Restoration of the Republic or Treason Without Consequences

+++

+++

+++

"They wanted to do an insurance policy against me, it was Subversion, it was Treason, it was really Treason . . . if I had done this to Obama . . . if the Republicans had done this to the Democrats it would be considered Treason and you would have hundreds of people who would be in jail for the rest of their lives, but it worked out the other way . . . really it's a horrible situation and an incredible outcome and we will have to see where it all started. But, I'm going to leave that to other people including the Attorney General and others to make that determination, but it's very, very important for our country to know because in fifty years from now, in a hundred years from now if somebody tries the same thing they have to know that the penalty will be very very great if and when they get caught." _ President Donald Trump, Tuesday, March 26, on FOX-Hannity.

He is talking about making an example, "they have to know that the penalty will be very very great . . . when they get caught." How can that be and the present coup-plotters not be severely punished? He is talking about the restoration of equal justice under the law. He points out, first, the inequity, the flaunting of the rule of law by those who had coronated themselves as "the ruling class", who saw themselves and ACTED as if they were "above the law"; those same people the coup plotters, which includes Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama as Trump dubbs them "people at the highest levels" - who was at the highest levels when the evil insurance policy plot was hatched? That is why he said, "we will have to see where it all started" - the man is a genius word-weaver, while he speaks using simple words in massive run-on sentences.

+++

It is important to note that in this same Hannity interview Trump and Hannity discuss the fact that following the election Trump offered Hillary, Obama and the rest a truce. He complimented them and stated that he wanted to leave the past behind and to focus ahead with the goal of effectively governing. But their answer was to try to overthrow him, to try to hound him from office by a plot of FALSE Russian Colusion, by painting him as an agent of a foreign power, and as Sarah pointed out, "that is treason punishable by DEATH."

For those of you grown cynical or skeptical having lost heart, grab the popcorn because the Coup Plotters are about to be made a DARK HISTORIC CAUTION!

+++

Trump Damnation-Instigation, Part One-Angels With Swords

Now all of you Jew-Haters, and paranoid goye, and Zionist provocateurs who have been hectoring me on in the comments on my YouTube Channel, spewing Jew hate and claiming that Donald Trump is just another Politician in the control of the Zionists, I'm not going to waste time reciting all the anti-Judeo Luciferian schemes that Trump has busted up already and is battling. 

Trump has disarmed AIPAC (The American Israeli Political Action Committee) for a period by recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the LAST THING the Zionist wanted. 

Trump pushed AIPAC back again by stating that Israel's Sovereignty over the Golan Heights should be recognized, another thing the Zionist DID NOT WANT. Israel's hold and possession of the Golan Heights is already “un-challenged” meaning it is de-facto Israeli territory. But that is Trump's surface moves as he has attacked every Judeo-Luciferian covert system of control, via executive order after executive order, and literally going to war with the CIA-Mossad in the Middle EAST and BEATING THEM. 

Every anti-corruption move he makes, challenges Zionist rule, and whether or not you can comprehend it, even his attack on Colleges and Universities that are stifling Free Speech, is a push back against the Judeo-Luciferians . . . after all, where do you think this Marxist Politically Correct Cancer comes from? And in him focusing on Free Speech, he is pushing back against the frontal assault on Free Speech by the Israeli Lobby, presently in full swing. They have suggested that to even mention the idea of “Dual Citizenship in a negative light should be banned as "hate speech." That will never happen. The fact that presently we have 38 dual citizens serving in Congress, is foolishness indeed and a national shame. This has to stop. 

I recently saw an article by a Jewish writer trying to explain why Jesus' words about “not being able to serve two masters” does not apply to duel national citizenship. He never mentioned Israel in his article of course, but common sense says you that you cannot be totally loyal to two nations if ever their interests diverge.
 
Now over 40 years, HUNDREDS of times the interests of American and the interests of the Zionists have been diametrically opposite and every time, every instance until Trump, the Zionist WON. They are battling tooth and nail under the surface, trying to keep the public debate civil, focused off of Israel and focused somewhere else, anywhere else, as Trump continues to chop away at the subversive mechanisms they have used to CONTROL US.

+++

+++

If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out - it is a matter of SURVIVAL.

The Position of the Serbian Orthodox Church on the Church Crisis in Ukraine
17. March 2019 - 8:36

The Position of the Serbian Orthodox Church on the Church Crisis in Ukraine

Last November the Serbian Orthodox Church was the first among the autocephalous churches to officially react at the highest level, (i.e. the Holy Assembly of Bishops) to the intentions of His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople who, according to his own findings and in a self-willed manner wanted to “decide” and “resolve” the church problems in Ukraine as the “first without equals” (primus sine paribus) -  and not as the “first among equals” (primus inter pares) which is, in fact, the centuries-old Orthodox ecclesiological and canonical principle - and we pleaded with him not to do so, but rather that he, in fraternal dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church and in consultation with the other Churches, actually help to resolve this crisis. 

Unfortunately, the voice of the Serbian Church has remained a “voice crying in the wilderness”: no response came from Constantinople – just deathly silence. Later, the Holy Synod of the Serbian Church addressed Constantinople with a new appeal not to rush, but to act in the spirit of conciliarity, brotherly love and responsibility not only in regard to the Church in Ukraine, but for Orthodox unity as a whole. The reaction was the same – deadly silence. Then in Thessaloniki His Holiness the Serbian Patriarch personally, verbally, begged His All-Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople in the same manner – which, unfortunately, resulted in the same. It should be noted that on each occasion the Serbian Church conveyed her position and steps taken to all the other local sister Churches. 

