well known Masonic authors as the Plato of Freemasonry, and even the Masonic Pope. Here are some interesting quotes of Albert Pike from his book Morals and Dogma:

"LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darknesss! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!"--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), "19°—Grand Pontiff," pg. 321: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

What's particularly interesting about Albert Pike's above quote, beyond his praising Lucifer, is that in said quote Pike is asserting that Freemasonry at the highest levels is Luciferianism, since Pike identifies Lucifer as the bearer of the "Light" which is the goal of Freemasonry. As Albert Pike says of this "Light" below:

"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled, to conceal the truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), pg. 104: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

As Albert Pike further states:

"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry ... It is well enough for the mass of those called Masons, to imagine that all is contained in the Blue Degrees; and whoso attempts to undeceive them will labor in vain."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871): http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

"Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instruction in religion."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), pg. 213: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

"If your wife, child, or friend should ask you anything about your invitation--as for instance, if your clothes were taken off, if you were blind folded, if you had a rope tied around you neck, etc., you must conceal ... hence of course you must deliberately lie about it. It is part of your obligation ..."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), pg. 74: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

""
There is in nature one most potent force, by means whereof single man, who could possess himself of it, and should know how to direct it, could revolutionize and change the face of the world.

This force was known to the ancients. It is a universal age whose supreme law is equilibrium; and whereby, if science can but learn how to control it, it will be possible to change the order of the Seasons, to produce in night the phenomena of day, to send a thought in an instant round the world, to heal or slay at a distance, to give our words universal success, a make them reverberate everywhere.

This agent, partially revealed by the blind guesses of the disciples of Mesmer, is precisely what the Adepts of the middle ages called the elementary matter of the great work. The Gnostics held that it composed the igneous body of the Holy Spirit; it was adored in the secret rites of the Sabbat or the Temple, under the hieroglyphic figure of Baphomet or the hermaphrodic goat of Mendes.
""
--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871): http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

Below are quotes from other high-level, highly influential, and highly regarded Masonic authors:

""
There exists in the world today, and has existed for thousands of years, a body of enlightened humans united in what might be termed, an Order of the Quest. It is composed of those whose intellectual and spiritual perceptions have revealed to them that civilization has secret destiny ...

The outcome of this "secret destiny" is a World Order ruled by a King with supernatural powers.

This King was descended of a divine race; that is, he belonged to the Order of the Illumined, for those who come to a state of wisdom then belong to a family of heroes--perfected human beings.
""
--Manly Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, The Secret Destiny of America (1958)

"Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity. ... an outer organization concealing an inner Brotherhood of the elect ... it is necessary to establish the existence of these two separate and yet interdependent orders, the one visible the other invisible. The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of 'free and accepted' men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic, and humanitarian concerns. The invisible society is a secret and most August fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious arcannum arcandrum."--Manley Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, pg. 433

"When The Mason learns that the Key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply this energy."--Manly Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, The Lost Keys Of Freemasonry, pg. 48

"I hereby promise the Great Spirit Lucifuge, Prince of Demons, that each year I will bring unto him a human soul to do with as it may please him, and in return Lucifuge promises to bestow upon me the treasures of the earth and fulfil my every desire for the length of my natural life. If I fail to bring him each year the offering specified above, then my own soul shall be forfeit to him. Signed ....... {Invocant signs pact with his own blood}"--Manly Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, The Secret Teachings of All Ages (1928), pg. CIV: http://web.archive.org/web/19981203083524/http://www.brotherblue.org/libers/manly.htm , http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven/Text/Magick/Misc/manly.txt

"Manly Hall's great work is a classic in the world's literature. It will guide historians, philosophers, and lay seekers of esoteric wisdom for centuries."--Edgar Mitchell, Sc.D., Apollo 14 Astronaut, on Manly Palmer Hall's The Secret Teachings of All Ages, published by The Philosophical Research Society (P.R.S.): http://www.prs.org/secret.htm

""
Illustrious Manly Palmer Hall, often called "Masonry's Greatest Philosopher" ...

Like Grand Commander Albert Pike before him, [Illustrious] Hall did not teach a new doctrine but was an ambassador of an ageless tradition of wisdom that enriches us to this day. ... The world is a far better place because of Manly Palmer Hall, and we are better persons for having known him and his work.
""
--Scottish Rite Journal, September 1990

"Lucifer comes to give us the final gift of wholeness. If we accept it, then he is free and we are free. That is the Luciferic initiation. It is one that many people now, and in the days ahead, will be facing, for it is an initiation into the New Age."--David Spangler, Director of United Nations Planetary Initiative, Reflections on the Christ (1978), pg. 45

The influence that these high-level occultist writers have had on recent history cannot be underestimated. For example, Hitler's obsession with the concept of the Aryan Race is very much an occultic doctrine which can be traced back to, in part, Madame Blavatsky's writings.

""
The true esoteric view about "Satan," the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled "The Secret of Satan," to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford's "Perfect Way." No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length: --

...

It is "Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god," and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity. For he is one with the Logos, "the first son, eldest of the gods," in the order of microcosmic (divine) evolution; Saturn (Satan), astronomically, "is the seventh and last in the order of macrocosmic emanation, being the circumference of the kingdom of which Phoebus (the light of wisdom, also the Sun) is the centre." The Gnostics were right, then, in calling the Jewish god "an angel of matter," or he who breathed (conscious) life into Adam, and he whose planet was Saturn.

34. "And God hath put a girdle about his loins (the rings of Saturn), and the name of the girdle is Death."

In anthropogony this "girdle" is the human body with its two lower principles, which three die, while the innermost man is immortal.
""
--Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, the "mother of the New Age movement," and 32° Freemason of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France, The Secret Doctrine (1888), Vol. II, pp. 233-235 (starting on a page entitled "HOLY SATAN"): http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm

"Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the 'Holy Ghost' and 'Satan,' at one and the same time, visible Space being truly filled with the differentiated Breath invisibly; and the Astral Light, the manifested effects of the two who are one, guided and attracted by ourselves, is the Karma of humanity, both a personal and impersonal entity: personal, because it is the mystic name given by St. Martin to the Host of divine Creators, guides and rulers of this planet; impersonal, as the Cause and effect of universal Life and Death."--Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, the "mother of the New Age movement," and 32° Freemason of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France, The Secret Doctrine (1888), Vol. II, pg. 513: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm

"First Conjuration Addressed to Emperor Lucifer. Emperor Lucifer, Master and Prince of Rebellious Spirits, I adjure thee to leave thine abode, in what-ever quarter of the world it may be situated and come hither to communicate with me."--Arthur Edward Waite, 33° Freemason, The Book of Black Magic, pg. 244

"For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim."--Aleister Crowley, "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Magick in Theory and Practice (Castle Books, 1929), pg. 95

"Those magicians who object to the use of blood have endeavoured to replace it with incense ... But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is best."--Aleister Crowley, "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Magick in Theory and Practice (Castle Books, 1929)

""
I bind my blood in Satan's hands,
All this that lieth betwixt my hands.
To thee, the Beast, and thy control,
I pledge me; body, mind, and soul.
""
--Aleister Crowley, "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Satanic Extracts (Black Lodge Publishing, 1991), pg. 3

""
I swear to work my Work abhorred,
Careless of all but one reward,
The pleasure of the Devil our Lord.
""
--Aleister Crowley "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Satanic Extracts (Black Lodge Publishing, 1991), pg. 4

[Quinn]

Yet more inane rationalizations for her lunacy that aren’t worth reading.

