Fantasy

New Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols attacks secularists.


 

New Archbishop attacks secularists

"Secularists, such as Richard Dawkins, who try to rubbish religion are encouraging intolerance"

 

“The new Archbishop of Westminster has launched an attack on secularists, warning that they threaten to undermine society in Britain.”  New Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols attacks secularists – Telegraph.

In the face of all evidence, we are STILL having, this broken (and very old) record played at us.  He claims that secularists -we who hold the horrific idea that religions have neither priority over each other, or authority over the state – are encouraging intolerance.  Pardon me, but that is not only utterly untrue, but intolerant in itself.  We question publicly, we are not apologetic about our disbelief, and we critique that  same dogma when it intrudes in public life but that is our right.  It is not the right or the place of the religious to dictate to any of us (believers included) what we may and may not question.

 

Emile Durkheim

Believed religion to be the force which bound society, rather than saw it for the divisive tool of control that it has always been.

I have never been, and nor will I ever be an advocate of the vapid non-arguments from Emile Durkheim.  He believed that in ‘simple societies’ people must follow strict mechanical adherence to specific routines and rules or society could be in danger (He would fit right in with some modern-day conservatives.) and that the society’s needs are too pressing and complex for individuals to be allowed to think for themselves and decide which practices to follow.  These ‘simple societies’ were generally polytheistic in nature but I would certainly not regard Ancient Egypt as a ‘simple society’ .  He did have to acknowledge though, that as a community expands, and it’s needs become even more complex and diverse, it is impossible for everyone to follow the same set of rules and rituals as the social system will stagnate and become unworkable.  It is far more useful, then, for society as a whole to follow a more generalised code of behaviour (modern laws) that can be adapted according to the given situation.  This has the added effect of diversifying and diluting religious beliefs.  The move toward secularism in Britain is not only a natural social phenomenon, but has become a requirement for social cohesion and the survival of our species as a whole.  With the rise of the internet and the ability to now freely converse with people on the other side of the globe, the world has become a far smaller place, and as the Borg of the Star Trek universe are so fond of saying, we must adapt.

“Faith is never a solitary activity nor can it be simply private,”

So this Bishop believes that shoving religion into the lives of others, and enforcing a set doctrine on society as a whole is a right of believers and that we who do not believe must simply put up with it?  It is not just a proposition that faith and reason are opposed by the vulgarities of blind faith and doctrine, it is a point of fact.  A dangerous fact.  The only entity which inhibits free dialogue and inquiry, is faith followed closely by a blind loyalty to that faith.  Evidence and reason are the vital tools of a fulfilling life, and not unquestioning obedience.  Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs but it is worth noting that secularism is not the same as atheism.  Secularists are characteristically broad-minded and we do not embrace any set theology.  Nor do we claim to be in possession of all the answers, be the favoured people of a supreme being (and people say that atheists are arrogant) or be in any way above those who disagree with us. When it comes to not listening, the blame cannot be laid at the door of secularists and atheists but this is not what the good bishop means.  What he desires is a culture where the blind-faithful can sermonise and pontificate without obstruction or query.  He does not care about the torrent of abuse and intolerance exhibited in the past by, and in some cases from, the media.

“Some today propose that faith and reason are crudely opposed, with the fervour of faith replacing good reason. This reduction of both faith and reason inhibits not only our search for truth but also the possibility of real dialogue.”

Religion is not immune to criticism and it is about time these clerics and ministers ceased behaving like spoiled brats and realised that the world has moved on from the dark ages.  Religion may have leant individual people certain comfort in trying times, it may have been enough to inspire a few good intentions.  This is NOT enough to atone for nearly two thousand years of death, war, destruction, intolerance, persecution, slavery and suffering caused and driven by the tenets of those religions and by differences of opinion over theological interpretation.  This is the equivalent of going to war over an argument about the gingerbread house from Hansel and Gretel.  Where reason and logic have failed ridicule is now the next course of action against the religion inspired bigotry which pollutes the world today.  Religious leaders and priests are known to be violating the law by telling people how to vote come election day.  One has even advocated a violent revolt against the US government.  I  say remove their tax-free status. Make it clear to these people who put collars they have so willingly placed around their necks (with a leash which stretches back to their recalcitrant owner in Rome) does NOT grant them immunity from the law.

Christianity is not known for its progressive outlook or ideas.  Mr Nichols, himself played an active and leading role against allowing gay couples to adopt children.  Thankfully, it is now illegal for adoption agencies to discriminate against applicants on the basis of sexuality.  He sees secularism as an enemy to be feared and fought and he is not alone in his hatred; not by far.

Archbishop Nichols claimed that the country would benefit from maintaining faith at the centre of public life, adding that it would help build a more cohesive society.

“As a society, if we are to build on this gift of faith, we must respect its outward expression not only in honouring individual conscience but also in respecting the institutional integrity of the communities of faith in what they bring to public service and to the common good.

Probably the most revealing part of this article is the couched refusal to admit to his own bigotry but also that he regards that religion should be made public.  What next, Bishop?  Frog marching people into church?  What about all the Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus who do not share your personal brand of faith? One thing I will say in their defence, is that you rarely get a Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist, threatening to kill you for ‘disrespecting’ their religion, halting the progress of medical science, or attempting to alter the constitution of a secular nation, in the name of their god or religion.  This man doesn’t mean general faith, he means institutionalist Christianity; an outright assault on personal choice and freedom to believe as one chooses.  He ignores the social division that religious faith causes.  The Anglican church is at its core, and despite all pretences, Catholic.  The only real difference between the two is the leader they look to for authority, so why should we be expected to applaud any form of concession or reconciliation?