After all that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has done in Kiev - and Kiev is, as is well known, “the mother of all Russian cities” - the position of the Serbian Church, which has also been communicated to all the local Orthodox Churches, is the following: 

          1. The Serbian Orthodox Church does not recognize the uncanonical “intrusion” by His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople into the canonical territory of the Most Holy Russian Church, given that the Kiev Metropolitanate cannot in any way be identified with the current “Ukraine”, which is made up of dozens of other dioceses. It was transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate in1686, which can be concluded on the basis of documents from Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople, from decisions made by his successors, and by the “Taktika”, “Syntagma”, Diptychs, “Calendars”, and “Almanacs” issued since then, not only by other Churches, but also by the Patriarchate of Constantinople itself, and, furthermore, even from personal statements and declaration made by the current Patriarch of Constantinople, up until April of 2018.

          2. Also, the Serbian Orthodox Church does not recognize the artificial “confederation” of Ukrainian schismatic groups (which are already opposing each other and are irresistibly heading for division), proclaimed as the “autocephalous Church of Ukraine”, since this church is non-existent canonically, and in reality was forcibly imposed. The schismatics have remained schismatics. Once a schismatic, always a schismatic, except in cases of sincere conversion and profound repentance. The only Church in this given case recognized by the Serbian Church is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church headed by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine.

           3. The Serbian Orthodox Church does not recognize the Kievian, ostensibly “unifying,” council, in which none of the hierarchs of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church participated (since a day earlier the titular Metropolitan Alexandar Drabinko and Metropolitan of Vinnitsa Simeon were received into the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople, and that without a canonical release from their Church). The whole scenario and everything that took place backstage of this strange gathering, which is not unknown to the public, is a cause for disbelief and sadness in the souls of Orthodox Christians throughout the world. In actuality, this is an anti-unifying pseudo-council which separates and breaks apart and has dug a deeper hole of estrangement and disintegration of society in the unfortunate country of Ukraine. Because of all this, the Serbian Orthodox Church regards its decisions as anti-canonical and not valid, and as such, not binding for the Serbian Orthodox Church.

           4. The Serbian Orthodox Church does not recognize the schismatic hierarchy as an Orthodox hierarchy, nor the schismatic clergy as Orthodox clergy, given that the members of Denysenko’s group received their “church hypostasis” from a defrocked, excommunicated and anathematized hierarch (this fact was, at the time, recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch himself), and that the members of the Maletich sect have neither apostolic succession nor priesthood in general. No official decree, no, as they say “stroke of the pen”, can change something which has happened into something that did not happen, nor create something which did not exist. Therefore, the Serbian Orthodox Church does not accept that Mr. Dumenko (called Epiphanius) is a hierarch, let alone the presiding hierarch of an autocephalous church (this last title is not given him even by his “spiritual father”, Mr. Denysenko, the “actual presiding hierarch” and moreover, lifetime “patriarch”).

           5. Finally, the Serbian Orthodox Church is, by necessity, forced to cease liturgical and canonical communion not only with Mr. Epiphanius Dumenko and his followers, but also with the hierarchs and clergy who concelebrate and enter into communion with them, in accordance with the canonical principal that he who enter into communion with someone who is outside of communion places himself outside communion.

With grief and sadness over the broken unity of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, again beseeches His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew to revise his previous decisions and to reestablish the former blessed love and unity of the local holy Churches of God. Nothing is more necessary nor more precious than love, peace and like-mindedness among brethren. 

From the Office of the Holy Synod of Bishops

Occasional Cortex and 12 Years to Climate Armageddon

What would I have given to see moral common sense overcome the major Luciferian Lies of the 20th Century! Seeing time prove the "Chicken Little - The Sky is Falling" Marxist manipulators wrong is of little comfort or satisfaction to me. How can it be when the Judeo/Marxist/Luciferian Brainwashing Apparatus is still in place (what you call the Main Stream Media) and they are still churning out the evils of Global Warming and Climate Change.

Credit to Rush Limbaugh archives: This was a comment on the East Anglia Climate Model Hoax and the non-science, actual Scientism (fantasy) of the IPCC
+++
"All of these models that they constructed over the years predicted calamity by now, and the calamity never happened. I was still living in California 1985, and I’m watching This Week with David Brinkley on Sunday morning, and there’s this guy named Oppenheimer, and he’s a global warming guy. He’s saying, “We’ve got 20 years!” This is 1985, and he says, “We’ve got 20 years! I don’t know if we’re right, we’re not sure if we’re right, but we can’t take the chance!"'
+++
I remember that broadcast as well, it was when the Judeo/Marxist/Luciferian Media went from "The Coming New Ice Age" to Global Warming, always peddling chaos and fear.

Credit to Rush Limbaugh archive:
+++
Now, one of Nixon’s favorite people was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He’s a Democrat, but Nixon liked the guy. I think he was ambassador to the United Nations for Nixon. Moynihan told Nixon in an inner circle meeting 30 years ago that we would be underwater by the year 2000 because of the rapidity of global warming and the North Pole and the South Pole ice would melt and flood the coasts of this country.
“There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo. ‘This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,’ he wrote. ‘This, in turn, could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.'”
Thirty years ago, Moynihan, smart guy. George Will thinks he’s the smartest guy that ever lived. George Will loved Moynihan. Moynihan bought into this. That’s how seductive it is. Otherwise intelligent people buy into this notion. Their vanity and everything else makes it possible. “Oh, yeah, we have the power to destroy the planet. Oh, yeah, we have the power to raise temperatures and melt all the ice, oh, yeah.” We don’t have any such power. We couldn’t do any of this if we wanted to. But never mind. “Moynihan was Nixon’s counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 — when Nixon began his presidency — to December 1970. He later served as the US ambassador to the United Nations.”
+++