Let’s see now. What specific example of madness shall we cite:


Picture a person on a high dose of acid at the beginning of their trip and wherein they are experiencing a good trip up to that point, and the uncontrollable laughter which they display. Step it down a few degrees (because I am not presently on acid, unfortunately), and you will have a good idea of my laughter.

I am the laughing Buddha. I am the one who knows the beginning from the end. I am the one who can laugh at all the pain of the world, because I know wherefrom we come and where it is that we go. I know our true nature.

[Jamie Michelle]

Yet more inane rationalizations for her lunacy that aren’t worth reading.

Let’s see now. What specific example of madness shall we cite:


This coming from you, Quinn, when you don't even know how quotation works.




Picture a person on a high dose of acid at the beginning of their trip and wherein they are experiencing a good trip up to that point, and the uncontrollable laughter which they display. Step it down a few degrees (because I am not presently on acid, unfortunately), and you will have a good idea of my laughter.

I am the laughing Buddha. I am the one who knows the beginning from the end. I am the one who can laugh at all the pain of the world, because I know wherefrom we come and where it is that we go. I know our true nature.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/files/birds_of_a_feather_208.jpg


I see you like trying to equate an innocent and peaceful person such as myself to Theodore Kaczynski, who was convicted in the Unabom case and who was an Office of Strategic Services (OSS; later to become the CIA) mind-control subject; this being done by you because you dislike the truths I speak. Not only is this a fallacious analogy on your part, but it is also argumentum ad hominem, of which is a logical fallacy. You have repeatedly demonstrated yourself to have a great yen to be fallacious.

For more on Kaczynski being an OSS mind-control subject, see the below articles:

"Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber," Alston Chase, Atlantic Monthly, June 2000, Vol. 285, No. 6, pp. 41-65:

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/unabomber%20article.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/06/chase.htm

"We're Reaping Tragic Legacy From Drugs; Culture: From government LSD experiments to overuse of drugs like Ritalin, the consequences are overwhelming," Alexander Cockburn, Los Angeles Times, July 6, 1999, Metro, Part B, Page 5:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/99/07/Kaczynski1.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/tedk.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/ciashrinks.html

[Quinn]

Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah!

For our next oh so humorous demonstration of insanity, I submit the following:


Yes, I understand that me being a flaming faggot makes some people uncomfortable. But so also, it gets me off in knowing that.

The reason is because God has chosen me to be an Archetype. I am that thing which so-called "staight" ideologues fears most.

I literally can't stop laughing over this one. Thanks for that.

-Quinn

P.S. It looks like your ship has finally come in:

[Jamie Michelle]

Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah!

For our next oh so humorous demonstration of insanity, I submit the following:


This coming from you, Quinn, when you don't even know how quotation works.




Yes, I understand that me being a flaming faggot makes some people uncomfortable. But so also, it gets me off in knowing that.

The reason is because God has chosen me to be an Archetype. I am that thing which so-called "staight" ideologues fears most.

I literally can't stop laughing over this one. Thanks for that.

-Quinn

P.S. It looks like your ship has finally come in:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/files/ship_of_fools_101.jpg


I'm glad you can't stop laughing over that quote by me. It's great when us faggots can get together on a fabulous forum for faggots like this one and have a grand ole gay time talking about some of our most beloved faggoty topics, e.g., cocks, testicles, cum, genetic males making themselves look feminine, etc. It's great to see that you're such a happy faggot who can have a good laugh over your faggotry.

Although I see you like trying to equate an innocent and peaceful person such as myself to Theodore Kaczynski, who was convicted in the Unabom case and who was an Office of Strategic Services (OSS; later to become the CIA) mind-control subject; this being done by you because you dislike the truths I speak. Not only is this a fallacious analogy on your part, but it is also argumentum ad hominem, of which is a logical fallacy. You have repeatedly demonstrated yourself to have a great yen to be fallacious.

For more on Kaczynski being an OSS mind-control subject, see the below articles:

"Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber," Alston Chase, Atlantic Monthly, June 2000, Vol. 285, No. 6, pp. 41-65:

http://www.newsmakingnews.com/unabomber%20article.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/06/chase.htm

"We're Reaping Tragic Legacy From Drugs; Culture: From government LSD experiments to overuse of drugs like Ritalin, the consequences are overwhelming," Alexander Cockburn, Los Angeles Times, July 6, 1999, Metro, Part B, Page 5:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/99/07/Kaczynski1.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/tedk.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/ciashrinks.html

[Quinn]

More of the same drivel.

More of your insanity to amuse us:


government is a thouroughly Satanical institution, with the govenments being owned and controlled by Satan. Thus, the government's left-hand side would be the same as Satan's left-hand side, since governments are purely a tool of Satan--in other words, the advocates of laissez-faire are disfavored by Satan. So from the reference point of Jesus Christ's hands, the advocates of laissez-faire would be on Jesus' right-hand side.

-Quinn

P.S. Drink up:

[Jamie Michelle]

More of the same drivel.

More of your insanity to amuse us:


This coming from you, Quinn, when you don't even know how quotation works.




government is a thouroughly Satanical institution, with the govenments being owned and controlled by Satan. Thus, the government's left-hand side would be the same as Satan's left-hand side, since governments are purely a tool of Satan--in other words, the advocates of laissez-faire are disfavored by Satan. So from the reference point of Jesus Christ's hands, the advocates of laissez-faire would be on Jesus' right-hand side.

-Quinn

P.S. Drink up:

The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 in France. When the French Estates-General (États-Généraux) met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was under King Louis XIII from October 27, 1614 to February 23, 1615.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, all drugs to be legal, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

The term "liberal" as it is commonly used today is purely and simply a misnomer meaning the opposite of what it originally meant, as those commonly called "liberals" today are about giving government more power, not in stripping government of power. Those commonly called "liberals" today are in fact *right-wing conservatives* in the original sense of that political term. So also, socialism and communism are exceedingly *right-wing* and *conservative* political philosophies, as they put all power into the hands of government, rather than strip government of power.

I should also mention the reasoning of the French kings for seating the Third Estate commoners on their left and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy on their right during the meetings of the Estates-General. The French kings were making an intentional allusion to the words of Jesus Christ recorded in Matthew 25:31-46 from the New Testament.

Matthew 25:31-33: [Jesus Christ:] "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. ..."

Hence, the French kings had their favored and supportive constituency sit to their right, while they had their disfavored constituency (i.e., the common masses) sit on their left.

But as my article "Jesus Is an Anarchist" (revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf ) shows, government is a thouroughly Satanical institution, with the govenments being owned and controlled by Satan. Thus, the government's left-hand side would be the same as Satan's left-hand side, since governments are purely a tool of Satan--in other words, the advocates of laissez-faire are disfavored by Satan. So from the reference point of Jesus Christ's hands, the advocates of laissez-faire would be on Jesus' right-hand side.

You'll see allusions to Matthew 25:31-46 coming up in other contexts, as well. This is the reason black magickians refer to themselves as followers of the "Left Hand Path," and the reason why they use the image of the goat in many of their representations of Satan.

Jesus and the New Testament teach that Satan (a.k.a. Samael*) is the god of this world and that Satan is the ultimate ruler over all of the earthly governments, and that Jesus in His Second Coming is to utterly abolish all forms of mortal government and destory all of the mortal rulers of the earth, making the truth-seekers in this world absolute self-rulers and kings of their own domain upon the earth.