“Earlier, the new Archbishop risked controversy on his first day in office when he said a report exposing decades of systematic child abuse by Catholic priests and nuns in Ireland would “overshadow” the good they had done.”

Decades!?  Try centuries!  The Catholic Church cares only about the Catholic Church, their own advancement, the loss of their authority over the world and especially in developed nations, and their reputation.  They care nothing for the thousands of children abused and betrayed by those they had been expected to trust.   It did not take courage for people to come forward over their crimes.  It is a point of fact that the church, under John Paul II, only acknowledged it WAS a crime (rather than just a sin) in 2002!  In 1962, the Holy Office instructions for dealing with cases of abuse went to extraordinary lengths to ensure secrecy rather than secure justice.  The complaint must be made by the victim within thirty days of the attack and failure to do so would result in the VICTIM’S automatic excommunication.  The perpetrator was then moved to another diocese with no warning to the parishioners.  Both victim and perpetrator were ordered to observe complete secrecy.  So, no I don’t believe their crocodile tears.  They are only sorry that thanks to the Guathe case, in 1983, when the victim’s family did not give into bullying, other victims and their families have now had the courage to take their cases to the proper authorities and will not be shamed into keeping quiet.

“It is a moral stance, and he should say that it is all about the children and the rest of them be damned. There are no excuses for religious orders.” – Michele Elliott, chief executive of the charity Kidscape

Sources

Is Conspiracy Theorising Turning Into A New Religion?


It cannot have escaped the notice of many of us that there seems to be a social phenomena where otherwise rational persons simply declare an event they do not understand a conspiracy; a convoluted and complicated maze of twists, turns and dead ends, rather than adopt healthy scepticism and open mind to examine hard evidence  and common sense.  This stretches from 9/11 to the moon landings and more.  It is generally bad practice to take any information at face value or rely on a single source, but it is also fairly easy to find ourselves making a cynical guess at what is really happening when an actor endorses a product or other celebrity announces their retirement to spend more time with their families.  What happens when a large portion of people believe in a set of ideas that fly in the face of any real findings and only make sense in a very set context?  We’re already surrounded by it.  It’s called religion and the same, if not very similar, patterns of behaviour are evident.

This is not to say that the world is devoid of conspiracy and it must be acknowledged that human responses to folklore and mythology have played a huge part in the shaping our societies so it is reasonable to conclude that these conspiracy theories are becoming a new breed of folklore and urban mythology.  It is said that Anne Boleyn continued to whisper prayers after her beheading in 1536, reported by eyewitnesses at the scene. Now, after tireless observation and scientific examination, we know that it takes a few minutes to die.  It is also a good example of why unexamined, unqualified and solicited ‘eye-witness accounts’  are unreliable.  Combine this with the Chinese-whispers effect on a tradition of verbal source-free story telling and there we have a very unreliable means of conveying information.  In a multimedia society the spread of these tales is easier and faster than ever before.  Where previously these stories were spread by word of mouth we self publish our work on blogs, post videos and none of that information need be entirely accurate (this is why I make it very clear when I am speculating rather than assert my views and provide sources for my information).  The older it a story is the more the more likely it is in the eyes of  some and deemed and believable for its own sake.

Of course there are greedy businesses who ‘conspire’ to cheat their employees and customers to get as much out of them as they can for as little as possible.  There are of course some politicians who lack the self-control and integrity not to mislead  or cheat their constituents. This does not mean that they are all to be mistrusted.  In the all-or-nothing mentality of the conspiracy theorist the duplicity does encompass all.  These stories of government cover-ups do not fade out because once they go on-line the add to the already-present wealth of fabricated innuendo that has flourished on the internet they are there for good.  The theorists have been enabled to place themselves as equals of legitimate news sources and act to contradict every thing they say on principle.  After all, where would they be with their fact-less findings without real stories to litter them with?  Without the internet these stories would have died, old, alone and toothless, locked forever in the Forgotten Attic of Bollocks, whereas now they are immortalised on the internet AND they are spreading.

Where religion is born out of ignorance and superstition, the modern conspiracist thrives only on the gaps in the story. Like the creationist tirelessly pointing out gaps in the fossil record etc, they will when confronted with an answer declare a new gap and merely add a layer to their story to account for it.  Like the religious faithful we come across the petulant challenge of ‘prove me wrong!’ because without a shred of evidence to prove themselves right, this is an easy and useful distraction.  The argument from ignorance is probably one of their most frequently used statements.  Coming in a close second and third are the ever credulous ‘You’ll never convince me‘ and ‘There’s no way…‘  (the fingers go in the ears and cue the mental la la la).  Add to this a lethal dose ‘I don’t see how‘ as if their opinion should be enough to convince the rest of us, and we have the recipe for someone who wrongly believes themselves to be a critical-thinker.

Refusal to accept evidence is not critical thinking and nor is beginning with an asinine conclusion and regressing back while still rejecting anything that does not fit the ready-made theory.  Most concerning is the air of megalomania surrounding those like Avery.  They are absolutely convinced of their own mental superiority and exude smugness over what they have ‘discovered’ and, sneering, they dismiss all who do NOT see them as they do and believe every word, as fools who have been brainwashed by the government.  Often their theory relies on the basis and view that even the participants were mentally deficient in some way.  This is all while ignoring the fact that their preferred version of events is even more complex and implausible than the actual chain of events.

