What is Truth?

[This is a very in-depth, detailed treatise, which covers a lot of related information, which should prove to be quite enlightening as well as entertaining.]

Pontius Pilate* (who is greatly misunderstood) asked Christ Jesus, during His Roman trial:

“What is truth?”

Pilate was not being flippant, or arrogant; he was sincere.  How can a person judge, especially in matters of life or death, if truth is not a universally recognized quotient? if the truth is kept hidden? if there are evil people attempting to pass off lies as if they are truth?

[* See: Sacred Truth Expository Commentary: The Gospel of John 18-21: Passover, The Betrayal, Arrest, Jewish & Roman Trials, Crucifiction, Resurrection, Post-Resurrection, & Ascension of our Lord, and Pentecost, with a Harmony of the Gospels, the Making of the Apostle Peter, and the Intricate Depth of Irony Revealed, 800pp., pb. 40.00 + P&H.  Many mysteries revealed no other commentator has uncovered, deep spiritual truth, harmonization of Gospels, several charts, shows relation of half of disciples to Christ, Christ’s genealogy, vindication of Pilate, consultation of 60 other commentaries distilling their best valid thoughts, and much more; hard to put down; incredible depth and insight. My magnum opus.]

Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the greatest philosopher and theologian of the modern era—and possibly ever—explains Logic as being, A set of propositions in which the terms are equally distributed in both the premise and the conclusion.  Essentially, this requires perfect consistency; which really is not that hard if people will but actually think.  It is really as simple as paying for something with exact change.  It is as simple as balancing an equal amount of the same thing (such as oranges) in a set of balances / scales.  It is as simple as speaking a language that requires agreement in number and gender.  It is as simple as getting a sock and a shoe on each foot—and in the right order.  This equal distribution of terms simply requires a person to know what he himself is talking about, and coherently convey that thought to someone else.

Terms are the main objects, usually nouns, in an assertion, sentence, or proposition.  Propositions are “declarations”, that is, “declarative statements”.  Distribution is a fancy word for “presented, appearing (as a result of having been placed there)”.

The simplest, common example is the following syllogism:

P1: This is a beagle.

P2: All beagles are dogs.

C: Therefore, this is a dog.

Understand that propositions can be true or false; as can be the syllogism (defined argument or set of propositions and conclusion, as in the 3 lines above) itself.  Logic deals first in validity (which, in a sense, measures the form; and such errors in form are called “formal” errors of logic); that is, if the statements in the premises actually add up to the statement in the conclusion.

Understand, you can switch the order of P1 and P2 above and the syllogism will still be true.  You can invert P2 (that is, to say, “all dogs are beagles”) and the syllogism, the logic will still be “valid”, that is, it is still formally logical; but it will not be true; it will not be true logic, only technically correct logic in form. 

However, truth requires information outside the syllogism, which can be considered “correct logic in composition” that is, in the identity of the ingredients.  Consider a counterfeit gold coin.  If it looks like the authentic coin after which it was forged, if it has the right color, shape, thickness, diameter, the correct image, words, symbols, markings, etc., then it can be compared to being “valid” in terms of form.  However, if it is composed of fool’s gold (FeS2, ferrus sulfide, a.k.a. iron pyrite, a.k.a. pyrite) or painted lead, and does not both weigh a specific amount and also measure in both diameter and thickness that a gold coin of that size is supposed to weigh, then it is not “true” in composition.  [Nota bona: This notion of “true in composition” in contradistinction to validity of form, is my own explanation and terminology.] 

Here is an example of a syllogism that is valid formal logic, but not true in composition (or not existentially true in fact):

P1: All cows can jump over the moon.

P2: This is a cow.

C: Therefore it can jump over the moon.

This syllogism is valid (form); but it is not true (in composition)—or, at least, no one that I know (which includes myself) has ever witnessed it or attempted to verify it (and there are plenty of farmers around me with cows; granted, I have never asked any of them this particular question; but I will bet that I am safe on this assumption of logic; understanding a tiny bit of general science, physics, astronomy, and bovine biology).

There are also informal errors of logic.  This has not to do with the form, but either the motive and / or the actual pathology of the error on the part of the speaker / author (whether intentional or unintentional).  These errors are numerous and are classified by different names; one of the most-common, and the weakest form of argumentation,* is argumentum ad hominem, that is, “an attack against the person”, not against the topic / facts being discussed.  This is what is most often done when the facts are on one person’s side, and cannot be refuted; the individual is attacked, demonized, denigrated, ridiculed, or some flaw in the opponent, which has nothing to do with the matter at hand, is dragged out to discredit his person.  This is dishonest and it is a smokescreen, a diversion.  This is what the leftist / “politically correct” crowd does, because they cannot win the argument; because the truth and facts are not on their side.  Therefore, they forbid an open forum** because they cannot allow the truth to be presented; and thus they ridicule, slander, libel the opposition; they “out shout” the opposition, even commit crimes, including terrorism, and even hold “mock hearings” as is the current case of the social-democrats (communists) concerning the Biden election fraud that resulted in the fake “insurrection” on January 6th, 2021.  This “hearing” was as scripted as the “election” itself.