It's interesting to note that the Satanists also recognize Satan as being the god of this world--to quote Madame Blavatsky (i.e., the Mother of the New Age movement), 32° of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France and founder of the Theosophical Society, on this, "It is 'Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god,' and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity." That quote is opposite a page entitled "HOLY SATAN" in her book The Secret Doctrine (1888), Vol. II, pg. 234. For many more such quotes from highly regarded, high-level Masonic authors, see further below.

Indeed, the Yezidis, most of whom are in Iraq, and who quite literally worship Lucifer, likewise recognize Lucifer as the god and ruler of the Earth. Their religion has existed since at least the 12th century. For more on that, see "Sympathy for the devil in a land where Lucifer reigns," Lynne O'Donnell, Irish Times, April 21, 2003 ( http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2003/0421/4209123277FR21LUCIFER.html ).

Directly below is the New Testament doctrine on this matter:

1 Corinthians 2:6-8: However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [NKJV, as below.]

1 Corinthians 15:23,24: But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

2 Corinthians 4:3,4: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Ephesians 6:12: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Luke 4:5-8: Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."

And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'" [See also Matt. 4:8-10.]

Revelation 13:2: Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon [Satan] gave him his power, his throne, and great authority [i.e., over all the governments of the earth].

John 12:31: [Jesus:] "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out."

John 14:30: [Jesus:] "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me."

John 16:8-11: [Jesus:] "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged."

Revelation 19:19-21: And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest [i.e., all the kings of the earth and their armies] were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

To properly understand the context of all of what is presented within this post, see my below article, first published at Anti-State.com:

"Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (originally published at Anti-State.com on December 19, 2001):

http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

Satanism is quite literally the religion of the ruling elite, and the religion of the highest levels of Freemasonry. Although most Freemasons are simply dues-paying dupes who don't know that Freemasonry the highest levels is Lucifer-worship (see further below for more on that).

To begin with, see the below very important article series which contains extensive documentation on the child sex-slave and snuff-film rings run by the globalist elite:

"The Pedophocracy," Parts I through VI, by David McGowan, Center for an Informed America ( http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com ), August 2001:

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo1.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo2.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo3.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo4.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo5.html
http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/pedo6.html

Concerning the hidden video caught by journalist Alex Jones of a dark occultic ritual performed every year at Bohemian Grove, see:

http://www.infowars.com/bg1.html

See also the full video Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove by journalist and documentary film-maker Alex Jones, which you can view in full for free below:

Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove:

http://www.archive.org/details/DSIBG

Additionally, you can view clip excerpts Part 1 and Part 2 of Jon Ronson's documentary Secret Rulers of the World, which also documents Alex Jones' infiltration of Bohemian Grove, at the below link:

http://www.sacredcow.com/allnew/index_content.php?n=multimedia_video_alex

Below can be found audio and a transcript of ABC News' Monday, April 23, 2001 World News Tonight with anchor Peter Jennings program concerning nightvision video secretly captured on Saturday, April 14, 2001 by New York Observer reporter Ron Rosenbaum of an occultic ritual conducted by the Brotherhood of Death at Yale:

"April 23, 2001 ABC News Report on Hidden Video Captured of Skull & Bones Ritual," PsyOp911, October 4, 2005:

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/skull-and-bones-2001-04-23-abc-report.html

Also revealing, on the Nixon tapes from May 13, 1971, Nixon says of Bohemian Grove:

""
"But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco."
""

(From "All The Philosopher King's Men--President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman," James Warren, Harper's Magazine, February 2000 http://www.prisonplanet.com/032604nixontape.html .)

Here's another interesting article on Bohemian Grove:

"Gay Porn Star Serves Moguls," New York Post, July 22, 2004:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/220704gaypornstar.htm

Yet the Bush patriarchs just can't get enough of Bohemian Grove. Concerning Bush, Sr.'s connection with a "faggy goddamned thing" (to quote Nixon again) not just at Bohemian Grove, but in the White House, see the below Washington Times article:

"Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush: 'Call boys' took midnight tour of White House," Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald, Washington Times, June 29, 1989:

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/wtpage1smaller.gif

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/WTpage1.gif

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/WTpage2.gif

The below documentary, Conspiracy of Silence, was produced by Yorkshire Television (U.K.) under contract by the Discovery Channel. The documentary was scheduled to air nation-wide in the U.S. on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994. It was listed in the April 30th-May 6th edition of TV Guide and in newspapers for that day.

This documentary exposed a network of business leaders, Washington politicians and other high officials involved in a child sex-slave ring that flew children to Washington, D.C. and elsewhere in the U.S. for sex orgies. This documentary film turned out to be very presciently named, because close to the time before airing, various congressmen threatened the cable TV industry with restrictive legislation if this documentary was aired. Almost immediately, the rights to the documentary were purchased for some half-million dollars by unnamed persons who ordered all copies destroyed. A copy of the rough-edited version of the film was furnished anonymously to attorney and former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp, among others.

Former CIA Director William E. Colby is also interviewed on the documentary Conspiracy of Silence, wherein William E. Colby backs up the legitimacy of these charges and also talks about the real risks of assassination that John DeCamp faces for taking up this case (other investigators into the Franklin, Nebraska child sex-slave scandal were assassinated).

Below is an RM file (33.3 MB) of Conspiracy of Silence:

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/conspiracyofsilence56k.rm

You can download this same video in the below higher resolution format. Windows media (39.6 MB):

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/conspiracyofsilence2.wmv

Conspiracy of Silence doesn't attempt to go into the Satanic and human-sacrifice angle of the Franklin incident, although that is very much part of this case, as this case is directly connected to Bohemian Grove and other child sex-slave rings. For more on this aspect, see the below book by former State Senator John DeCamp:

The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska by John W. DeCamp (AWT, 2nd edition, December 1, 1996), ISBN: 0963215809:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0963215809/

One of the best introductions to the background and subsequent cover-up of the above film, Conspiracy of Silence, is from the below excerpts from the book The Franklin Cover-Up by former State Senator John DeCamp, wherein he also talks about his relationship to former CIA Director William E. Colby (who himself was assassinated, as the evidence demonstrates). Do a search for "Yorkshire" to go directly to the section concerning this film:

http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/coverups/decamp.html

http://mysite.users2.50megs.com/coverups/decamp.html

One of the victims, Paul Bonacci, testified in court to being forced into depraved sexual acts with men and other boys, including snuff films made at Bohemian Grove, with U.S. Senior District Judge Warren K. Urbom presiding. Bonacci won the court case and was awarded one million dollars by Judge Urbom.