Before I get to my prime example of urban story-telling, I would like to add that these apparently brilliant and devious conspiracies are not actually up to much. Why?  Because crack-pots and kooks like Dylan Avery ‘know‘ about them.  In the same way of the self-brain-washed minions of organised religion, the true devotee of conspiracy and cover-ups never veers from their personal obsession with minute and irrelevant trivialities, which without even one in perfect synchronism with the rest then the whole plan would fall apart.  The more this is pointed out to them the more they convince themselves that those pitiful little details are crucial to what makes the ‘plan-whole’.  How is this similar?  Well if any of you have ever tried to hold a sensible conversation with a devout Anything, you will have noticed that when the issue of empirical and real evidence comes up the logic becomes yet more circular they revert to gut-feeling and the non-logic of their scripture, condemning (however indirectly) the non-believer for even doubting their claims let alone questioning them.  A good example of this was on ReapSow Radio last week.

“If you can fixate on the illogical, the ludicrous, and the beyond ridiculous, you don’t need to worry so much about the harsh realities of the world as we know it.  You can live in a cocoon of paranoia, obsessing about Bush and Cheney and the rest of the Illuminati and their fictitious roles in the 9/11 attacks, instead of focusing your attention on the realities of a very scary world.” – Richard Roeper – ‘Debunked‘

‘Loose Change – Final Cut‘ by Dylan Avery is a film with more holes than a round of Swiss cheese!  Amateurish and panic-stirring, riddled with half-truths and outright nonsense, repeated rumours, and unfounded innuendo, yet despite this and beyond all reason it became a huge hit on both DVD and on-line.  To deal with every problem in the film, could fill a book but it is worth demonstrating the lunacy behind his fevered rantings.  Never once has anyone involved in the his plot has anyone broken ranks and told the ‘truth’.  Hundreds if not thousands of people have to have been involved in 9/11 yet there is no hard proof of them.  No disgruntled employee has decided to go public on their boss after a crisis of conscience.  Not ONE credible journalist has been able to dig up any shred of reliable evidence on even.  This is because the conspiracies are not real.  If even two people have a secret, it usually gets out somehow so a secret involving the number of people who these theories would require, would be impossible to keep.

I will get this across now to save time.  The steel in the WTC did NOT have to melt in order for the towers to collapse.  I have commented in threads like before and been greeted by unanswerable questions, as if it leant more weight to their ‘argument’.  Their supposedly ‘irrefutable evidence’ of controlled demolition explosives in the foundations of the towers is trotted out with gay abandon while the their whole idea hinges on the fact that the fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.  But it did NOT need to melt in order to collapse in the manner that it did.  The combination of stress from both the collision and the 1500 degrees Fahrenheit temperature from the fires that broke out and spread would have caused the steel to lose 75% of its strength and thus to crack and sag, compromising the overall integrity of the buildings.  When Korey Rowe, the producer of the film ‘Loose Change‘, was challenged about the factual errors in his production he replied that the were aware of the errors but “had left them in on purpose in order to make people discredit us and do the research themselves“.  Embarrassing and obvious problems and gaps are passed of as the results of deliberate disinformation from the imagined plotters and designed as part of the plot in order to throw ‘real’ activists and investigators off the trail.  Does this not bear a remarkable resemblance to the creationists’ loony claims that either god or Satan ‘planted’ fossils in order to deceive mankind and test our faith or that evolution is Satan’s conspiracy against god (this list could go on for ever so I’d rather not drag it out)?

“As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I would observe that our members, building on prior research by earlier students of 9/11, have established more than a dozen disproofs of the official government account, the truth of any one of which is enough to show that the government’s account–in one or another of its guises–cannot possibly be correct.” James H. Fetzer

Umm, no they aren’t.  The first on their list deals with the impact of the planes, that I dealt with earlier.  This post is not aimed at disproving the 9/11 conspiracy theories but to point out the behaviour patterns (denial of contradictory evidence, reproachful of those who disagree with them) and the dogged adherence to their theories (dogma and doctrine.)  I touched briefly on this topic in my ‘New World Disorder‘ post, but I really did feel that it was worth a closer look.  There are even schisms between the different schools of thought with regard to whom was really responsible. Just like organised religion it has been turned into an industry and, rather than the families of the victims, it is the theorists (priests?) are the ones making a profit and winning public attention.  With hundreds books and DVDs flying off the shelves and into the hands of the impressionable, and the media still unable to leave it alone, what is truly remarkable is that in nine years not one of these self-appointed detectives has even come close to revealing anything new or incendiary about the ‘true perpetrators’ yet they cling to their ideas with devotion.  At the same time they find the idea of a plot by a religious madman in a cave too difficult to believe, let alone to be true. In their minds there must always be more to it than the evidence suggests and then go so far as to claim all the evidence, already presented and accepted, has been planted to throw us of the trail.

“…the conspiracy theorist takes some kind of psychological and emotional comfort in believing in the most complex, most outlandish scenario imaginable…” Richard Roeper – Debunked

The favourite technique of Avery’s is to use a mixture of short and lengthy, sound bite video clips of the news coverage from the morning of the attacks on the WTC while the world was still in dumb shock over the events as they unfolded.  Preliminary reports are passed off for final news after investigation.  CNN and FOX clips of reporters at the scene are used with ‘eye-witness’ accounts explosions inside the building from passers-by, people on the ground who talk about what to them “did not look like” commercial passenger aircraft.  All of  this is presented as evidence for a ‘conspiracy’.    Breaking news that’s 100% accurate AND eye-witness reports that don’t either conflict or turn out to be a load of rubbish?  THAT would be extraordinary!