[* Argument is not in reference to a shouting match. It refers to a philosophical debate or presentation; and the word “argument” can also be replaced with the word “appeal”; as in argumentum ad baculum (appeal to / argument of force), argumentum ad populum (that which is popular, in the majority of people), and argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority; that is, something is right or true simply because those in power so legislate).  Similarly, the word apologetic, in philosophy or theology does not refer to a grovelling apology, but a scholarly defense of some position, such as the veracity of the Bible).  Similarly, the word critical is not one that is negative and nit-picky, but refers to “a scholarly critique”.

** Unless, of course, it is like controlled presidential “debates” that are scripted, and the “winner” is already decided in advance; and the “moderator” is biased; and it is even a mock debate, both parties being actors paid to play their role in an outcome that has already been decided (like “professional wrestling”).]

Logic, every proposition and syllogism is basically algebra: the representation of mathematical statements in the form of generic formulae represented by letters, instead of numbers, such as: a + b = c.  Obviously, the more complex the propositions and syllogism, the more complex the algebraic mathematics.  Logic is the litmus test for the validity and truth of every single thing that a person could think, say, or write.

[See Dr. Gordon Clark’s, Logic, 140pp., Hb., 17.00 + P&H.  Understand: Advanced mathematics is not my forte (an understatement); maybe I was dropped on my head as an infant.  I cannot get beyond around page 50.  However, I do not allow that to hinder me.  I will read pages 1 through 50 every year; and I will attempt to inch one page farther each time; but whether successful or not, I shall read pages 1 through 50 as many times as I can to know as well as I can the content of pages 1 through 50; which will give me a leg up over 90% of the population.  Understand also: This can be compared to going into court and knowing and understanding the numerous official “objections” that can be made (“argumentative”; “prejudicial”; “calls for speculation”; “assumes facts not in evidence”; “lack of foundation”; “leading the witness”; “the attorney is testifying, not asking a question”, etc.), if the attorney on the other side is not that bright (and I believe decades ago Chief Justice Warren Burger said that 95% of all trial lawyers are incompetent) and cannot ask a proper question.  You can effectively shut down anything that he says, if the facts are not on his side.

Understand also the following syllogism:

P1: Logic, when reduced, is algebraic mathematics.

P2: Mathematicians understand math.

C: Therefore, mathematicians understand logic.

This syllogism is both invalid and untrue.  It is invalid because the term logic is not in P2 (not equally distributed in the set of propositions).  It is untrue becaue many mathematicians (but of course not all) do not understand logic outside of mathematics; they do not understand formal and informal logic (that is, unless they have actually studied the rules of Logic, which is a branch of Philosophy).  In fact, many philosophers, even those with a Ph.D., are completely illogical.*  Even as every doctor or carpenter or poet is not equally as educated or skilled, so also not all Ph.D.s are the same (not all universities are the same: because not all recognize truth to be truth, but deludedly or dishonestly recognize propaganda or their own fantastic ideas as “truth”); not all philosophers are the same.  It is more like “Soup of the Day” at different restaurants, at different seasons, on different days, in different regions, in different nations.  Similarly, not all used cars on a used-car lot are the same.  The only solution is Caveat emptor (“Buyer beware”).

[* This is starkly demonstrated in my booklet, Stephen Hawking—Cosmic Tragedy—Hawking Fake Science (78pp., 7.00 + P&H) also online here:

https://sacredtruthministries.com/articles/%E2%80%94stephen-hawking-%E2%... .]

I am currently reading the fascinating* biography: The Presbyterian Philosopher: Dr. Gordon H. Clark (2017) by Doug Douma, 320pp., pb., 32.00 (reg. 37.00) + P&H; Hb. 50.00 (reg. 57.00) + P&H.  This book is in stock.  P&H = 10% (5.00 minimum).  Email for order information.