Below is the text of the ruling by Judge Warren K. Urbom mentioned above:

Paul A. Bonacci, Plaintiff vs Lawrence E. King, Defendant, 4:CV91-3037, Memorandum of Decision Filed February 22, 1999:

http://www.raven1.net/ra1.htm

Below you can read more on the above case. Scroll down to the section entitled "Snuff kiddie porn at Bohemian Grove," where you can read a transcript of an interview of former State Senator John DeCamp:

Bohemian Grove Dirt:

http://www.geocities.com/bohemian_grove_dirt/

For much, much more on this subject, see the below post by me:

Re:National Geographic kicks creationist asses
« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2004, 11:31:40 AM »

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=11993;st art=40

##############################

* http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6712/levibaphomet7gi.gif
Freemason writer Eliphas Levi's head of Baphomet, i.e., the Devil, or Satan. Here's an interesting quote from Eliphas Levi:

"What is more absurd and more impious than to attribute the name of Lucifer to the devil, that is, to personified evil. The intellectual Lucifer is the spirit of intelligence and love; it is the paraclete, it is the Holy Spirit, while the physical Lucifer is the great agent of universal magnetism."--Eliphas Levi, Freemason of the Grand Orient of France, The Mysteries of Magic, pg. 428

Albert Pike's magnum opus, Morals and Dogma, is still pased out to members of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in the U.S., and he has been termed by a number of well known Masonic authors as the Plato of Freemasonry, and even the Masonic Pope. Here are some interesting quotes of Albert Pike from his book Morals and Dogma:

"LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darknesss! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!"--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), "19°—Grand Pontiff," pg. 321: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

What's particularly interesting about Albert Pike's above quote, beyond his praising Lucifer, is that in said quote Pike is asserting that Freemasonry at the highest levels is Luciferianism, since Pike identifies Lucifer as the bearer of the "Light" which is the goal of Freemasonry. As Albert Pike says of this "Light" below:

"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled, to conceal the truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), pg. 104: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

As Albert Pike further states:

"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry ... It is well enough for the mass of those called Masons, to imagine that all is contained in the Blue Degrees; and whoso attempts to undeceive them will labor in vain."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871): http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

"Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instruction in religion."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), pg. 213: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

"If your wife, child, or friend should ask you anything about your invitation--as for instance, if your clothes were taken off, if you were blind folded, if you had a rope tied around you neck, etc., you must conceal ... hence of course you must deliberately lie about it. It is part of your obligation ..."--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871), pg. 74: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

""
There is in nature one most potent force, by means whereof single man, who could possess himself of it, and should know how to direct it, could revolutionize and change the face of the world.

This force was known to the ancients. It is a universal age whose supreme law is equilibrium; and whereby, if science can but learn how to control it, it will be possible to change the order of the Seasons, to produce in night the phenomena of day, to send a thought in an instant round the world, to heal or slay at a distance, to give our words universal success, a make them reverberate everywhere.

This agent, partially revealed by the blind guesses of the disciples of Mesmer, is precisely what the Adepts of the middle ages called the elementary matter of the great work. The Gnostics held that it composed the igneous body of the Holy Spirit; it was adored in the secret rites of the Sabbat or the Temple, under the hieroglyphic figure of Baphomet or the hermaphrodic goat of Mendes.
""
--Albert Pike, 33° Freemason and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council 33° (Southern Jurisidiction, U.S.A.), Morals and Dogma (1871): http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html , http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/index.htm

Below are quotes from other high-level, highly influential, and highly regarded Masonic authors:

""
There exists in the world today, and has existed for thousands of years, a body of enlightened humans united in what might be termed, an Order of the Quest. It is composed of those whose intellectual and spiritual perceptions have revealed to them that civilization has secret destiny ...

The outcome of this "secret destiny" is a World Order ruled by a King with supernatural powers.

This King was descended of a divine race; that is, he belonged to the Order of the Illumined, for those who come to a state of wisdom then belong to a family of heroes--perfected human beings.
""
--Manly Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, The Secret Destiny of America (1958)

"Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity. ... an outer organization concealing an inner Brotherhood of the elect ... it is necessary to establish the existence of these two separate and yet interdependent orders, the one visible the other invisible. The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of 'free and accepted' men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic, and humanitarian concerns. The invisible society is a secret and most August fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious arcannum arcandrum."--Manley Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, pg. 433

"When The Mason learns that the Key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply this energy."--Manly Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, The Lost Keys Of Freemasonry, pg. 48

"I hereby promise the Great Spirit Lucifuge, Prince of Demons, that each year I will bring unto him a human soul to do with as it may please him, and in return Lucifuge promises to bestow upon me the treasures of the earth and fulfil my every desire for the length of my natural life. If I fail to bring him each year the offering specified above, then my own soul shall be forfeit to him. Signed ....... {Invocant signs pact with his own blood}"--Manly Palmer Hall, 33° Freemason, The Secret Teachings of All Ages (1928), pg. CIV: http://web.archive.org/web/19981203083524/http://www.brotherblue.org/libers/manly.htm , http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven/Text/Magick/Misc/manly.txt

"Manly Hall's great work is a classic in the world's literature. It will guide historians, philosophers, and lay seekers of esoteric wisdom for centuries."--Edgar Mitchell, Sc.D., Apollo 14 Astronaut, on Manly Palmer Hall's The Secret Teachings of All Ages, published by The Philosophical Research Society (P.R.S.): http://www.prs.org/secret.htm

""
Illustrious Manly Palmer Hall, often called "Masonry's Greatest Philosopher" ...

Like Grand Commander Albert Pike before him, [Illustrious] Hall did not teach a new doctrine but was an ambassador of an ageless tradition of wisdom that enriches us to this day. ... The world is a far better place because of Manly Palmer Hall, and we are better persons for having known him and his work.
""
--Scottish Rite Journal, September 1990

"Lucifer comes to give us the final gift of wholeness. If we accept it, then he is free and we are free. That is the Luciferic initiation. It is one that many people now, and in the days ahead, will be facing, for it is an initiation into the New Age."--David Spangler, Director of United Nations Planetary Initiative, Reflections on the Christ (1978), pg. 45

The influence that these high-level occultist writers have had on recent history cannot be underestimated. For example, Hitler's obsession with the concept of the Aryan Race is very much an occultic doctrine which can be traced back to, in part, Madame Blavatsky's writings.

""
The true esoteric view about "Satan," the opinion held on this subject by the whole philosophic antiquity, is admirably brought out in an appendix, entitled "The Secret of Satan," to the second edition of Dr. A. Kingsford's "Perfect Way." No better and clearer indication of the truth could be offered to the intelligent reader, and it is therefore quoted here at some length: --

...

It is "Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god," and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity. For he is one with the Logos, "the first son, eldest of the gods," in the order of microcosmic (divine) evolution; Saturn (Satan), astronomically, "is the seventh and last in the order of macrocosmic emanation, being the circumference of the kingdom of which Phoebus (the light of wisdom, also the Sun) is the centre." The Gnostics were right, then, in calling the Jewish god "an angel of matter," or he who breathed (conscious) life into Adam, and he whose planet was Saturn.

34. "And God hath put a girdle about his loins (the rings of Saturn), and the name of the girdle is Death."

In anthropogony this "girdle" is the human body with its two lower principles, which three die, while the innermost man is immortal.
""
--Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, the "mother of the New Age movement," and 32° Freemason of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France, The Secret Doctrine (1888), Vol. II, pp. 233-235 (starting on a page entitled "HOLY SATAN"): http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm

"Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the 'Holy Ghost' and 'Satan,' at one and the same time, visible Space being truly filled with the differentiated Breath invisibly; and the Astral Light, the manifested effects of the two who are one, guided and attracted by ourselves, is the Karma of humanity, both a personal and impersonal entity: personal, because it is the mystic name given by St. Martin to the Host of divine Creators, guides and rulers of this planet; impersonal, as the Cause and effect of universal Life and Death."--Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, the "mother of the New Age movement," and 32° Freemason of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France, The Secret Doctrine (1888), Vol. II, pg. 513: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm

"First Conjuration Addressed to Emperor Lucifer. Emperor Lucifer, Master and Prince of Rebellious Spirits, I adjure thee to leave thine abode, in what-ever quarter of the world it may be situated and come hither to communicate with me."--Arthur Edward Waite, 33° Freemason, The Book of Black Magic, pg. 244

"For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim."--Aleister Crowley, "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Magick in Theory and Practice (Castle Books, 1929), pg. 95

"Those magicians who object to the use of blood have endeavoured to replace it with incense ... But the bloody sacrifice, though more dangerous, is more efficacious; and for nearly all purposes human sacrifice is best."--Aleister Crowley, "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Magick in Theory and Practice (Castle Books, 1929)

""
I bind my blood in Satan's hands,
All this that lieth betwixt my hands.
To thee, the Beast, and thy control,
I pledge me; body, mind, and soul.
""
--Aleister Crowley, "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Satanic Extracts (Black Lodge Publishing, 1991), pg. 3

""
I swear to work my Work abhorred,
Careless of all but one reward,
The pleasure of the Devil our Lord.
""
--Aleister Crowley "The Beast 666," 33° Freemason, Satanic Extracts (Black Lodge Publishing, 1991), pg. 4

[Quinn]

More of your dipshit nonsense:


I've researched the Bible backwards and forwards, inside and outside. As I've explained before in previous writings of mine, I don't regard the Torah to be the uncorrupted word of God--as I previously explained, I have strong reason to believe that many parts of it were corrupted by Satan's governmental minions here on earth; and I'm forced to that conclusion based upon what the Old Testement itself has to say on this matter (if you need me to repost my reasons for coming to this conclusion I can do so).