The only answer to this fear-mongering herding is MORAL Common Sense.
+++
+++

The Elite's Education Scam

Anyone who is not simply a “sleeping beauty” and unfortunately in western culture, a life of somnambulism seems to the norm and not the exception, anyway, if you are not a “sleeping beauty” you know that in times past only the non-sanctioned, non-franchised human traffickers and drug traffickers got caught. El Chapo's franchise was through the Mexican government, via the office of the President of Mexico and of course the CIA, through its use of puppet politicians, many hundred on the take and that had to include colluding DEA- Drug enforcement, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, ICE and on and on the corruption goes. Of course, people like El Chapo who was captured for the third time after escaping prison twice, who is in prison now, would not have been captured in the first place unless he had grown too big for his britches and came to be deemed a liability to the Elite Criminals. You see just like Manuel Noriega, who was the Drug, Gun, and People Trafficker of Panama, was arrested by a military invasion, the President of a Sovereign Nation tried in American Federal Court like a common criminal, jailed in an American Prison in violation of every known international agreement, we saw the power of the CIA expressed in public. El Chapo, born Joaquín Archivaldo Guzmán Loera, was political enough, realizing that he was on the outs with his CIA handlers, offered to assassinate Donald Trump for them, during the campaign, trying to restore himself in their good graces.

Now the point of this is to explain that were Hillary Clinton president this ring of College admission, fixers, would have never been charged. Think about the fact and it is not a theory, no one was willing to come forward and state that they remember the time that Barrack Obama was the Editor of the Harvard Law Review, in this day and age no one could produce a picture of him in that role, no one could come forward and say, “why, yes, I remember. Barry was my roommate at Harvard." Why are all of Barrack Obama's records sealed, his fake marriage to a woman with a penis, the fake adoption of daughters of friends, all of it to this day is SEALED! How could they do that?  How do you think the CIA pulled off inventing this person? In times past before the internet and before people began to do serious investigations of spurious claims, forged "paper" records would have been produced, just like they are produced for every undercover cop and every three-letter covert agent, NSA, CIA, DIA, Mossad, MI6 etc. They all have accessible and FAKE histories, credit histories, driver's license histories, school histories, college transcripts, etc. Just like people in witness protection have like fake histories. But ultimately with enough interest and enough investigation, none of these histories will stand up to gum-shoe on the ground investigation. “Madame, do you remember your neighbors the Smiths who lived next to you for ten years?” “Sir, you attended PoDunk High School and were on the volleyball team, do you remember your teammate John Smith?” You see, this sort of gum-shoe investigation quickly exposed Barrack Obama as a total invention of the CIA. The only people who seemed to have solid memories of him were relatives in Kenya and recent homosexual partners. When they tried to publish a fake birth certificate (which I think was an NSA tip-off job) they could have provided paper copies, which if carefully done would have been very hard to declare a forgery. BTW, I'm many decades friends with the fellow who was the chief forgery investigator for a Major Metro Atlanta Police Department who moved to the GBI. I have more than passing knowledge of such things. By providing only a mocked-up copy of that birth certificate in digital code, they provided a forensic trail of digital information easy to debunk as a forgery. Sheriff Joe's forgery posse' put on a couple of very impressive theatrical productions about the nature of the forgery, but the forgery was obvious and the forgery posse', although they mined the details of how the forgery was done, for the most part, it was theatre, trying to create the atmosphere of “official findings of experts” etc, for psyops impact. Not wrong, just a fact I'm stating.

So what does all this have to do with the Elite's College Entrance Scam? Well, we know that George W Bush was a drunk partying teen whose intelligence is on the low side of normal. There is no way he qualified for admittance into Yale. These things were always explained a “legacy admissions.” My point is his Dad was CIA and the CIA puts anyone into any college or university they choose. And you can bet that they used front outfits like “The Key” the company just busted for this sort of operation. I'm not saying Singer and “The Key” are CIA fronts, but I am saying that it would have been very hard for them to function without the protection of the CIA, or DHS, simply because of the money laundering involved. We are talking about the transfer of tens of millions of dollars.

So my suspicion is that just like Manuel Noriega was sanctioned until he was not, and El Chapo Guzman was sanctioned until he was not, well, it is hard for me to believe that William Rick Singer and his company “The Key” which has criminal and professional ties to one of the largest and most prestigious New York City Law firms was NOT a CIA front operation and that this takedown is actually part of the Swamp Drain, rolling up a sanctioned Deep State operation. The public story is that the investigation was prompted by testimony from a fellow involved in securities fraud, and there you have the money laundering, and I would bet you were Hillary Clinton president these exposures and arrest would have never happened.

Support This Channel
https://www.patreon.com/BondRobin

PO Box 1174
Hartwell, Georgia 30643

Friends of Bond Robin Donation Page
https://lettersfromthegulag.blogspot.com/2018/07/friends-of-bond-robin-donation-page.html

PO Box 1174
Hartwell, Georgia 30643

+++

+++

The Childish Mythology of Anarchy

Myth Number One:
Government is inherently, objectively and irreversibly evil.

No people are evil, government is a benign tool of Societies, it is a tool that ideally protects good people and bad people alike from predators.

Can a Government turn predator?

Yes, certainly it can. The Trump Revolution is an answer to the 40 years of predatory practices of the U.S. Government upon its own people. It would take a fool to believe that the government pressing the LGBTXYZQ BS Agenda is not predatory.

It would take a fool to believe that the government suppressing Christianity in the Public Square is not predatory.

It would take a fool to believe that the IRS weaponized to suppress Conservatives and Christians is not predatory.

Our Federal Government and many State and local governments have functioned in corruption and because of that have become predatory.