* It is fascinating to me and to those who have read a handful of his books and recognize his monumental, unequalled genius.  The fascination is a sort of natural “professional courtesy” from the heart / mind, in appreciation for and desire to know the man more.  This fascination and professional courtesy of respect and appreciation is deftly depicted in the magnificent movie Amadeus, on the life of Mozart.  The Italian composer, Salieri, who held significant position of influence in music in Vienna and hearing that Mozart, though a young man, he had already rocketed to greatness,* and Salieri was awe-struck in anticipation of meeting such greatness.  He wondered what genius would look like.  Salieri wondered if he could pick Mozart out of a crowd, having never seen him before.  Salieri, a Catholic, had piously devoted his life to God, in exchange for God giving him fame as a composer (a “deal” that Salieri felt God had “renigged” on, as Salieri recognized that he was merely mediocre, and Mozart was truly great, though not worthy of that greatness).  To his shock, Salieri found out Mozart was the last person he would have picked out of a crowd, and was horrified to see how childish (though 25 years old), crass, and unrefined in his manners—and then (according to the movie) Salieri became embittered at how, with such ease, Mozart could compose and perform and skyrocket to fame; and then (again, according to the movie) Salieri set out to destroy Mozart.

* Mozart was the first composer with a documented composition in G major, a Minuet and Trio, and he composed it at the age of 5...!  He wrote his first symphony at the age of 8 and he composed his first full-scale opera at age 11 (though it was not until the age of 14 he conducted it in an opera house).  Even Beethoven at the age of 17, had Mozart as his hero, and travelled to meet him in his home when Mozart was 34.

It is with that same eagerness and sincerity that Salieri “anticipated” meeting Mozart, and likewise, Beethoven travelling in awe to meet Mozart, that I view this rare biography on Dr. Gordon H. Clark—defender of Christendom (the true Christian faith and truth in general).

Clark taught at Wheaton College, Illinois (after 12 years at the University of Pennsylvania), and as in most places (Christian or secular), he ran into opposition of other faculty who vehemently disagreed with his teaching (but could not refute it), and unprofessionally (and unbefitting of Christians) they spitefully did all that they could to have him ousted, or “starve him out”.  Doumas, in his book, recounts an event that was “classic Clark”.  Understand, first of all, Clark was a scholar not a brawler.  He was 5’ 7”, soft spoken, unemotional, articulate, he masterfully used words, but his words had no bite, no rancour, no animosity; he simply presented truth as matter of fact—and yet he posed the greatest threat to who love their own ideas (or those of a particular group, like denomination) over truth.

So, while powerful faculty members at the college were attempting to get him to resign, even by the college dropping philosophy as a major offered by the college (thus, fewer students would take his advanced classes, since those classes could not be applied to a degree), Clark gave his students the assignment to find and record errors of logic in the addresses and sermons delivered in chapel...!  And again, his opponents showed their true nature by being offended by this! rather than using it as impetus to actually formulate valid thought before they hashed it out to students who would simply lap up whatever was slopped in the trough.  There was no ranour in Clark’s assignment.  It was a source that every single student was required to attend and listen to; so it was natural to choose the sermons to logically critique, than any other medium to which all students would not be privy, or have access to; and having everyone “on the same page” allowed all to experience the same method and exhibits.

Would the faculty have preferred to have students not listen, but sleep?  Would the faculty prefer for everyone to simply ignore all of the nontruths in their sermons?  Why would the faculty not want to, instead, embrace truth and speak truth?  This is shameful and shows the carnality and lack of scholarship of the majority of “academics”, “professionals”, and “experts” (secular or Christian).  Clark also would give students a tour through college philosophy textbooks, written by others, and show the logical errors in even college philosophy textbooks!  It should also be noted that numerous of Clark’s philosophical works were used in many universities throughout the U.S.  He was the greatest in his field, and yet, sadly, the majority wanted him—but not his doctrine.  Hypocritically, they should have realized that since he was one of the greatest logicians, and a scholar in French, German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, that possibly his Calvinistic theological position was the correct one; and if they did not believe that it was, they should have challenged him to an open debate—instead of using subterfuge to have him removed!  The “professional courtesy” that they demanded was akin to that depicted in the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen’s fable of The Emperor’s New Magnificent Suit of Invisible Clothes.  This is also the fantasy fuel upon which modern politics and political correctness run.

* Anderson actually changed the ending of the tale while it was at the printers awaiting printing.  Most probably it was “type casting” after a childhood memory of his own.  One day he was with his mother, standing with his mother in a large crowd, anticipating, waiting to see King Frederick VI.  Such ado was made about the coming appearance of the royal that young Hans must have been imagining something truly spectacular.  However, when Frederick made his appearance, young Hans cried aloud, “Oh, he’s nothing more than a human being!”  His mother, horrified, attempted to silence him and said to him, “Have you gone mad, child?”