I regard all of the Kosher laws, and etc., to be later inserts by Satan's governmental minions here on earth in order to distance people from true knowledge of God


I almost forgot the one that made me laugh hardest of all:


God, I love being a faggot. I'm a cross-dressing, cum-sucking, dick-riding sissy faggot.

Plus I adore fucking pussy more proficiently than any other man alive.

Good stuff. Pure hilarity. Thanks again for the laugh filled trip into loony land.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

More of your dipshit nonsense:


I've researched the Bible backwards and forwards, inside and outside. As I've explained before in previous writings of mine, I don't regard the Torah to be the uncorrupted word of God--as I previously explained, I have strong reason to believe that many parts of it were corrupted by Satan's governmental minions here on earth; and I'm forced to that conclusion based upon what the Old Testement itself has to say on this matter (if you need me to repost my reasons for coming to this conclusion I can do so).

I regard all of the Kosher laws, and etc., to be later inserts by Satan's governmental minions here on earth in order to distance people from true knowledge of God


Continuing from the above:

I've researched the Bible backwards and forwards, inside and outside. As I've explained before in previous writings of mine, I don't regard the Torah to be the uncorrupted word of God--as I previously explained, I have strong reason to believe that many parts of it were corrupted by Satan's governmental minions here on earth; and I'm forced to that conclusion based upon what the Old Testement itself has to say on this matter (if you need me to repost my reasons for coming to this conclusion I can do so).

I regard all of the Kosher laws, and etc., to be later inserts by Satan's governmental minions here on earth in order to distance people from true knowledge of God, as they are completely irrational and arbitrary (such as requiring any Israelite picking up twigs on a Sabbath to be stoned to death--see Numb. 15:32-36; Exo. 31:12-17; 35:1-3). Whereas the commandments of Jesus Christ are completely logical and rational: quite simply put, do on to others as you would have others do on to you, for that is the *totality* of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus never heaped so much scorn as He did upon those teaching and practicing the so-called "Law of Moses" (which we have no true knowledge of as it has been corrupted). All of Jesus's rebukes of "lawyers" were rebukes upon those teaching and practicing the so-called "Law of Moses" (which in Israel at the time was part of the actual positive law, in addition to the Roman law). Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, but as I've explained before, the so-called "Law of Moses" has been corrupted (based upon what the Old Testament itself has to say on this matter), and so we have no direct knowledge of what that law actually is--the only genuine knowledge that we have of that *real* Law is in what Jesus Christ had to say regarding it. And Jesus stated in no uncertain terms that what we nowadays call the Golden Rule is the fulfillment of the totality of the Law (i.e., the real Law of Moses). Jesus had nothing but scorn for those trying to enforce the so-called "Law of Moses" as it has come to be passed down to us.

But even on its own terms, all of the so-called "Law of Moses" as found in the Torah of the Old Testament explicitly and specifically *only* applies to the *Israelites* and those Gentiles living among them *in Israel*. Over and over again in the Torah the laws given out are specifically given out to *only* the Israelites and those Gentiles living among them in Israel to follow, in order to seperate and differentiate them from the Gentiles living in Gentile lands. None of these laws were given to or intended for Genitles not living in Israel to follow in the first place! For example:

Exodus 34:27,28: Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Leviticus 18:1,2: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them ..."

Leviticus 20:1,2: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: 'Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel ...'"

Deuteronomy 4:1: "Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. ..."

Deuteronomy 4:44,45: Now this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel. These are the testimonies, the statutes, and the judgments which Moses spoke to the children of Israel after they came out of Egypt, ...

Malachi 4:4:
"Remember the Law of Moses, My servant,
Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel,
With the statutes and judgments. ..."

So even on its own terms, the Torah laws in the Old Testament were never intended to be applied to Gentiles living in Gentile lands!

The Torah (i.e., the first five books of the Old Testament, or the so-called "Law of Moses") as it has come to be passed down to us does require death by stoning (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13) for Israelite men laying with other men as with a woman (although not for women with other women), and calls it "an abomination"--but otherwise has nothing more to say regarding this matter. This is particulary significant, as the Torah actually has worse things to say about those who break the Kosher laws, e.g., for those eating squid, or octopus, etc. Leviticus 11:10-12 (see also Deut. 14:9) tells us that all the things is the sea without fins or scales shall be "an abomination to you." In other words, eating squid, or octopus, etc., is an abomination. But the Torah actually goes much further than what it says about male Israelite (but not female) homosexuality regarding this matter. Leviticus 20:25 says that Israelites shall not make their *souls* abominable by breaking any of the Kosher laws--which is a warning far more damning than the one on male Israelite homosexuality, since presumably making one's *soul* abominable would have reprocutions in the after-life (although the concept of an after-life is only found in subsequent Old Testament books after the Torah)--whereas one pays by a stoning death for the "sin" of Israelite male (but not female) homosexuality in the present life. The Torah also has the same thing to say about those Israelites who crossdress as it does about male homosexuality (see Deut. 22:5), although this stricture doesn't seem to call for the death penalty; but again, that brings us right back to my previous analysis of the Kosher laws.

But I wouldn't even go so far as to call these Torah stictures attempts at morality, as Exodus 22:16 tells us that an Israelite man who beds an unmarried virgin must pay the bride-price to her father. But it has absolutely nothing to say about male virgins who lose their virginity by fornication. In other words, as far as the Torah is concerned, it's alright for an unmarried male to "sleep" around, so long as he's not doing it with virgins (in which case he's required to pay the bride-price to her father). So a lot of these supposed "morality" laws actually have more to do with simple economics--since a married man wants to insure that the child that he's raising is actually his, etc.; hence the double-standard between men and women "sleeping" around--and also the reason why a male who beds a virgin in fornication must pay her father the bride-price, since a virgin daughter is worth money to her father, whereas a tramp is not (due to the reason that marrying men want to insure that the child that thay are to raise is actually their own, and not some other man's). That's not morality, that's just plain economics and self-interest. The Bible actually has a lot of good things to say about some prostitutes--see the story about Rahab the prostitute, starting at Joshua chapter 2 (see also Matt. 1:5; James 2:25; Heb. 11:31). Jesus is a decendant of Rehab the prostitute (see Matt 1:5), as is David, the second king of Israel (who Jesus is decended from).