Ruby Ridge was predatory, Waco was Predatory, the Cultural Marxist Education/Behaviorist Conditioning mechanism of the Departments (plural) of Education is Predatory,

the Cultural Marxist Colleges and Universities upheld with Tax money are Predatory, the Federal and State Supported Kinsey Institute that provided the legal/psychological framework for Sexual Revolution starting in the 1960s IS predatory.

Project Northwoods where they planned to have the U.S. Military attack American Cities and kill American Citizens was Predatory

The same military maniacs exploding H-bomb trying to destroy the Van Allen Belt and set the atmosphere on fire, was not only predatory it was objectively and observably INSANE.

I could name a thousand things more that our governments (plural) Federal, State and Local have done to We the People that are hellish and predatory. The questions are:
(1) Did something called Government do this
or (2) Did evil people holding the power of, that is holding the tools of Government do this.

Is the tool used ITSELF evil, or it is evil in the hands of men and women who USE it.

+++

+++

foxnews.com

DOJ reached agreement with Clinton lawyers to block FBI access to Clinton Foundation emails, Strzok says

Gregg Re

7-9 minutes

---

The Justice Department "negotiated" an agreement with Hillary Clinton's legal team that ensured the FBI did not have access to emails on her private servers relating to the Clinton Foundation, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok testified during a closed-door appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last summer, according to a newly released transcript.

Republicans late last year renewed their efforts to probe the Clinton Foundation, after tax documents showed a plunge in its incoming donations after Clinton’s 2016 presidential election. The numbers fueled longstanding allegations of possible “pay-to-play” transactions at the organization, amid a Justice Department probe covering foundation issues.
Under questioning from Judiciary Committee General Counsel Zachary Somers, Strzok acknowledged that Clinton's private personal email servers contained a mixture of emails related to the Clinton Foundation, her work as secretary of state and other matters.

"Were you given access to [Clinton Foundation-related] emails as part of the investigation?" Somers asked
CLINTON FOUNDATION WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE COME FORWARD. WHAT ARE THEY SAYING?
"We were not. We did not have access," Strzok responded. "My recollection is that the access to those emails were based on consent that was negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton."

Peter Strzok arrives at a closed-door interview before the House Judiciary Committee in June. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Although the FBI eventually took possession of the servers, Strzok continued, the possession was "based upon the negotiation of Department of Justice attorneys for consent."

"A significant filter team" was employed at the FBI, Strzok said, to "work through the various terms of the various consent agreements." Limitations imposed on agents' searches included date ranges, and names of domains and people, Strzok said, among other categories.

The agreement was reached, Strzok said, because “according to the attorneys, we lacked probable cause to get a search warrant for those servers and projected that either it would take a very long time and/or it would be impossible to get to the point where we could obtain probable cause to get a warrant.”

STRZOK'S PHONE FROM DAYS ON MUELLER PROBE TOTALLY WIPED; FBI SAYS SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE RESULTED IN OTHER MISSING TEXTS 

Strzok did not elaborate on whether prosecutors made any effort to secure a search warrant, which could have delineated precisely what agents could and could not search.

But Strzok later said that agents had access to the "entire universe" of information on the servers when using search terms to probe their contents. He also told Somers that "we had it voluntarily," although it was unclear if he meant all emails on the servers -- including ones related to the Clinton Foundation.

Former Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who chaired the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee until 2017 and is now a Fox News contributor, said the arrangement signaled that agents wanted willful blindness.

"They had no interest in pursuing the truth."
— Former Oversight committee chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz

"What's bizarre about this, is in any other situation, there's no possible way they would allow the potential perpetrator to self-select what the FBI gets to see," Chaffetz said, noting that the FBI was aware that the servers contained classified information in unclassified settings. "The FBI should be the one to sort through those emails -- not the Clinton attorneys."

The DOJ's goal, Chaffetz said, was to "make sure they hear no evil, see no evil -- they had no interest in pursuing the truth."

Chaffetz added that the DOJ's behavior, including its award of immunity to top Clinton aides early on in the investigation, signaled a clear double standard: "They didn't go make a deal with anyone in Trump's orbit. They seized it. They used guns and agents -- and just went in there and took it."

"The Clinton Foundation isn't supposed to be communicating with the State Department anyway," Chaffetz continued. "The foundation -- with her name on it -- is not supposed to be communicating with the senior officials at the State Department."

The Clinton Foundation did not respond to Fox News' request for comment.

Republican-led concerns that the DOJ, under the Obama administration, was too cozy with the Clinton team during the 2016 presidential campaign have grown louder in recent days. Earlier this week, Fox News exclusively reviewed an internal chart prepared by federal investigators working on the so-called "Midyear Exam" probe into Clinton's emails. The chart contained the words "NOTE: DOJ not willing to charge this" next to a key statute on the mishandling of classified information.

The notation appeared to contradict former FBI Director James Comey's repeated claims that his team made its decision that Clinton should not face criminal charges independently.

But Strzok, in his closed-door interview, denied that the DOJ exercised undue influence over the FBI, and insisted that lawyers at the DOJ were involved in an advisory capacity working with agents.

Fox News also confirmed the chart served as a critical tip that provided the basis for Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe's explosive questioning of former FBI lawyer Lisa Page last year, in which Page agreed with Ratcliffe's characterization that the DOJ had told the FBI that "you're not going to charge gross negligence."

A transcript of Page's remarks was published Tuesday as part of a major document release by the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins.

Separately in the closed-door session, Strzok defended his affair with Page, repeatedly denying that the relationship presented a security risk when challenged by GOP aides.