A3-SkyWarrior
A3-Skywarrior – Karl Schwarz identified the engine found at the pentagon as belonging to a military aircraft. He was wrong but this hasn’t stopped the theorists from jumping all over it.

 

Karl Schwarz, quoted as saying that the engine found at the Pentagon was from an A3-Skywarrior,  (A plane model which was retired from service in 1991) is a notorious conspiracy  theorist and was also incorrect in identifying the type of engine which was used with an A3 had one ever been deployed.  It was not the case.  We have also been told in the same film that Charles Burlingame (pilot of flight 77) was part of a simulated exercise demonstrating the scenario of a plane flying into a building.  Loose change insinuates that Burlingame was only a pilot for American Airlines since 2000.  The reality is that he joined in 1979 and was a reservist with the Pentagon until 1996.  He had retired from the Navy several years before this supposed scenario exercise.  The claim that Bin Laden was visited in hospital in America by a CIA agent on 4th July is also a fabrication.  There is absolutely no proof of that claim so must be assumed false.  Both the hospital and the CIA have denied the rumour.  At every step hearsay and rumour is miraculously, though I hazard to use that word, transformed into evidence of a conspiracy in much the same way that scriptures were composed and became ‘holy writ’ more than 300 years after the fact.  In 2000 years, after the spin of the rumour mill has long since slowed (does it ever really stop?) will children be presented with conspiracy manifestos rather than holy books (a practice I deplore by the way), and be wearing miniature aircraft or buildings in the place of fish and crucifixes?

At points where the narration contradicts the footage we are shown, we are expected to believe it without question.  To doubt the word of these unqualified strangers is tantamount to calling them out for liars (you can just be wrong without being a liar).  I do not think they were lying, but I do think that they were frightened and mistaken due to their fear.  It happens.  Accounts from the ground tell of explosions ’20 or 30 storeys’ below the point of impact. The continuous footage did not show this.  In another instance we are told that the plane which hit the Pentagon, did not damage the lawn, even when the video I was watching was showing me something completely different. Also, the explanation of ‘vaporised’ passengers was never offered despite what Mr Avery would have us believe.  Parts of the Flight 77 were recovered and recovery teams did in-fact report finding body parts in the wreckage which would not have happened had they truly been vaporised.

 

Wreckage from United Airlines flight 93

Wreckage from United Airlines flight 93. Multiple debris fields were reported from the destruction of Flight 93, one as far as 8 miles from the primary crash site.

 

There is a theory that the fourth plane, (flight 93) did not crash in Pennsylvania, but landed safely in  Cleveland, where the 200 passengers and 93 crew were whisked away to live out the rest of their lives in a secret (and conveniently empty?) NASA Research center.

  1. Who built this facility?
  2. Where is it?
  3. How did they organise 293 people so quickly and easily?
  4. Presumably NASA and the US government etc paid off ALL building contractors, labourers too, or did they have to build it while blindfolded?
  5. They have been ‘hidden’ now for nearly 10 years so what do they do for supplies and utilities?

Alarmingly there are those who doubt even the validity of the recorded phone calls from passengers before the planes hit their targets.  The fact that a lone call did not go through to the intended destination, due to a failed credit card, but instead was spent speaking to the Viacom supervisor reporting what was happening, rather than merely hanging up and trying again, is deemed by some as ‘enough evidence’. to claim that it was all staged.  The sites which claim that 9/11 was a government plot are just as vague, paranoid and confrontational to non-believers as the creationist sites which claim that evolution and secularism are a plot between the government and Satan against the ‘American family’.  The source of this rumour that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland?  Associated Press made an error on one of the most chaotic days in living memory.

As with religion, the more layers that are being added to this vast and grandiose plan, the more that are NEEDED to explain away their own inconsistencies and on it goes.  Avery had decided that it was a plot before he even began his ‘investigation’ all he had to do then was find the right half-truths and rumours to fit.  He believes the motive was the “$160 billion in gold which was stored in the World Trade Center” and that only a couple of hundred million was ever found.  In summary:

  1. The US government planned a ‘controlled demolition’ of the WTC but made it look like a terrorist attack to give them justification to invade Afghanistan. (The crew and passengers Flights 11 and 175 were in on it too or “pawns in their game”?)
  2. The plane that hit the pentagon killing 125 Pentagon staff and more than 59 people on board flight 77 was part of the same plot,
  3. A fake crash site was set up in Pennsylvania, which would mean the permanent incarceration of 293 innocent people (or not as some would have it).
  4. All of the above was motivated by a plan to steal gold (regardless of how many people it would have taken to organise, and pay off for their silence, NOT ONE of them has come forward with the ‘truth’ even in the hope of even more?)
  5. the Republicans, under Bush, were even close to being savvy (and evil) enough to plan this and the deaths of 3000 people in order to top up their coffers a bit?

