Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
|
The home page of this domain was written as a reaction to the covid-19 hysteria of 2020. The thesis is that just as COVID hysteria was a psychosis, it was also a scam. Scammers manipulated the masses, creating a mass psychosis.
Evolution is also a scam. But the scammers believe their own scam.
What follows is taken from that page, which begins to explain how so many respected doctors, scientists, journalists, and government officials could have prescribed public health policies which caused more economic, mental, and physical suffering than the disease they claimed to be fighting.
This is not an "essay," it's a "Reader's Guide." An "essay" would write out the whole argument. This "Reader's Guide" just lists the resources one would have to read in order to understand the argument.
This Reader's Guide is primarily about mass belief in The State in an impersonal evolving universe, and not about mass belief in the government's "public health policy" regarding COVID-19.
|
Greg L. Bahnsen. earned his Ph.D. under Dallas Willard in philosophy, in the field of epistemology:
Bahnsen argued that the human mind has the amazing capacity to sincerely and truly believe something to be true even though one knows it is false.
This capacity is called self-deception. (That link is a "Reader's Digest" presentation of the Thesis.)
The human mind is also capable of passionately believing something that one denies believing in at all.
This is a fascinating cross between the fields of ethics and epistemology.
This is an intensely Biblical thesis. The desire to be as god (Genesis 3:5) motivates "science" as well as "theology" as well as crime as well as "public health" as well as "political science."
COVID hysteria was generated by fear (on the part of the compliant) and the quest for power and profits (on the part of those "in charge").
Evolution is generated by a desire to rule over people deemed to be inferior.
Covid-19 is not the only example of mass psychosis. There are many ideas which are not based on reality but believed by millions.
Germany, a highly educated, technologically advanced, western nation, worships a dictator and murders millions. As Nicholas O’Shaughnessy writes in How Nazi Propaganda Encouraged the Masses to Co-produce a False Reality.
The idea of people willingly misled offends our notion of man as rational. A more accurate representation of the psychology of the Third Reich would be to conceive of a partnership in wishful thinking in which the masses were self-deluded as well as other-deluded. Persuasion in such cases offers an idea of solidarity and the target of that persuasion is more co-conspirator than victim, an invitation to share in the creation of a hyperbolic fiction.
Millions of Americans in 2020 were in self-deluded COVID lockdown "solidarity."
The term "mass formation" was trending in 2021-22: Mass Formation and Consequent Totalitarian Behavior in Homo Sapiens. "Mass psychosis," "mass hysteria," "mass delusion" and other terms are trending.
"We failed," reads the article's headline from tabloid Ekstra Bladet, which goes on to admit that "For ALMOST two years, we - the press and the population - have been almost hypnotically preoccupied with the authorities' daily coronavirus figures. "(translated).
"We Failed": Danish Newspaper Apologizes For Publishing Official COVID Narratives Without Questioning Them“‘mind control.’ That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”
“The way we have used fear is dystopian. The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”
Use of Fear to Control Behaviour in Covid Crisis Was ‘Totalitarian,’ Admit Scientists“Virtually all of the scenario planning for pandemics employ technical assumptions and strategies familiar to anyone who has read the CIA’s notorious psychological warfare manuals for shattering indigenous societies, obliterating traditional economics and social bonds, for using imposed isolation and the demolition of traditional economies to crush resistance, to foster chaos, demoralization, dependence and fear, and for imposing centralized and autocratic governance.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Can millions and millions of people all come to believe something that is false? They can, and they do. With a little help from our compassionate overlords and the little media-dog that sits obediently in the government's lap.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s best-selling book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, discusses this example of mass deception, although the extent of the "mass" deception was not as widespread at the time as COVID today or nazism 80 years ago. Powerful bureaucrats and crony capitalists can crush real science. They invent rumors to protect their profits and their political positions. Talking heads on TV can repeat rumors that destroy the careers of esteemed scientists like Peter Duesberg.
To say that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that Anthony Fauci killed homosexuals for profit, seems like a wild "conspiracy theory." During Senate confirmation hearings, however, nobody asked Robert Kennedy about this bizarre conspiracy theory. If the theory is so wrong, and Kennedy's opponents so strenuously objected to him taking control of the massive Health and Human Services bureaucracy (which they seemed to oppose), why didn't his opponents mock Kennedy for this outrageous "conspiracy theory?" They didn't touch it.
There are many sincere Christians who have doubts about whether the Bible can be trusted.
There are many people who hate Christianity who tell these sincere Christians that the Bible cannot be trusted.
People who say we can't trust the Bible live in a fantasy world. They've been deceived, and now they try to deceive others to give themselves intellectual company.
Most of the arguments against the Bible share common traits with one of the most common: "The Telephone Game" argument.
At a party, the first participant in "the Telephone Game" will whisper a sentence to the person in the next chair, who whispers the message to the person in the next chair, and so on around the circle. The final person in the "phone chain" reveals the message, which is compared with the first participant's real message. The two are found to be totally different, and everybody laughs.