Former FBI director James Comey speaks during the Canada 2020 Conference in Ottawa on Tuesday, June 5, 2018. (Justin Tang/The Canadian Press via AP)

Strzok, who was fired from the bureau after months of scrutiny regarding anti-Trump text messages between him and Page, confirmed he was involved in an extramarital affair when asked about it during his interview before the committee on June 27, 2018. But Strzok was also asked by Art Baker, the GOP investigative counsel for the committee, whether that affair could have made him "vulnerable to potential recruitment" by "hostile intelligence service[s]."

“Yeah, I don’t think I would characterize it that way,” Strzok said. “I think it is not so much any particular action as it is the way that action might be used to coerce or otherwise get somebody to do something. I can tell you that in no way would that extramarital affair have any power in coercing me to do anything other than obeying the law and doing honest, competent investigation."

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News' Brooke Singman and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

Sarah is Absolutely Right

Sarah's tweet.
https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1101983194545618945

Sarah is absolutely right. I have to ask the obvious question: If these scenes were in Moscow, would Trump and the anti-Russian, anti-Orthodox Christian Pompeo be crowing about the failed Putin Regime? Would they be talking about Putin attacking his own people? killing his own people? If you don't know the answer to that you are still sleeping.

Multiple European Union Cities have experienced constant turmoil for many weeks now, and Trump is absolutely silent. We know that the EU is the enemy of Human Liberty, the enemy of Christian Tradition, with its Moral Imperative. 

Wait! What do you mean by "Moral Imperative"?

Moral Imperative is not some Puritanical ideals of decorum, not some pusillanimous rules of etiquette by Miss Manners. It is the demarcation line for the survival of the Human Species in LIBERTY; Liberty created by TRUTH, GOODNESS, and BEAUTY. Without that demarcation line, no moral basis can be established and humanity spirals into self-annihilation, which is the Luciferian's Goal and Wet Dream.

(Pusillanimous - pusillanimous (adj.

early 15c., from Late Latin pusillanimis "having little courage" (used in Church Latin to translate Greek oligopsychos "small-souled"), from Latin pusillis "very weak, little" (diminutive of pullus "young animal," from PIE root *pau- (1) "few, little") + animus "spirit, courage" (see animus). Related: Pusillanimously; pusillanimousness.)

Is Trump conquering the E.U. in his silence? I don't know. He is attacking China via his conquest of Venezuela. And China reflects the perfection of the E.U.'s goals. The survival of Humanity as a species in LIBERTY, Liberty created by TRUTH, GOODNESS, and BEAUTY, hangs in the balance. Is Trump's Triumphant display at ZPAC a weapon for or against the Survival of the Human Species in Liberty? At this point in History, that is the pivotal question.


+++

+++

The Atheist's Achilles Heel.

(Rupert Sheldrake on Jordan Peterson - "How I would debate Sam Harris"  The Original and the extended version can be found @ https://youtu.be/AJJn7dugSqQ

I make that statement, "All we have won is the RIGHT TO FIGHT" sound negative, it is not a negative it is the organic process for the preservation of the Human species.

Socialism, even Socialism that appears ostensibly Christian, like the present Marxist Pope Francis, is GODLESS.  At its core is the extreme Materialism of Atheism and at its highest levels actual worship of Lucifer. For the materialists, Lucifer is a joke, an excuse to "do anything they choose" to remove themselves from any Christian Moral restraints. That is the core of it. For the elite who are very devoted to Lucifer, it is a generational commitment to the spiritual power of the Evil One.

In my rather common sense philosophy, I have always answered Atheists with the taunt, "When you can explain your own cognition to me then I will think you are someone whose thoughts are worth a listen. Until then you are a foundationless noise, a death rattle, a pathetic whimper in the presence of The Majesty, I know to be God."  It always sends them over the edge. Every argument they make for their knowledge of science and every false claim of Christianity's "anti-science" posture, ever taunt that my beliefs are mythology and unprovable, etc., etc., etc., I answer, "Explain to me your own cognition." Then I quote the opening verses of the Gospel of John and explain the "light in the eyes" reflecting living souls, and destroy his extreme materialism by challenging him to explain the light gone out of the corpse's eyes. All the exact same material and chemistry is present in the living being, and that light of the soul is there, then as all the same material and chemistry is present a split second later, that light is gone from the corpse. And then, of course, some evil people die years before their corpses expire. You've seen the dead-eyed people, you know what I am saying. These are not subjective observations. There is cognition and there is the light of the soul, they are not synonymous, but they are real. The atheist cannot explain cognition, much less the light.

+++

+++

nationalreview.com

James Davison Hunter and the Inadequacy of Naturalism | National Review

ByM. D. Aeschliman
M. D. Aeschliman is professor of Anglophone culture at the University of Italian Switzerland (Lugano), professor emeritus of education at Boston University, and the author of The Restitution of Man: C. S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism (1983, 1998), forthcoming in French translation (Paris: Pierre Téqui).

12-15 minutes

---

James Davison Hunter (Virginia.edu; cover image via Amazon)

Plato was right: Moral value is real and non-natural. A review of Science and the Good, by James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky.


Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality, by James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky (Yale University Press / Templeton Press, 289 pp., $26)
The only way to avoid becoming a metaphysician is to say nothing,” wrote the distinguished American philosopher E. A. Burtt nearly a hundred years ago in his classic and frequently republished Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Language, conscience, rationality, will, freedom, meaning, personal identity, and purpose — the distinctively human attributes — have a non-natural, metaphysical character that has been apparent to wise and reflective persons ever since Socrates. They form the core of what the great polymathic German mathematician-scientist-philosopher G. W. Leibniz (1646–1716) called “the perennial philosophy” (philosophia perennis), which for two thousand years has been the central civilized legacy that higher education and culture in the West were meant to transmit, adding to it whatever else was true, good, beautiful, and useful across the centuries.