Compare this twisting and winding tale with Noah’s flood, the slaughter of the innocents, and any virgin birth in any selection of world mythology.  It is sadly stories like this which long outlive the truth.  9/11 WAS a conspiracy but the reality of the situation was traumatic enough without making up more of it.  On the morning of September the 11th, religious fanatics organised the hijacking of four passenger aeroplanes and crashed them in an attempt to bring the western hemisphere to a standstill in a declaration of war against democracy and freedom of choice.  I was only 20 at the time and changing the pricing in the shop of the builders’ merchant where I worked as the administrator for when it was announced on the radio.  For the sake of perspective,  for nearly a third of my life, my country, along with many others, has been embroiled in a religiously triggered war (however much we say it isn’t) which shows no sign of ever ending.  Sadder still is the fact that there are children alive, not old enough to remember NOT being at war, my son included.  This is another way that religion is dangerous and anti-humane.  It masks reality in an exciting story-book context that even grown adults are expected to swallow whole.  In order to distract, dazzle and excite ourselves, individuals are working even harder to ignore the often rather dull truth behind an alluring mask.  Reality might not be as exciting or interesting as the intricate fantasy to some, but at least it is real and sometimes you do just have to take things at face value regardless of how painful it is.

 

Sources

This is NOT the American Way!!!


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

George W Bush Observes National Day Of Prayer

“Accordingly, the only kind of atheism that counts in the US is that which calls into question the proposition that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and happiness.” – How real is America’s faith? | Stanley Hauerwas: Face to Faith | Comment is free | The Guardian.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG! From start to finish the article goes from the sublime to the ridiculous.  I don’t think the writer has either read a single reliable American article or spoken to a single American, let alone an American atheist.  The America he describes exists only in the dreams of fanatics and fools.  The first blunder comes in the fourth line of the first paragraph.  There ARE states which prohibit atheists and non-theists from running for public office.  In the Preface of ‘The God Delusion’, professor Dawkins noted that the Lawyer Wendy Kaminer was not wholly exaggerating when she said that making fun of religion in America is as risky as burning an American flag in a Legion Hall.  The status of the Atheist in the united states is almost on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago.  After the third paragraph, the article ceases to make any sense at all.  What the writer is inferring is that the majority are not ‘real’ Christians and what is needed is a return to a strict adherence.

“This is why atheists were never allowed to testify in court: oaths were sacred, witnessing to the authority of God. How could an atheist take an oath? For an atheist, every man is his own god. Secular Humanism says “Man is the measure of all things.” He never prays, “So help me, God.”  As a result, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story observed, “infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit.!”

The trend is towards groundless bad press against atheists which cannot be helping to encourage non-theists to ‘come-out’ and admit  it to their friends and family.  Who can blame them when you consider the attitude expressed toward those even suspected of being non-believers (or even non-Christians)?  Atheism is nothing to be ashamed of and the  sooner the silent, non-vocal, and mostly non-violent atheists speak up against the collective character defamation and stop hanging their heads as though they are somehow lacking in more than just belief, the better.  The ever-present ‘belief in belief‘ is a cowardly get out excuse to evade criticism from those who do believe.  It goes hand in hand with the equally condescending excuse that ‘some people need religion‘.  It needn’t be necessary to explain why I find these patronising non-arguments so aggravating, but for the sake of argument I shall.  They imply that while we are intelligent and educated enough to be ‘above’ the need for the comfort-blanket and sucking-thumb that religious belief ‘offers’, but for the rest of the Orwellian Proles or Huxlian Epsilon and Delta semi-morons, the belief in an imagined deity and the overly invasive and restrictive rules are a necessary requirement: a tool of control with which to brow-beat those less enlightened individuals into line.

“Americans do not have to believe in God, because they believe that it is a good thing simply to believe: all they need is a general belief in belief. That is why we have never been able to produce interesting atheists in the US”

I think Sam Harris, Dan Dennet and James Randi would have something to say about the above comment.  Who is Mr Hauerwas to decide who or what is interesting for others?  Of course if he has never read or heard them speak then he could be forgiven if he had really lacked the opportunity for some reason.  The god of the Bible is an imagined explanation of the world from before we had the means to do so accurately and modern morality bears no resemblance to the rules lad down in their bronze aged texts.  It is people who stubbornly cling to their personal belief, and without thought or consideration, have arbitrarily decided that their god has specifically entitled them to live in a country where people have the right to believe in the god of their choosing.  What a coincidence that their god just happens to agree with all of their rhetoric!?

A people so constituted will ask questions such as “Why does a good god let bad things happen to good people?” It is as if the Psalms never existed.

The above quote is no argument.  He assumes that the Bible is the unerring word of god regardless of all evidence to the contrary.  The next time somebody tries to use the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible, don’t let them ramble on but make them provide a reliable source.  America is not promised land but stolen land and the justification used for that theft was Christianity.  The logical conclusion is that those seeking to ‘return to an America that the founding fathers intended’ are not only ignoring historical facts but deliberately ignoring their first amendment responsibilities of not forcing their own religious beliefs on to the rest of society.  I do not doubt the sincerity of their ‘faith’, but seek to draw attention to the danger of that same sincerity and refusal to question their own ideas.  George W. may have been a sincere Christian, but it bore no impact on his ability as a president and very probably was what detracted from it. Personally, I find him to be an ill-informed and intolerant buffoon especially in the case of advances in science against the ridiculous notion of the sanctity of life.  Life is indeed precious as we only have one each, and every day we waste is a tragedy of our own making but that does not imply that it is in any way sanctified by some intangible and absentee authority.