Paul had a few apparently negative things to say about homosexuality in the New Testament. See Romans 1:26,27--but in the context that Paul is writing about it is apparent that he is talking about pagan ritualistic sex-magick (see Romans 1:18-25). Nor does he say that homosexuality in of itself is something which jeopardizes one's soul. He says that's it's "against nature" and "the natural use" and "shameful"--but he's writing this in the context of pagan ritualistic sex-magick. But if one wants to contend that he meant homosexuality in of itself, then one would also have to contend that a man having long hair, or a woman having short har, is likewise also "shameful" and against "nature" (see 1 Cor. 11:6; 11:14). Which would mean that he must consider Samson to be "shameful" and against "nature" (see Judges chapters 13-16, particularly 16:16-19; and see also Num. 6:5). But even on the issue of long hair on men and short hair on women, Paul ended the matter by saying "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God" (see 1 Cor. 11:16)--thus making it clear that Paul sometimes simply let his own personal prejudices dictate what he regarded as "shameful" in his writings. Paul had more servere things to say about *catamites* (sometimes translated as homosexuals, etc.) in 1 Corinthians 6:9, saying that they won't inherit the Kingdom of God; but a catamite is a boy kept by a pedarast--often by no choice of the boy, especially at that time--and so I hardly see how the catamite could have any choice in the matter.

But it must be remembered that Paul is merely human, and so suffered from the prejudices of his time. He was often inspired by the Holy Spirit, but he was by no means infalible like Jesus Christ. Proof that the apostles were not infalible (even after they had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit) comes from the New Testament itself. See Galatians 2:11-21, where Paul strongly rebukes Peter for Peter's error in teaching that people still had to obey the so-called "Law of Moses"--and this is after the apostles had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:1-4)! So obviously the apostles were not incapable of error, even after having been given the Holy Spirit. But Paul also said that "love is the fulfillment of the law" (see Rom.13:8-10), and "all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' " (that "one word" being: "love")--see Galations 5:14.

Jesus Himself never had anything to say about homosexuality (or crossdressing), which I'm sure He would have if it had been at all important. Beyond this, the Bible has nothing more to say regarding the matter.

When Jesus said of Himself "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6), He was there being as literal as it is possible to be. In other words, "Jesus" is a synonym for *the Truth*--although also a real person that walked this earth. Jesus is the ultimate personification on this earth of the truth. I believe that there have existed many true Christians who haven't even heard of the name "Jesus."

What is the Way? Jesus told us what the Way is: in all things do on to others as you would have others do on to you (Matt. 5:17,18; 7:12; Luke 6:31). An equivalent formulation of this is love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 19:19; 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28). Another equivalent formulation of this is Jesus's Commandment that we love one another as He has loved us (John 15:12,17; 13:15,34,35; 1 John 3:11,12,23; 4:11,20,21). Everything that Jesus ever commanded people to do can be logically reduced back to this one principle--even with adultry starting in the heart: for example, just as you would not like it if (outside of an open relationship) every time a good-looking woman passsed by your man he was thinking about how it would be to get with her, so also you should give him the same respect as regards other men (or whatever gender).

Jesus said that there are only two requirements for a person to receive eternal life (Luke 10:25-28):

""
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"

So he answered and said, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and "your neighbor as yourself."'

And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."
""

But the above two requirements actually logically reduces to only one requirement: to love your neighbor as yourself. As Jesus said anything that we do to any of the least of His brothren we do on to Him (Matt. 25:31-46). So if we truly love each other then we automatically love God as well.

What is the Truth? Jesus is the Truth: wherever you find truth there also you will find Jesus.

But, people may ask: what about the holocausts, genocides, and wars, etc., that have continuously plagued mankind--that's truth, i.e., they really happen, they exist, and they're real; is Jesus these things? And I would answer that those things certainly exist and that we need to come to terms with them if we are to ever overcome them--but: what is it that allowed these grim truths to be brought into existence in the first place? In short: lies, deceit, fraud, and willful ignorance--and all on a massive scale. It was only people's lack of belief in Jesus (Truth) in the first place which would inevitably lead to the above--without this departure from the truth happining first, the others could not have happened.

And so what's the most important truth which one could possibly grasp? The answer is: the Way. 1 John 2:10: "He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him." All other truth pales in comparision to this one principle. Love is fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:13,14). This is the Perfect Law of Liberty and the Royal Law (James 1:25; 2:8-12). If one grasps nothing else other than this then one will have grasped enough. All the injustices and societal problems which so plagues mankind stem from people's failure to abide by this one principle.

And so Jesus is the Way and the Truth: if you abide in these things then you will have the Life (Luke 10:25-28).

But what if we don't; what if we may fail at some point, because we are human? Is all lost? As it is written:

Romans 3:23: [F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I don't think it's too controversial to say that any typical human who is at the comprehension level to understand the above verse has already violated the Golden Rule (of which *is* sin), even if in just his own heart.

But to answer my above question: no, naught is lost, because if we confess the truth and ask God for forgiveness and believe that we have forgiveness then we will have forgiveness (Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38,39; 26:18; Rom. 10:9). This is why belief in Jesus as an actual person sent by God can be so vital.

But what about John writing:

2 John 1:7: [M]any deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

But what else did John himself write about this matttar?: 1 John 2:10: "He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him."

Jesus did come in the flesh, but what did Jesus have to say about Himself?: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6.)

In other words, Truth did come to the earth in the existential sense, and does exist on this earth, and can be known--as opposed to the moral relativism of Pontius Pilate (John 18:38).

Based upon my research into people's so-called "near-death experiences" (I don't really like this term, because most of the times when these experiences happen it is after a person undergoes clinical death and shows no vital signs, and so a more accurate term for these people would be "after-death experience"), this is a spiritual truism for the afterlife: birds of a feather flock together. That is, depending on where one's mind-set is at upon death, in the afterlife one will be associated with people of like mind-set. Hell is very real--Hell exists. But rather than a sharp either/or Heaven/Hell, it is probably more appropriate to think of the afterlife as many levels between the deepest, darkest pits of Hell and the most glorious basking in the presence of the love and light of God--i.e., as a continuum between these extremes (although the extremes themselves certainly exist [although I believe both are probably infinite in either direction], and one can be caught up in either depending on one's spiritual development). Suicides typically report a Purgatory-like existence upon death, because they cannot see the light of God. For more on that, see:

http://www.near-death.com



I almost forgot the one that made me laugh hardest of all:


God, I love being a faggot. I'm a cross-dressing, cum-sucking, dick-riding sissy faggot.

Plus I adore fucking pussy more proficiently than any other man alive.

Good stuff. Pure hilarity. Thanks again for the laugh filled trip into loony land.

-Quinn

I'm glad you had a good laugh over that quote by me. It's great when us faggots can get together on a fabulous forum for faggots like this one and have a grand ole gay time talking about some of our most beloved faggoty topics, e.g., cocks, testicles, cum, genetic males making themselves look feminine, etc. It's great to see that you're such a happy faggot who can have a good laugh over your faggotry.

Concerning the latter part of your above quote of me, in order to learn how to stay hard for a long time (i.e., as long as you want), while at the same time obtaining full male multiple orgasms with ejaculation but with no refractory period, read my posts contained in the below link:

"How to Fuck Like a True Sex-God Stud," TetrahedronOmega, October 2, 2005:

http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21&mforum=libertyandtruth

You want to tell me something about the bible?

[Jamie Michelle]

You want to tell me something about the bible?

Sure. What did you want to know?

You want to tell me something about the bible?

Sure. What did you want to know?

I want to know what you think.

[Jamie Michelle]

You want to tell me something about the bible?

Sure. What did you want to know?

I want to know what you think.