The “perennial philosophy” has always had enemies, the main ones being ignorance, sloth, and self-interest, but since the 18th century those enemies have been massively strengthened by the growth of reductive naturalism, by arrogant “nothing buttery” — reason, consciousness, conscience, will, and purpose conceived as something lower than themselves, as impulse, instinct, DNA, or “evolutionary” anything. Despite critiques of such reductive “scientism” by distinguished modern philosophers and scientists such as Pierre Duhem, A. N. Whitehead, C. S. Lewis, Jacques Maritain, Michael Polanyi, Stanley L. Jaki, and, most recently, Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, and Thomas Nagel, the massive, tempting over-simplifications of modern naturalism have grown rapidly and influentially. Voluble academic philosophers and social scientists promote astoundingly reductive and transgressive views of the human person that can only help augment the domination of ideologies of “power-knowledge,” technocratic rationalism, and cut off access to the central wisdom traditions of the West and the rest of the world.

“Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless,” the great philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) wrote, ironically and aptly, “make an interesting subject for study” (The Function of Reason, 1929). The elementary self-contradiction of urging a naturalistic, reductive point of view that invalidates one’s own cognitive processes and conceptual arguments is thoroughly discrediting: “Tu quoque?” “What about you and what you just said?” Bernard Lonergan was notable for using this classic argument from self-contradiction against naturalists, and it has come to be called “retorsion” — the retort showing the speaker or writer to have committed a thematic-performative self-contradiction (one’s own free action or thought being undermined by one’s assertion of determinism, for instance), thus invalidating whatever he or she has to say. But despite the “Promethean over-reach” of scientists such as Sir Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins, the chief villains here have not been modern scientists — many of whom have been appropriately chastened by the tragic character of world history since 1914 and are not reductionists at all.

The main villains have been intellectually-promiscuous social scientists, psychologists, and philosophers themselves, a veritable “treason of the intellectuals” (trahison des clercs) comparable to the Marxist heresy of 1917–1990. The distinguished sociologist James Davison Hunter and his philosopher-colleague Paul Nedelisky of the University of Virginia have written a fine, patient, thorough, judicious, carefully argued exposé of the new reductionists called Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality. Their book is a most valuable and welcome addition to a distinguished body of recent anti-reductionist literature: the medical doctor and award-winning science writer James LeFanu’s Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves (2009), the philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (2011), the philosopher Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (2012), and the political scientist Jason Blakely’s Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, and the Demise of Naturalism (2016), as well as the works of MacIntyre and Taylor themselves.


This is not to speak of literary works such as Sir Tom Stoppard’s recent play, currently on Broadway, The Hard Problem (2015), a dramatization of the effects of reductionist ideology on the private lives of researchers, or the distinguished American novelist Marilynne Robinson’s Terry Lectures at Yale, published as Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self (2010).


Since the deaths of Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, and Peter Berger  (Hunter’s teacher), James Davison Hunter of the University of Virginia is perhaps America’s most distinguished sociologist. His award-winning book Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (1991) had unusual range and effect, usefully introducing the conception of an ongoing war of ideas or culture struggle (kulturkampf) in American life, behind and beneath American political struggles, between broadly traditional people (especially religious people) and their “progressive” opponents (putting their faith in science, technology, and political change). Hunter has followed up with several other books, including The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age without Good and Evil (2000), and founded and directs the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia, in which his collaborator Paul Nedelisky is a fellow. The Institute publishes an outstanding scholarly journal, The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture.


Hunter’s line of intellectual descent comes through his great teacher Peter L. Berger (1929–2017), who mediated to him the high, German, non-Marxist sociological tradition of Max Weber and developed and applied it himself in profound ways (see my “A Contemporary Erasmus: Peter L. Berger,” Modern Age, Summer 2011). Hunter has also been influenced by Tocqueville and Philip Rieff and has sociological-ethical concerns similar to those of contemporaries such as Gertrude Himmelfarb, the Englishman David Martin, Charles L. Glenn, and W. Bradford Wilcox (a former student).


Science and the Good gives a careful historical and logical analysis of what its subtitle rightly calls  “the tragic quest for the foundations of morality” over the last four hundred years. The tragedy of the quest is rooted in the continuing failure of philosophical and scientific naturalism to provide grounds or credibility for ethics (and thus for justice and just law). It was again the great philosopher Whitehead who saw and said this clearly. Speaking of naturalists such as David Hume and Thomas Henry Huxley (initially “Darwin’s bull-dog,” subsequently repentant for the moral implications and effects of Darwinism), Whitehead asked what reason could such naturalists give for any moral views they held “apart from their own psychological inheritance from the Platonic religious tradition?” (i.e., Christianity; Adventures in Ideas, 1933). Lester Crocker’s comprehensive study of such attempts in 18th-century France, Nature and Culture: Ethical Thought in the French Enlightenment (1963), showed that they ended in what he called “The Nihilist Dissolution” of the Marquis de Sade, whose audacious immoralism foreshadowed Nietzsche. In none of its numerous incarnations can “Nature” legitimate ethics; thus the “tragic quest” and the astounding intellectual and political history of the world since 1914, at best a restless intellectual hunger for the new (“neophilia” or “cupiditas rerum novarum”), at worst a political chamber of horrors.