“The members of Generation Y (those born after 1980) in Britain have had less contact with the Church than any previous generation in living memory. So what interest do young people have in Christianity? Does belief in God make any difference to them?…Using both sociological and theological approaches, the authors shed light on these questions by drawing on the views of over 300 young people who have participated in Christian youth and community outreach projects around England over the last five years.” – The Faith of Generation Y –

Another article, worth noting for comparison, entitled ‘Is God Disappearing?’, deals briefly with the recent report published by the Church of England that looks into the view of Christianity held by young Britons.  12% of those interviewed claimed atheism, while 43% claimed that they ‘didn’t know what to think’.  I am quite concerned that they believed that they should have a prescribed ‘set’ of beliefs but it is a step in the right direction.  Does this mean that our youngsters are freeing themselves from the leaden, self-inflicted and artificial mental shackles that religious belief imposes?  One can only hope but I fear that this wish is slightly optimistic.  I more strongly suspect that this is due to the level of suspended disbelief required in order to honestly hold Christianity as credible in any way.   The quality of the Church’s sampling also leaves a lot to be desired as it seems that they attempted to bend results by asking only those who have participated in certain projects.  They were very clearly expecting a quite different result.

“Other evidence points to a number of outlooks that might be mistakenly understood as a lack of interest. The issue might be, for example, that a person is struggling to articulate their outlook,”

Education is NOT the only issue.  It might not have occurred to the church but ‘I don’t know what to think‘ may as easily be translated into a taken for granted dis-belief rather than plain indifference.  In Britain, we do not have the career limiting taboos against active atheism or non-belief.  Judges and lawyers do not have to be religious, and nor do politicians. Therefore it is fair to say that it is perhaps easier to accept the sincerity of British faith over that in America but that does not honestly cover the issue of why religious faith should be a requirement at all.  All it shows is that for in order for people to embark on certain careers they may be required to either suspend disbelief and/or sacrifice integrity (lie) to get to do what they want with their lives.  We have our friends, families, and ourselves to have faith in. Belief in real life and real beings can quite easily supplant that of a non-scientific sky-bully and so it should. If an adult had a belief in an imaginary friend, we would question their sanity.  The only differences are the name of the friend and their apparent popularity.

 

Sources

Blog News…


New 5 Part series of videos now on YouTube entitled Answers to Apologists.  You can also view them in one go on a special site very kindly made for me by Al Stefanelli of United Atheist Front.

 

New World Disorder


“The central theme of Bahá’u’lláh’s message is that humanity is one single race and that the day has come for its unification in one global society. God, Bahá’u’lláh said, has set in motion historical forces that are breaking down traditional barriers of race, class, creed, and nation and that will, in time, give birth to a universal civilization. The principal challenge facing the peoples of the earth is to accept the fact of their oneness and to assist the processes of unification.” The Bahá’í Faith.

Earlier this year, a friend of mine (who I’m in grave danger of falling out with) engaged me in a surreal discussion.  After he failed to convince me of the ‘truth’ in his bizarre big-brother-conspiracy-theories, he sent me several recorded  ‘documentaries’ one of which was entitled “Invisible Empire-A New World Order Defined.”  I did not ask to be sent these films, they were foisted upon me regardless of my rather pathetic “No thanks”.  I wish I had been more strident in my reluctance after all, he has repeatedly refused to even return the favour by reading what I write in this blog.  His grounds? Because he doesn’t read blogs or anything that might challenge what he already ‘knows’.  My friend was raised Catholic which might explain why he was a) so susceptible to the scaremongering and anti-government propaganda, and b) his refusal to allow his ‘faith’ to be questioned in any way.  To say I was horrified about the level of utter paranoid delusion is to an understatement to say the least.

Add to this the anti-homosexual and racist air to the final part’s of the film.  I refuse to call it a documentary; it was nothing short of being guilty of the same ‘false colours’ dis-information it accused the government.  The whole atmosphere of the film and tone of the narrator was aggressive, and confrontational, resorting to character slurring, and defamation at the end.  I can only assume that this was aimed to lend weight to their non-argument.  It failed in epic proportions.  Even if I had begun to question some of what I thought I know, this act of playground name-calling in case all else had failed pretty much allowed me to discount what the film had shown me and cheapened -if that were possible – any argument they had made.  This form of propaganda is dangerous for several reasons.  One being that  were it believed, it turns the ‘invisible enemy’ they claim their government uses to control them, into that same government, creating a culture of distrust and a society where one cannot trust anybody.

They have gone so far as to claim that all secret societies are the same organisation.  Numerous bodies such as the Rhodes Trust (a scholarship program for exceptional students is apparently ‘just a front’ – was that the ‘intelligent’ conspiracy nuts attacking real and higher education and study there?)  and Round Table (men’s social clubs) were pulled into their baseless accusation (against pretty much everyone who isn’t them).  As much I dislike these societies and their misogynistic old-boys-club mentality, this is a schizophrenic idiocy on a mass scale and counter productive to our overall survival as a species.

These are not just the tin-foil-hat wearers who shout at strangers from alleys, though they are joined by many; they are considered credible by many others particularly by playing on a spectrum cultural prejudices.  These people are clearly against even any idea of a cooperative society and the producers of this film are using this technique of propaganda to justify their blind nationalism, individualism and an agenda of spreading this discord and mistrust as far and wide as they can. There lies yet another contradiction as thorough their castigation of all suggestions of a fair global market place, they also show their fangs to the large corporations and media organisations -many of whom started from the ground up in the true spirit of the ‘American Dream’ – are condemned out of hand.  That is different post entirely though, as my focus here is the fallacy of  if only some of the statements.  The idea that New World Order is any thing more than an idea is abject imbecility.  Every mad claim made in the film would keep me writing 2k word posts every day for a month and I really don’t want to get bogged down by this.  There are plenty of other conspiracy oriented sites and that deal with this in detail.  This is only personal to me for the mere fact that I had been asked to view them.  I can only hope that my friend reconsiders and at least views the posts that I write about these films.