Clark expressed things “off the cuff” as a matter of fact, as simply as expressing 2 + 2 = 4; but others who misinterpreted his statements (due to their own inadequacies) took offense.  Once, in the faculty lounge, while several faculty were talking, one professor interrupted and excused himself to leave, saying that he had to prepare for his classes.  Clark simply asserted, “Any professor who has to prepare for his classes is incompetent”.  But they did not understand Clark; he was not a social wall flower or butterfly that flitted around fluffing auras and making people feel good by speaking superficial vanities.  His only object was truth.  What he said was perfectly true.  If a professor has to prepare for his classes then he does not know the material; and that would make him incompetent.  Clark then explained that he could give an 8 to 12 hour (or whatever the number was) lecture, without preparation, on most any area of philosophy or theology.

I, likewise, could talk for hours on end on a plethora of topics, without preparation, because I am so immersed in the topics that recalling the information, and sharing even new explanations and analogies that I had never conceptualized, comes as naturally as breathing.  But, I would NEVER presume to speak authoritatively on a topic that I did not understand—and I would not be ashamed to declare my ignorance of those topics.

Now, maybe Clark’s statement (which, presumably did not bounce like a rubber ball, but which stopped in a splat, instantly, like a hot meatball dropped to the floor) could have been replaced with the Socratic Dialectic for which he was famous.  He could have asked questions of the professor who stated that he needed to prepare for his classes.  Clark could have asked, “Is this your first day teaching this course?  Is this course out of your field of expertise?  Have you not taught this course for several years, and you are filling in?”  Clark could have also comically asked, “Why, do you do yoga before class?”

[Ah, yes, being an armchair quarterback keeps you safe from being tackled by someone who weighs 300 pounds; and hindsight, indeed, is wonderful (if only we could have it as foresight).]

But Clark did not intend to insult his colleague.  Most probably Clark was merely thinking out loud, and he himself was caught in total surprise that a professor would make such a statement—that he was unprepared to teach a class in which he was, reputedly, an expert.  Clark must have thought, “What! That’s unheard of!” and then blurted out the next logical thought, “Such a ‘professor’ is incompetent”, without Clark first stopping to think how the professor would receive this indictment.  Most probably Clark intended it as a general statement, not an individual indictment.  As a philosopher, he was addressing the general, not the specific.

Scripture says, “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” (Proverbs 27:17).  Apparently, this professor acted as if he had “arrived”, and rather than taking Clark’s declaration as motivation to improve (by realizing the truth in Clark’s sudden and shocking declaration), he simply resented Clark for pointing out the obvious.  The professor could have replied, “Hey, you’re right; it is just a habit I got in from when I was a new teacher; but you’re right, I already know the material, so why do I feel the need to prepare?”

Clark’s declaration was not intended to be insulting, but a matter of fact.  It would be similar to someone handing him nuts and bolts assisting him to assemble some device, and Clark simply saying, after a nut was handed to him, “This nut does not fit the bolt that you gave me”.  The statement would not be made to insult the manufacturer of the nut, nor the company that used that nut in its non-assembled product, nor the person who handed him the nut.  It was simply a truthful declaration.  Of course, the reason that other faculty took offense at his statement was because it indicted them of their guilt and shortcomings.  Clearly, there were other professors in the room who would have agreed with Clark—those who truly knew the material and who did not need to prepare for their classes.  Rather than any of them maturely realizing their need to learn the topic of their expertise better, they simply chose to resent Clark.]

While Clark, indeed, technically defines logic, I proffer a general, simplified explanation that Logic is the language of truth.  My existential explanation will give you a general understanding of the purpose and nature of logic; while Clark’s utilitarian definition explains how to achieve it.

Logic is based upon a set of rules.  These rules were not “invented” or “created” by any man (though they were “named”)—but are natural and endemic, and therefore, even as laws of science, they were discovered.  They are not arbitrary or subject to bias; but universal.

[Actually, Philosophy [that is, the foundational discipline within Philosophy, Logic] is a science, not an art (though indeed, even as much science is, so also is much, if not the majority of Philosophy, bad science; even science fiction).  In fact, Philosophy (or more properly, the Philosophy of Logic) is called the “Queen of the Sciences” — because it is the foundation and framework upon which all other sciences are built; and thus, there is the Philosophy of Art, the Philosophy of Education, the Philosophy of History (which is called Historiography), the Philosophy of Science—which Philosophies establish the rules for those disciplines.]