Well, among other writings of mine concerning the Bible, see my above Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:03 pm post.

The following article is my main text on the Bible, published under my legal name (i.e., my boy name):

"Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (originally published at Anti-State.com on December 19, 2001):

http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

Also, below is my critique of the Old Testament (particularly the first five books of it) referenced in the introduction of my above Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:03 pm post, which was in response to a question by a forum poster some time ago:

##########

Chris:

""
Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
""

Much of it, Yes. Some of it, No. Chris, this is a complex issue which will require me to elaborate at length to do the subject justice, but bear with me as I think you might find the answer fascinating.

First of all, I consider that some parts of the Old Testament have been corrupted by governmental agents here on Earth--and the New Testament says that Satan controls all the kingdoms of this Earth. Specifically the first five books of the Bible in particular--known as the Law of Moses, or the Pentateuch, or also the Torah. I base this on what the Bible itself has to say.

For one thing, I do not actually believe for one moment that God changes His mind as to what's right and wrong. I consider all the Old Testament laws on animal sacrifices, the Kosher laws, etc., etc., to be later inserts by governmental minions in order to distance people from true knowledge of God--as well as to cause strife among people by getting them to worry about things which don't matter and causing them to be busybodies in other people's business. Jesus Himself absolutely railed against the Old Testament "Law"--at least as it had been passed down. Thus, consider this:

Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Matthew 7:12: [...] "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (See also Luke 6:31.)

When Jesus refers to the "Law" above He's referring to the Law of Moses--at least as it had come to be passed down. Yet by saying this Jesus was actually rebuking the Law of Moses!-- again, at least as it had come to be passed down--as any cursory reading of the Levitical, etc., laws on animal sacrifice and the Kosher laws, etc., etc., will show that they don't have the slightest thing to do with the Golden Rule--and most of them are totally antithetical to it.

And consider the following teaching by Jesus:

"There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man." (See also Matt. 15:11, 17-20.)

Thus it is clear that Jesus considered most of the Laws of Moses to be complete and utter nonsense! (At least as they have come to be passed down.) But in actuality, we have no actual knowledge of the original Law of Moses! (Which is why I kept saying "as they have come to be passed down.") The Bible itself teaches this! What we now know as the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible, i.e., the Law of Moses, was completely and utterly lost to the ancient Israelites--as well as any memory of what it might have once contained--and was only later "found" by employees of King Josiah.

Now as libertarians, given what we know about the operations of government, it seems more than a bit naive to think that they wouldn't take this golden opportunity to rewrite these five books to suite themselves. As well, the New Testament teaches that it is Satan which has power over all the governments of the world (see Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13; John 12:31; 14:30; 2 Cor. 4:3,4; Eph. 6:11,12). Thus, Satan's minions on Earth had all the opportunity in the world to corrupt the Law of Moses.

For Biblical proof that the Law of Moses was completely and utterly lost to the ancient Israelites--as well as any memory of what it might have once contained (including the ritual of Passover!--see below)--and was only later "found" by employees of King Josiah, consider the following Bible passages:

*******

Hilkiah Finds the Book of the Law:

2 Kings 22:3-23:3; 23:21-23:

2 Kings 22:3-20: Now it came to pass, in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan the scribe, the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, to the house of the LORD, saying: "Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may count the money which has been brought into the house of the LORD, which the doorkeepers have gathered from the people. And let them deliver it into the hand of those doing the work, who are the overseers in the house of the LORD; let them give it to those who are in the house of the LORD doing the work, to repair the damages of the house--to carpenters and builders and masons--and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house. However there need be no accounting made with them of the money delivered into their hand, because they deal faithfully."

Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. So Shaphan the scribe went to the king, bringing the king word, saying, "Your servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of those who do the work, who oversee the house of the LORD." Then Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it before the king.

Now it happened, when the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, that he tore his clothes. Then the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Achbor the son of Michaiah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king, saying, "Go, inquire of the LORD for me, for the people and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."

So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. (She dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter.) And they spoke with her. Then she said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, "Tell the man who sent you to Me, "Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants--all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read--because they have forsaken Me and burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the works of their hands. Therefore My wrath shall be aroused against this place and shall not be quenched."" But as for the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, in this manner you shall speak to him, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "Concerning the words which you have heard--because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants, that they would become a desolation and a curse, and you tore your clothes and wept before Me, I also have heard you," says the LORD. Surely, therefore, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace; and your eyes shall not see all the calamity which I will bring on this place.""' So they brought back word to the king.

2 Kings 23:1-3: Now the king sent them to gather all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to him. The king went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem--the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.

Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant.

2 Kings 23:21-23:Then the king commanded all the people, saying, "Keep the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant." Such a Passover surely had never been held since the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah. But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah this Passover was held before the LORD in Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 34:14,15,30; 35:18:

2 Chronicles 34:14-30: Now when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD given by Moses. Then Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan.

2 Chronicles 34:30: The king went up to the house of the LORD, with all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem--the priests and the Levites, and all the people, great and small. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.

2 Chronicles 35:18: There had been no Passover kept in Israel like that since the days of Samuel the prophet; and none of the kings of Israel had kept such a Passover as Josiah kept, with the priests and the Levites, all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

*******

Thus, I certainly cannot consider the whole Law of Moses to be trustworthy--especially in light of Jesus's own teachings on this matter! Although I do think that parts of the Torah were inspired by God, it's just that a lot of it appears to contain nonsense tacked-on to it by governmental minions. Specifically, I think the law of _lex talionis_ and proportional punishment (Exo. 21:22-25; Lev. 24:17-22) and repaying double-restitution (Exo. 22:2-4,7,9) in the Books of Moses were divinely inspired, as they look as if Rothbard himself could have written them (and no, I'm not saying that Rothbard is the Godhead, I'm simply saying that God's true laws are discoverable by reason).

Also, it seems clear that the animal sacrifices in the "Law of Moses" are just derived from earlier pagan human and animal sacrifice rituals, specifically sacrificing the firstborn of everything for fertility rites. Indeed, in some parts of the "Law of Moses" it even condones human sacrifice! Thus, consider the following:

Exodus 13:1,2: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine."

Exodus: 13:11-16: "And it shall be, when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and your fathers, and gives it to you, that you shall set apart to the LORD all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the LORD's. But every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. So it shall be, when your son asks you in time to come, saying, "What is this?' that you shall say to him, "By strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all males that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.' It shall be as a sign on your hand and as frontlets between your eyes, for by strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt."

*******

Now in the above it talks about "redeeming" the firstborn of the human males by sacrificing animals in their place, but in the below passage it doesn't mention anything about "redeeming" the firstborn sons with animals!:

Exodus 22:29,30: "You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. Likewise you shall do with your oxen and your sheep. It shall be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me.

*******

And it's clear that humans were at times sacrificed according to the "Law of Moses," as consider the following passage:

Leviticus 27:28,29: "But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death." (NIV.)

*******

It cannot be claimed that the above passage is talking about the death penalty for criminals, as it already stated that "everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD." Thus it is clear that it is talking about sacrifice offerings to please "God" (although I would say that that god is probably Satan).

But moreover, consider the following Bible story of Jephthah's Daughter which demonstrate unmistakably that human sacrifice was a custom of the early Israelites!:

Judges 11:29-40: Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering." So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith--twenty cities--and to Abel Keramim, with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it." So she said to him, "My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon." Then she said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I." So he said, "Go." And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

*******

As well, the Bible itself teaches that parts of it were corrupted!! Thus, consider the following Bible passages:

Psalm 40:6-8:
Sacrifice and offering You did not desire;
My ears You have opened.
Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.
Then I said, "Behold, I come;
In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
I delight to do Your will, O my God,
And Your law is within my heart."