As the argument goes, this is like the transmission of the Bible over the centuries. Nobody involved in copying the Holy Scriptures took it all that seriously, they whimsically changed words, sentences, or paragraphs to suit their fancy, and the Bible we have today bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Moses, Isaiah, Matthew (or whoever started the chain) had in mind.
This argument can be made to sound very educated and sophisticated, but it is pathetic and juvenile. Millions of people believe it.
Here is some information on the actual transmission of the Biblical text.
In 1912, Frederic Kenyon was knighted Sir Frederic Kenyon for his service as Director and Head Librarian of the British Museum. He describes how the Jews meticulously copied the Old Testament:
Besides recording varieties of reading, tradition, or conjecture, the Massoretes undertook a number of calculations which do not enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. The enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them; and so on. These trivialities, as we may rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed anxious that not one jot nor tittle, not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter, of the Law should pass away or be lost.
In Kenyon's day, the oldest copy of the Old Testament was a copy from the 10th century after Christ. But in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and they contained a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, dating over one thousand years earlier than that 10th century copy. The results astonished the scholarly world. Gleason Archer, in comparing the manuscript variations of the Hebrew text with pre-Christian literature such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, states that it is amazing that the Hebrew text does not have the phenomenon of discrepancy and MS change of other literature of the same age: "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A. D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible" with the exception of minor variations in spelling, on a par with the British "colour" and the American "color." "Even those Dead Sea fragments of Deuteronomy and Samuel which point to a different manuscript family from that which underlies our received Hebrew text do not indicate any differences in doctrine or teaching. They do not affect the message of revelation in the slightest."
In other words, the Old Testament we have today is virtually letter-for-letter the same Old Testament Jesus had in His day. And the copy of Isaiah that Jesus read from (Luke 4) was virtually letter-for-letter the same as the one Isaiah himself wrote. Ditto for the Proverbs of Solomon, the Psalms of David, and the books of Moses.
If you want to claim that Christianity is a psychosis, don't claim that Jews copied the Bible in a haphazard and inaccurate way. Better to allege that they all suffered from a form of OCD mental illness that caused them to painstakingly and accurately copy their Holy Book for centuries without error. That's closer to reality.
All this about the Bible being filled with corruptions and changes is the polar opposite of reality. There is no ancient manuscript evidence to support this view; all the evidence is against this view.
This proves that atheists live in a world of fantasy. Some atheists believe the Bible is unreliable because that's what they've been taught, and they want to be respected by those who told them. But there are some atheists who are bad people and are just making this stuff up. The ones who start these rumors about the Bible have a completely different conception of history than historical reality, and a completely different view of religious people than reality. If an atheist -- knowing even one-tenth as much about the Biblical manuscripts as the Director and Head Librarian of the British Museum -- makes up the story that the Bible is untrustworthy and unreliably transmitted through the centuries, then he is a liar who probably hates God and doesn't want to love his neighbor, refrain from stealing, or be faithful to his wife. You would be wise not to listen to such people.
There are 300 million people in America. How many of them accept the "telephone game" version of the history of the Bible? How many of them believe something that is 180° opposite reality?
4. The Bible as Conservative Blueprint
On the opposite side of the spectrum from Richard Dawkins and other atheists who contend that the Bible is an indecipherable mish-mash of repeatedly edited and mis-copied ancient texts are champions of the Bible, including Neo-conservatives, conservative "Constitutionalists," all the way to "Christian Reconstructionists," who say the Bible contains principles of Constitutional and Republican Civil Government. Atheists contend that the Bible (if it's possible at all to interpret it and discover a coherent message) endorses slavery, war, and "theocracy" (by which they mean some kind of tyranny by clergy). Some conservatives come close to agreeing with these atheists. But the Bible is actually opposed to war and slavery. Here is an example of an article from Forbes magazine that speaks of "
War is Nazism. "Survival of the fittest" means survival of the largest military-industrial complex.
Hitler was an evolutionist. World War II was a war of evolutionists.
Volume after volume has poured from the publishing houses describing every phase of the Hitler regime, but their writers are so timidly afraid of being classed as anti-evolutionary "fundamentalists" by the high-priests of Evolutionism that one may search through their books by the hundreds and scarcely find a mention of evolution or Charles Darwin.
Nevertheless, the rise of war and fascism in the 20th century is inescapably attributable to the rise of Evolutionism; and the rise of Evolutionism is attributable to the propaganda machines of the Emperors who loved the Theory of Evolution precisely because it was useful in justifying their total war against Eden.
But then, perhaps the connections are familiar enough: Richard Hofstadter's book, Social Darwinism and American Thought,[14] records the great chorus of voices which united in praising the word of Darwin for the light it bestows on how nations, businesses, and relations between economic classes should be governed. Wallbank and Taylor's text, Civilization Past and Present,[15] evidences their conclusion that Darwin's theory of the "survival of the fittest" "became a vogue that swept western thought in the late nineteenth century. It . . . became a convenient doctrine for justifying various economic and political theories." Nietzsche, for example,
ridiculed democracy and socialism for protecting the worthless and weak and hindering the strong. Social Darwinism and the antidemocratic cult of naked power, as preached by advocates like Nietzsche, were laying the foundations of fascism, which would one day plunge the world into the most terrible convulsion in its history.