In their painstakingly fair-minded analysis, Hunter and Nedelisky ultimately document the truth argued by a distinguished contemporary philosopher whom they do not quote, Charles Larmore: “Basically, Plato was right,” he argues; “moral value is something real and non-natural.” If we deny this, philosophy is only a pretense. “Either we must admit that the world is more than the natural world and that it comprises not only physical and psychological reality, but normative reality as well, or, like the sophists, we must abandon reason for persuasion” (The Morals of Modernity, 1996). Thus Hunter and Nedelisky conclude that the dominant schools of contemporary academic philosophy and social science (and the popularizations of natural science in “evolutionary” everything) logically terminate in “moral nihilism,” Crocker’s “nihilist dissolution.” They also show why the recent philosophical challenge to this desiccated academic-intellectual deviation by Thomas Nagel in his Mind and Cosmos was so fiercely, resentfully, and abusively attacked. For our glib tenured nihilists it is deeply insulting to be redirected to Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle, or to Leibniz, Samuel Johnson, Whitehead, Maritain, C. S. Lewis — or Alasdair MacIntyre or Thomas Nagel — and to be reminded that often “the true is not new, and the new is not true.”


Cupiditas rerum novarum — the promiscuous love of novelty, counter-intuitive paradox, transgressive reductionism — is the spirit of the age in the high academy, though some of its prominent spokesmen are now at least temporarily puzzled that our current political situation seems to require invocations of outmoded, normative, regulative concepts such as truth-telling and elementary justice. Having gleefully smashed the traditional dishes in the philosophical cupboard, they are left rather bereft of rational and ethical resources with which convincingly to oppose the full implications of Nietzschean perspectivalism (“my truth”; will-to-power).  The long love affair with radical skepticism and relativism — from Hume to A. J. Ayer and “the new moral scientists” — has turned squalid and sour, though as Hunter and Nedelisky show, it remains voluminously verbose. Apart from transgressive or counter-intuitive novelty, how else is tenure to be won in the Humanities and social sciences? How else nowadays, other than by getting rich, is esteem to be had among and from the WEIRD: “Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic”?


Hunter and Nedelisky conclude with an appealing modesty, in light of what they have devastatingly documented by way of short-sighted, self-serving philosophical fecklessness. In contrast to the fashionable, introverted, narrowly academic ideological world they have anatomized, they recommend recourse to cross-cultural awareness, beyond the WEIRD, and to the larger, traditional, humanistic ambience of history, literature, art, religion, and ethics. In Christopher Ricks’s great book T. S. Eliot and Prejudice (1988), Ricks pointed out that as early as 1916, while writing about his learnéd fellow Missourian Paul Elmer More, Eliot expressed his “distrust of the promises of the future and conviction that the future, if there is to be any, must be built on the wisdom of the past.” A hundred years later, Hunter and Nedelisky rightly and modestly agree.
Perhaps a fitting last word on the error, instability, and inadequacy of naturalism can be given by Eliot’s wise literary-humanistic predecessor Matthew Arnold (1822–1888). Arnold was annoyed beyond endurance by ludicrous, blue-skies exhortations to “follow nature” given by contemporary Victorian popular moralists, as were Henry Fielding and Samuel Johnson in the previous century, with satirical consequences in Fielding’s Joseph Andrews (1742) and Johnson’s Rasselas (1759). In the 1840s Arnold wrote a sonnet called “To an Independent Preacher, who preached that we should be ‘In Harmony with Nature.’” It deserves to be read and reread.

‘In harmony with Nature?’ Restless fool,
Who with such heat dost preach what were to thee,
When true, the last impossibility —
To be like Nature strong, like Nature cool!
Know, man hath all which nature hath, but more,
And in that more lie all his hopes of good.
Nature is cruel, man is sick of blood;
Nature is stubborn, man would fain adore;
Nature is fickle, man hath need of rest;
Nature forgives no debt, and fears no grave;
Man would be mild, and with safe conscience blest.
Man must begin, know this, where Nature ends;
Nature and man can never be fast friends.
Fool, if thou canst not pass her, rest her slave!

West Destroying The Orthodox Church for Russian Conquest

orientalreview.org

West Destroying The Orthodox Church As An Obstacle To Its Expansion |
OrientalReview.org

10-12 minutes

---

The events surrounding the Orthodox Church in Ukraine that escalated at the end of last year and the beginning of this one have clearly shown the true intentions not just of those involved in the split, but of their supporters as well. President Poroshenko has demonstrated that the decision to create an autocephalous church is necessary for his election campaign. The actions of Patriarch Bartholomew I have shown that he is using the situation to advance his own interests, first and foremost to seize new canonical territories. And, by siding with the schismatics, Washington has shown that it is pursuing its long-held goal of destroying the Orthodox Church throughout the world.


The church issue has been essential for improving Poroshenko’s ratings on the eve of the presidential election. The Ukrainian president’s extremely low popularity among the people was proving a serious threat to his plans to be re-elected for a second term. The loss of his authority and immunity would not only put him at risk but his whole business empire, which has seen incredible growth during his time in office. So, for him, winning the presidential election is a matter of life and death. Every effort is being made to achieve this, including the spectacular move of promoting his image as the founder of the national church.


Poroshenko is having to risk everything, however. There is no guarantee that efforts to create a unified local autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine will increase his popularity among the Ukrainian people and ensure election victory, and they could even risk the independence of the church itself. Hence he was initially prepared to use formal aspects of the procedure for obtaining a tomos – a decree on autocephaly. In an effort to hide the blatant violations and unattainability of his stated goals from the voters, however, the Ukrainian president hurriedly made a big show of announcing the creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) before the process had been completed. Particular importance was given to his appearances in public holding a scroll (the tomos).

Ukrainian president and tomos

 

Yet it is important to stress that no autocephaly has actually been granted. There are a number of indications that the newly established OCU is not a local church. First, bishops will be appointed in Istanbul, whereas the status of a local church should grant such powers to Kiev. Second, the canonisation of saints will also take place in Istanbul, although a local church has the right to do this itself. Third, the chrism – a special oil used in religious services and a sacred element of the Orthodox church – will be produced in Istanbul too.