Lamentations 4:13:
Because of the sins of her [Israel's] prophets
And the iniquities of her priests,
Who shed in her midst
The blood of the just.

Jeremiah 8:8 [quoting God]: "How can you say, ?We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."

Hosea 6:6 [quoting God]: "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

Colossians 2:14-23: [Christ] having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--"Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Hebrews 10:4-8: For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

"Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
Then I said, "Behold, I have come--
In the volume of the book it is written of Me--
To do Your will, O God."'[1]

Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),

NKJV Note 1: 10:7 Psalm 40:6-8

*******

And consider the following contradictions found within the Old Testament:

*******

God's/Satan's Census: Which One?:

2 Samuel 24:1-4: Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." So the king said to Joab the commander of the army who was with him, "Now go throughout all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and count the people, that I may know the number of the people." And Joab said to the king, "Now may the LORD your God add to the people a hundred times more than there are, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king desire this thing?" Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab and against the captains of the army. Therefore Joab and the captains of the army went out from the presence of the king to count the people of Israel.

1 Chronicles 21:1-4: Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and to the leaders of the people, "Go, number Israel from Beersheba to Dan, and bring the number of them to me that I may know it." And Joab answered, "May the LORD make His people a hundred times more than they are. But, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? Why then does my lord require this thing? Why should he be a cause of guilt in Israel?" Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Therefore Joab departed and went throughout all Israel and came to Jerusalem.

*******

Did King Saul Know David Before or After David Killed Goliath?:

--King Saul Sends for David's Father Jesse and David Plays the Harp for King Saul:

1 Samuel 16:14-23: But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul's servants said to him, "Surely, a distressing spirit from God is troubling you. Let our master now command your servants, who are before you, to seek out a man who is a skillful player on the harp. And it shall be that he will play it with his hand when the distressing spirit from God is upon you, and you shall be well." So Saul said to his servants, "Provide me now a man who can play well, and bring him to me." Then one of the servants answered and said, "Look, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a mighty man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a handsome person; and the LORD is with him."

Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, "Send me your son David, who is with the sheep." And Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and a young goat, and sent them by his son David to Saul. So David came to Saul and stood before him. And he loved him greatly, and he became his armorbearer. Then Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Please let David stand before me, for he has found favor in my sight." And so it was, whenever the spirit from God was upon Saul, that David would take a harp and play it with his hand. Then Saul would become refreshed and well, and the distressing spirit would depart from him.

--King Saul and David Discuss Going up Against Goliath the Philistine:

1 Samuel 17:31-37: Now when the words which David spoke were heard, they reported them to Saul; and he sent for him. Then David said to Saul, "Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine." And Saul said to David, "You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are a youth, and he a man of war from his youth." But David said to Saul, "Your servant used to keep his father's sheep, and when a lion or a bear came and took a lamb out of the flock, I went out after it and struck it, and delivered the lamb from its mouth; and when it arose against me, I caught it by its beard, and struck and killed it. Your servant has killed both lion and bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, seeing he has defied the armies of the living God." Moreover David said, "The LORD, who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine." And Saul said to David, "Go, and the LORD be with you!"

--King Saul Inquires of his Servant who the Young Slayer of Goliath is:

1 Samuel 17:55-58: When Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the commander of the army, "Abner, whose son is this youth?" And Abner said, "As your soul lives, O king, I do not know." So the king said, "Inquire whose son this young man is." Then, as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. And Saul said to him, "Whose son are you, young man?" So David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."

*******

Was God's Name--i.e., YHWH--Known Before God Gave it to Moses?:

Consider closely the following Bible passage:

Exodus 3:13-15: Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, "What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you."' Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: "The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.'

Exodus 6:2,3: And God spoke to Moses and said to him: "I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD[1] I was not known to them.

NKJV Note 1: 6:3 Hebrew YHWH, traditionally Jehovah

*******

Whenever you see LORD or GOD in the Bible with all capital letters it stands for what's called the "Tetragrammaton," i.e., the four Hebrew consonants Yod-He-Vav-He, or YHWH, sometimes transliterated as "Yahweh." So in Exodus 6:2,3 God is here telling Moses that He was never known to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as Yahweh, but merely as God Almighty. But this contradicts what Genesis has to say about this matter!

Thus, consider the following passages in Genesis:

Genesis 4:26: And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.

*******

So in the above we learn that men began to call on the name of Yahweh after Enosh was born!

But Exodus 6:3 specifically says of God "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Yahweh I was not known to them." So lets see what the Bible has to say about this specific matter:

Genesis 13:4: [...] to the place of the altar which he had made there at first. And there Abram called on the name of the LORD.

Genesis 21:33: Then Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.

Genesis 22:14: And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Provide;[1] as it is said to this day, "In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

NKJV Note 1: 22:14 Hebrew _YHWH Yireh_

*******

Remember that Abram was Abraham's earlier name. But here Genesis contradicts what Exodus 6:3 says, as it's quite clear from the accounts in Genesis that Abraham did indeed know God by the name of Yahweh! Abraham even named a place using Yahweh's name!

Thus, I consider parts of the earlier books in the Old Testament suspect. Although I consider the books of the Prophets in the latter part of the Old Testament to be for the most part trustworthy-- many being exceedingly trustworthy: Daniel in his 70 Weeks prophecy accurately predicted the Triumphal Entry of Jesus to the very day! And Ezekiel accurately prophesied the 1967 recapture of Jerusalem to the very day!

To learn more on that, see:

"The Unexpected King (A Precise Mathematical Prediction)":
http://www.yfiles.com/king.html

"Ezekiel Prophesied the 1967 Recapture of Jerusalem":
http://www.direct.ca/trinity/jerusalem.html

See also:

http://www.yfiles.com/y3nf.html

I also consider the New Testament to be for the most part exceedingly trustworthy, as the only "contradictions" found in it are precisely the kind one would expect to find in different eyewitness accounts, i.e., such as the difference between Peter denying Jesus three times before the cock crowed either twice or thrice, etc. And I also consider it trustworthy because Jesus's commands are completely logical and rational--like the Golden Rule which He gave as the _ultimate_ social ethic--unlike the apparent nonsense which is often found in the "Law of Moses."

Indeed, this is what Jesus had to say about the teachers and practitioners of the "Law of Moses":

Matthew 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (NIV)

Luke 11:46,52: And He said, "Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. [...] [verse 52:] "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

*******

When Jesus says "lawyers" in the above he's principally speaking about those who teach and enforce the "Law of Moses." Although this happened to be the actual literal positive law for the Jews at the time (in addition to the Roman law), as it was enforced with actual use of force.

*******

I hope this answers your question, Chris, as to whether I consider the Bible to be the word of God. It's probably a much more complex answer than you were expecting, but it had to be this long in order for me to honestly answer it.

Well, among other writings of mine concerning the Bible, see my above Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:03 pm post.

The following article is my main text on the Bible, published under my legal name (i.e., my boy name):

Of course, you're legal name. :lol:



"Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (originally published at Anti-State.com on December 19, 2001):

http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

Also, below is my critique of the Old Testament (particularly the first five books of it) referenced in the introduction of my above Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:03 pm post, which was in response to a question by a forum poster some time ago:

##########



Props to you for writing what I'm sure is another drug-induced amateur analysis of the Bible.... and on an anarchist website of all things! LMAO!!!

The bible, street drugs and anarchy.

The cornerstones of any confused slobs life.