In the beginning of the documentary another film, “Loose Change“, by the same producer was shamelessly plugged and cited as a source.  Again, less than half way through the film, the producer deliberately addresses the viewer in order to plug Loose Change, asking us to buy the officially disc, copy it and distribute it among our friends.  I have provided a link to both only so you may view them for yourselves – and be prepared for a 2 hour-long rant: I had to pause twice to get tea– and see how ridiculous they really are.  Secondly, the pages of text they show are read fast; flashed so fast, in fact that is nearly impossible to read what is on the rest of the page, and the passages are highly selective and not given in context.

What do these people believe the New World Order is?

Single world government, under an unelected agency or not, is impractical to say the least but the paranoia of the conspiracy theorists extends to a belief in a deliberate devaluation and eventual destruction of US currency, ignoring the fact that it would also mean the same for the British Pound, the Yen, the Australian Dollar, Tunisian Dinar and other world currencies.  It seems, to them at least, that the US is in need of this special attention from the organisers of the ‘New World Order’ (so the rest of the world are unworthy of this special attention, huh?)

The Euroepean Union and the UN have both been painted as part of a New World Order conspiracy to incrementally introduce this ‘ideology’ while undermining and eventually replacing world governments and place themselves in charge.  In 1940, H.G. Wells published a book entitled New World Order.  This book envisaged only what a single individual believed at the time was the cost of true world peace.  Since then the title of the book has become a descriptive phrase to apply to a system of mutual cooperation rather than any tangible or physical organisation; it has since been sloganised and rendered meaningless as I would guess those that bandy the cliche about so casually have probably not read the book.  Having not read the book (I will do now), I don’t really have much else to say on that point for a while but give me time.

Their story changed and crossed repeatedly within the film becoming increasingly complicated and convoluted in order to cover itself.  Rather than answer any questions, it raised several – namely; Why are these people not in psychiatric care? Apparently this New World Order is being implemented gradually by large corporations – and they assure the viewer that an increasingly cooperative inclusive global society is really a huge ‘big society’ con – while also in a position to just seize power by force whenever they please.  (Hmmm.  Really?  So, Why haven;t they?  Could it be that it doesn’t exist?) Any suggestion of  mutual trust and ‘globalisation’ is treated as an entirely negative concept throughout the film without ever offering any concrete reason of why they felt this way.

Other ‘theorists’ have also concluded that the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) of 1978 is a secret government and the New World Order’s first Major stride in gaining control of the US, employing secret police and covert surveillance of ordinary people.  It has become a psychedelic ‘life-imitating-art’ combination of V for Vendetta, Soylent Green (“…is people!”  Sorry. Couldn’t help it.), and 1984, with the theorists forever placing themselves in the fictional role of ‘misunderstood’ hero.  One Harry Martin of FreeAmerica maintains that FEMA is nothing less than the secret government of non-elected officials with no public accountability with powers to take over the media, relocate populations, conscript civilians into forced labour, and control the flow and supply of natural resources.  This would not then explain why FEMA was so ill-prepared to deal with hurricane Katrina, though some have had time to tie this in with their delusion that this was not really what it was set up to do.  According to Martin, FEMA is intended to take control of the US Military and suspend the Constitution under a pretext of averting a major civil disturbance.  (Yeah, I laughed at this bit too and it just gets more laughable.)

This is where the so-called theory goes even deeper.  The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was, according to this school of thought, the next big step for New World Order in the removal of the civil rights it claimed to protect and be its own front at the same time while detaining who ever they want (people like conspiracy theorists).  As I stated earlier, the locality of FEMA and DHS (not the furniture shop) are in and have their jurisdiction limited to the US but theorists have managed to delude themselves that they are also branches of NWO.

Aliens, Satan and Freemasons…

Like all conspiracies, there are sects and dissenters who treat their single-cause agenda as if it were a religion.  Very much like religionists, they protect and cosset their (often evidence-free) ideas, and where the self-deluding idiots refuse to subject them to challenge or criticism; some even claim their lack of solid evidence as proof on it’s own.  The New World Order is thought by some to be prophesied in the Bible as the one-world government of the Antichrist.  In with this mad-cap, maniacal, mumbo-jumbo, is the claim that the Vatican serves as the prophet for the Anti-Christ and the Catholic Church help ‘legitimise’ the NWO in countries where they still have some influence.  The NWO delusion also involves a single religion and, as the conspiracy has it, they hope to achieve this through the National and World Council of Churches.  <sarcasm>In other words this elusive but terrible New World Order of global peace, trust and cooperation, is a supernatural front by Satan to destroy Christianity.  Yes, that’s likely.</ sarcasm>

If you believe the likes of David Icke, Satanic Cultists, secret societies like the Freemasons, and aliens are working in conjunction with FEMA and the DHS in underground NWO bases even though the term “Masonic government” has no meaning since individual Freemasons hold many different opinions on what constitutes a good government, and Freemasonry as a body has no opinion on the topic.

Secret technology…

Much of what is written (utter bollocks) about this New World Order Carries with it an element of technophobic ignorance of so-called “pro-scientism”.  They hold that computer chips and login, bar-codes, credit cards and even local library records are really a plot to track us and gain information that can be used against us.  Many choose to ‘live off the grid’ , using only cash and no cash machines, keep no permanent address, and avoid any activity which involves submitting personal information (like getting a job and making a real contribution to society for instance, but that leaves them plenty of time to add more layers to their conspiracy theories.  Its one thing to have no luck finding a job, it’s another to outright refuse to get one because the NWO might find them.).  Living in a modern society, it is almost impossible to do this and I would suspect that even those who claim to do so are actually well within the ‘grid’ they fear so much.