Ashley Montagu comments on an inflammatory book by Freiderich von Bernhardi, Germany and the Next War:
"War," declared Bernhardi, "is a biological necessity;" it "is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of Nature;" it "gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things." "The whole idea of arbitration represents a presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development," for "what is right is decided by the arbitration of war." In proof thereof such notions of Darwin's as "The Struggle for Existence," "Natural Selection," and the "Survival of the Fittest" are invoked with sententiousness quite military both in logic and in sense. According to Bernhardi, it is plainly evident to anyone who makes a study of plant and animal life that "war is a universal law of nature." This declaration and fortification of Germany's will to war - for it had the highest official sanction and approval - was published in 1911. Three years later the greatest holocaust the world had ever known was launched. . . .
Mussolini was strengthened in his belief that violence was basic to social transformation by the philosophy of Nietzsche. Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by Evolutionism. In public utterances he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace: it would only hinder the evolutionary process.
Likewise Hitler based his politics on Darwin. Jews must be segregated, he urged in Mein Kampf, to avoid mixed marriages; were they to occur, all nature's efforts "to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile."
Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist, writing just after World War II, observed,
The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. . . .
To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. . . . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood. . . . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.
6. The "Theory of Evolution" is also an example of mass hysteria, mass self-deception. Or even better, mass psychosis, which is "a detachment from reality." In this case, a detachment from God's reality.
Most people believe that the textual record of the Bible is a "telephone game" of gaps and mistakes, but they also believe that the fossil record of the evolution of life is a robust and detailed history of the evolution of life on earth over billions of years. Their view of the Bible is psychotic, as is their view of evolution.
Charles Darwin moaned about the absence of fossil proof of his theory of evolution, hoping someday the proof would be found. It never has been.
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
The Origin of Species, Mentor edition, 1958, pp. 293-294
But not just in the fossil record -- all around us, throughout the world, life appears in various "kinds" as described in the Bible, not a "finely-graduated organic chain" like Darwin's theory demands. Evolution should be visible everywhere. It should be next-to-impossible to identify different "kinds" of animals. There should be a "finely-graduated organic chain" between all animals, because all of life is perpetually evolving. Continuously. Step by step, mutation by mutation. It didn't all stop evolving when "Adam" and "Eve" finally came along.Think of the confusion evolution would have produced if it were actually happening:
It doesn't exist. It's all a myth. The GEICO caveman does not live in anyone's neighborhood.
If evolution were true, it would also be a lot easier to believe the people at PETA: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
— Ingrid Newkirk, President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
But the lines are clearly drawn. Evolution is a lie.
But the purpose of this Reader's Guide is not to weigh "scientific evidence." This Guide is not about biology or archaeology. The purpose is to weigh the evidence showing that evolutionism is a religion or a mass deception. The evidence for this is overwhelming, but you certainly never heard this evidence during your government-regulated education.
Darwin and the early promoters of evolution recognized that science was not on their side. But they hated God (Theonomy) and worshiped self (autonomy). They deceived themselves as they deceived the masses.
Self-deception has many motivations. It is not our purpose here to breakdown all the psychological motivations that exist for promoting or believing in evolution. Every individual has a slightly different motivation. Fear of God's Judgment is certainly one motivation, as many evolutionists have openly admitted, though they wouldn't call it "fear" (for that would presuppose the reality of God's Judgment), but rather "revulsion" or some other term of derision or condemnation.
It's not about "science." Nobody was forced by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to abandon creationism and accept evolution. It was a choice. It's been a Long War Against God.
What follows is an overview of the argument that "evolution" is a product of mass hysteria, mass psychosis, or mass self-deception. The theory of evolution is:
This guide is not primarily about Darwin, but about those who preceded him in their evolutionary speculations, as well as those who have followed him.
|
When I realized that in order to be "Bible-believing Christian" I had to be a six-day creationist, I quickly realized that in order to be a "Bible-believing Christian" I also had to be an anarchist. This is because I realized that the "theory of evolution" was a rationalization for those who wanted to be Archists. They wanted to impose an evolutionist theocracy on everyone. (The word "Theocracy" means "God Rules." The evolutionist wants to be his own god.)
So I realized that in order to be a "Bible-believing Christian," I had to believe in "Creationist Anarcho-Theocracy."
The argument against "evolution" on this page is based on a Christian "fundamentalist" and anarchist presupposition.
Most people don't expect an "anarchist" to be defending "fundamentalism" and "Theocracy," and opposing "evolution." That's because most people today -- even the most intelligent -- are victims of educational malpractice. They don't recognize the Theory of Evolution as a sacrament of statism, the worship of political power.
| The LORD will punish you by making you crazy. He will make you blind, make your mind confused. Deuteronomy 28:28 Thou hast made us to drink the wine of astonishment. 13 The princes of Zoan have become fools; |