Attention should also be paid to the appointment of 39-year-old Metropolitan Epiphany, who has had a meteoric career under the false patriarch Filaret, as head of the OCU. Filaret couldn’t head the new church himself, but has maintained his position and influence within its structure. Nothing like it has ever been seen before in the history of the Church. It is possible for an official leader to be subordinate to an unofficial one in political parties, but not the Church. That is why there isn’t a single Orthodox church rushing to recognise what has happened in Kiev.
Local Orthodox churches have also reacted negatively because there are many other issues to raise with Patriarch Bartholomew I besides the split in Ukraine. He has repeatedly violated church canons over the past few years, including serving Catholics and blessing the bigamy of priests, which has been unacceptable since ancient times.


It seems that the head of the Constantinople Patriarchate does not regard either ancient canons or rules of law as immutable. Rather, he is seeking to establish his own rules by increasingly laying claim to the status of an “Eastern Pope”, a status that neither belongs to him nor theoretically exists. The events surroundings the Ukrainian church seemed to have pushed him towards actively expanding the influence of Phanar. The decision to grant the tomos to the OCU was not the only managerial move of its kind. It was preceded by the legally insignificant revocation of the 1686 tomos on the separation of the Kiev Metropolis from the Constantinople Orthodox Church and its accession to the Moscow Patriarchate. After that, Patriarch Bartholomew I revoked the tomos that he had granted to the Exarchate of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe in 1999. A total of three tomoi virtually simultaneously.


This kind of “grant a tomos, revoke a tomos” policy cannot fail to impact the effectiveness of the instrument itself and the authority of those who used it. Indeed, not only has Patriarch Bartholomew I failed to achieve his desired goals, he has undermined the status of the tomos. Just like both of Phanar’s decisions regarding the church in Ukraine, his attempt to subjugate the Orthodox Russian parishes in western Europe has simply failed.


The clergy of Orthodox Russian churches in western Europe has stressed that interference in the internal life of the exarchate is illegal from the standpoint of both canon and civil law. The fate of the exarchate will be decided at a general assembly to be held on 23 February 2019. Several options are being considered: joining the Russian Orthodox Church abroad; self-government or broad autonomy within the Moscow Patriarchate; or moving under the wing of the Romanian Orthodox Church. The latter has its own difficulties, however, since church organisations in Romania have official status.

Bartholomew I signs the Tomos of Autocephaly, marking the formal independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church at the Patriarchal Church of St. George in Istanbul.

Thus, the decisions of the head of the Constantinople Church with regards to both the western European exarchate and the new local church in Ukraine clearly demonstrate his ambitions. Such actions undermine the status of the tomos as a document recognised by all churches, effectively making it nothing more than a patriarch’s personal decree.
And what about the US?


Washington is actively and progressively dividing Orthodoxy in Ukraine, and it is being done on a variety of levels using a broad arsenal of methods.

In April 2018, after Poroshenko announced his intention to create an autocephalous church in Ukraine, the United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Sam Brownback, visited Istanbul and met with Patriarch Bartholomew I. A short while later, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine requested a tomos from the Constantinople Patriarchate. In response, Phanar announced that the procedures necessary to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine had begun.

Sam Brownback

Meanwhile, the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, which is part of the Constantinople Patriarchate, also appealed to Phanar to grant autocephaly to Ukraine. At the same time, the US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, met with the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Sviatoslav Shevchuk. It is known that, prior to this meeting, the Greek Catholics were fairly sceptical of autocephaly and the creation of the OCU, justifiably fearing that it would strengthen Orthodox believers and reduce the influence of Greek Catholics in western Ukraine. After the meeting, however, they spoke more positively about the OCU.


In addition, in April 2018, Geoffrey Pyatt, former US ambassador to Ukraine and current US ambassador to Greece, met with priests from the Athos monasteries to discuss important Orthodoxy-related issues throughout the world. Following his trip to Mt Athos, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church began experiencing problems entering Greece.


There is no doubt that unofficial channels were used to ensure Washington’s influence over Phanar. To begin with, there is the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, or rather certain of its priests such as Protopresbyter Alexander Karloutsos, who handles the money being sent from the US to Phanar. Journalist Justine Frangouli-Argyris, author of a biography on the former Archbishop of America, Spyridon, writes: “Since at least the 1990s, Father Alexander has handled the cash moving from the US to Istanbul. In fact, this is the lion’s share of the money on which Phanar lives. The proceeds from small parishes in Turkey or Greece are minuscule compared with the money that comes from the rich Greek American community. It has made him the most important person in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and given him unprecedented leverage over the hierarchy.”
Given the scale and intensity of America’s efforts to create an autocephalous church in Ukraine, there can be little doubt that it has an interest in a church schism in the country. Not only did Washington support the schismatics, it actually initiated many of their moves.


And America’s actions with regard to the Orthodox church in Ukraine and Russia are understandable. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former adviser to President Carter: “After the victory over communism, we [America] need a split of Orthodoxy and the breakdown of Russia…” It is an old plan and they are long-held goals, but what do their aspirations mean for the rest of the world?
Provoking conflicts in the Orthodox world has become a new area of US intervention in the internal affairs of other states, and the geographical spread of their activities is expanding rapidly. Besides Ukraine itself, the Ukrainian schism will directly affect Russia, Turkey, and Greece. Attempts to fuel dissension are currently being observed in the Balkans. At the core is the same autocephalous principle and the territorial breakup of the united Serbian Orthodox Church into Montenegrin, Macedonian and other churches.


Perhaps it gives a new understanding of why Brzezinski called the Orthodox Church the biggest enemy of the US. Being a restraining force, Orthodoxy hinders the introduction of a new morality, something that is essential for exercising control over the masses.

Please share on Social Media, repost and share by any means possible.

Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.