The mythology is as varied as it is imaginative, with otherworldly technology such as subliminal implanted bodily computer chips which track us and more.  In 1993 the US began the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP very interesting and will have to have a closer look at it).  The aim is to explore atmospheric conditions that could affect communication and surveillance systems by means of a radio transmitter that allows them to alter and analyse the ionosphere.  This has become one of the more discussed technologies within this conspiracy circle and duly been adopted as a part of their ongoing saga. Some, such as Nick Begich and Jeane Manning, believe it capable of disrupting and modifying human mental thought processes (tin-hats…that’s all I’m saying) and is really a mind-control device, as well as a tool to monitor and jam communications around the world.  On top of this, they believe it can control the weather, knock out enemy satellite and spacecraft, harm wildlife and human health, and disrupt the atmosphere.

‘Chemitrials’ are also on the list of NWO layers.  Those trails of steam left by aircraft that most call ‘contrails’ and know to be composed of water vapour and ice crystals.  The range of ‘explanations’ goes from the sublime to the ridiculous;

  1. chemical or biological agents to pacify and control the population, (while working with the catholic church who are pro-life and anti-population control?)
  2. chemical or biological agents to eliminate a percentage of the world population (again with the Catholic church but they don’t think that people might notice huge swathes of population suddenly turning up their toes for no apparent reason?),
  3. intended to modify and control the weather (despite HAARP?)

All forms of Psychiatry, (I wonder why?) like many other cults and religions, is considered to be one of the more dangerous parts of the NWO scheme for world domination.  As far as the conspiracy non-theorists are concerned it is a ploy to regulate and control a populace; to keep it docile and quiet until they choose to make their move.  To explain their bizarre ‘exposure’ of this non-existent plot, they have added to their invention NWO detention camps in which dissenters, (i.e. them) will be held. Operation Rex 84, according to Jim Keith, who later became briefly involved with Scientology, Reagan ordered the creation of more than twenty of these camps across America (so they swore the construction workers etc. to secrecy here too?).

And What do this New World Order seek then?

It’s no coincidence that this so-called NWO is feared by the far-right but from what sense, (and I use that term very loosely), I can glean from various sources, it seeks to create a planned global government economy, controlled by the technologically wealthy elite and enslave the rest of the world.  Ken Adachi, a ‘researcher’ claims that the NWO plans to eliminate 5.5 billion people through deliberate introduction of bio-engineered disease through vaccinations and inoculations (the same ones that protect us from diseases?) and orchestrated conflict.  He also believes they have been building a series of underground cities on Earth, moon bases and Mars bases, for the wealthy and liberal ‘elite’ can live with the aliens and wait out their planned ecological catastrophe in safety

.

Conclusion.

The whole thing is just too massive to be a single coordinated effort,controlled by a mere few.  Aside from the devices of mind and weather control it ticks nearly all boxes of WOO, aside from the fact that it is centralised to America.

  • Illuminati
  • The Freemasons
  • CIA
  • Intelligence Community,
  • The US military
  • The occult

The sloppiness of the theory has even produced a second branch.  This is including those that try to incorporate every theory into one…er…giant mess: The Bilderbergers, the UN, the Freemasons, Illuminati, aliens, MJ12, the Antichrist, Satanists, the Rothschilds, Roswell, the moon landings, Princess Diana, the Rhodes trust… and the list goes on.  The problem being is that while one version of  is feared by the right, quite another is feared by the left, and secular, and religious…which also goes on and on and is another very good reason to disbelieve the lot. Why? Because as I stated earlier, it is based on fear from ignorance resulting in prejudice.  It is based on a jealous suspicion that someone else is getting more than their share of something they want, be it influence, power, money or otherwise (definitely sanity!)

In short the NWO theory encompasses pretty much every paranoid fantasy that the realms of science-fiction can dredge out of the murky depths of deluded psychosis and deposit, rather wetly, on our virtual doormats.  Because, like religion, this is what has become of  our society.  Where, on one side we have the blind-faithful banging on our doors on a Saturday, causing real issues by trying to enforce laws and legislate morality that does actually restrict personal liberty, on the other we have those ‘theorists’ determined to dismiss reality and whatever other solid facts that don’t happen to correspond fully with what (if anything?) is going through their heads at the time, in favour of a made up horror show of conspiracy and cover-ups.  It seems that rational discourse has been usurped by the foamy rantings of those not mentally equipped to deal with a fast changing world and the saddest thing about it is that they have done it entirely to themselves.

“Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations” Ken Adachi

Throughout the film they persist in the patronising assertion that those of us who do not indulge in their doomsday fantasies are hypnotised and deluded by mainstream media ‘entertainment’.  This film is produced by those amongst us who wouldn’t believe reality even if it was put right under their nose and bit them.  Those people are NOT open-minded, calling themselves skeptics and debunkers for all the wrong reasons.  It is the conspiracy nuts that give true skeptics a bad name as true skeptic looks at the evidence and puts together a testable theory from that; these people have only a mad twisted and imagined hypothesis based on pre-existing prejudice, with which they use to select and sift information and in their infantile manner try to force that square peg in to the round hole, come what may. This is why we (rational few) must be so careful when we write to not fall into the trap of reproducing these paranoid rantings.   It is not going to be easy to counter these individuals but that is not to say it is impossible.

Other Sources