One of these laws (a foundational law) is called the Law of Contradiction (also called the Law of Noncontradiction; depending upon ones perspective; such as the difference between an entrance and an exit; ingress and egress).  This law states that no two dissimilar things can be exactly the same, in the same way, a the same time.  In the language of logic: “A cannot be A and non-A at the same time, in the same way.”  A cat cannot be a cat and “non-cat”.  A cat cannot be a cat and a dog.  A picture or statue of a cat, is indeed a cat; but also not a cat; the difference being one of semantics.  Indeed, this may seem like common sense to you; but what seems like common sense to you does not necessarily seem like common sense to everyone.

[As I express in my novella, Eternity Beckons (58pp., 5.00 + P&H), in a conversation between two scholars, after the one person found out exactly what another exactly believed on a particular subject, by asking questions, the other understood the reason, and that one should not assume anything, and replied, “you never know, nowadays, what queer notions others may secretly espouse, until such fetishes and fantasies are unexpectedly dragged out of them at the oddest of times”.]

That is part of man’s problem in many ways: Man’s egocentrism (in addition to his being physically and mentally limited to his own body) interferes with his ability to put himself into someone elses shoes, or rather, into someone elses brain, in order to be able to realize what that other person knows and does not know.  Most non-thinking persons simply (irrationally) assume that you know everything that they know; and such are often very tedious conversationalists (sort of a “do-it-yourself” conversation prop); as they leave out many important key factors of a conversation (like leaving out many pages or chapters in a book), because they cannot, in their minds, use common sense and realize that you cannot possibly know many particular details of a story that they are telling, because you are not them, and you were not there with them when it happened, and you are not there in their head with them.

[Anyone who has ever endured a conversation with such people raise your eyebrow.  It is more like playing “20 Questions”.  Some people communicate SO POORLY in emails I feel like saying, “USE MORE WORDS.”  One time I actually did, with someone who tediously, on a regular basis, emailed questions that no human on earth could possibly understand, because he used so few words and spoke so vaguely.  He responded by saying that he was offended at my directness.  I responded by asking him why he was the one offended, when he is the one repeatedly wasting my time, forcing me to drag his questions out of him, in numerous follow-up email questions to him because he cannot formulate a coherent question.  I actually had one person, who had been a Christian for many years, and a student of the Bible for many years, who regularly ordered and read books, who one  day emailed me and asked, “Could you explain the Bible to me...?”  That is sort of like the philosophy professor who said to his class on the final exam day, “I am going to write the question for your final exam on the board.  You will have the full hour to write your answer.  Your passing or failing this course depends upon your answer.”  He then took the chalk, walked up to the board, and wrote: “Why?”

“VANNA CAN I BUY A VOWEL PLEASE...?”  At times I feel how Babylon’s wise men must have felt when Nebuchadnezzar told them: I had a dream and I want you to interpret the dream—but I am not going to tell you what the dream was: You will have to tell me that too.  Sometimes I feel like asking some individuals: “You do realize that you are you and I am me and that I am not you and that I don’t know what is in your head unless you actually use an appropriate amount of words, and the right words, arranged coherently according to the rules of English, if you want me to actually know what is your head—and who knows... if you do all that YOU may actually understand what is in your head too... and it will be a “win-win” situation for both of us...!  Yahoo...!  Again, this would seem to be common sense...  Understand also, my words are not intended as insult, but humor; which can be an effective tool of teaching that helps truths stick in a person’s mind that will not be forgotten.]

The language of truth is important.  Truth is important.  Truth cannot be conveyed without language.  Thought cannot occur without language.  Language is important.  Language can be true or untrue, depending upon whether you are listening to an intelligent person or a babbling idiot, who more approximates a Schizophrenic; which primarily is a mental disorder of the loosening of associations.  Imagine a book—a dictionary or encyclopedia, or crossword puzzle, a Scrabble board, or even a jigsaw puzzle, in which all the letters or pieces simply started to float upward and randomly through space as if in a weightless environment.  Now imagine that inside someone’s head.  Language is association.  Language is learned (and developed—or destroyed, over hundreds of generations); it is not innate or universal.  Language—thoughts, words, are developed and maintained by associations.  You recognize the difference in meaning between a bluebird and an elephant by learning the visual aspect of an elephant and associating those phenomena or characteristics with the word (and associated pronunciation) “elephant”; and likewise, with the bluebird, or verbs or adjectives and the interpersonal relationships among all those words, like an intricately woven tapestry.  A loosening of associations would be a compromised ability to keep all those associations properly arranged and the words and concepts properly paired (imagine a Scrabble board and a game in progress in the backseat of a car on a very bumpy, windy road, travelling at a hurried speed; now imagine it 3D).

The Law of Contradiction is simply the establishment of the meaning of words.  If the meaning of words is not static, but fluid, then it would be impossible for anyone to understand anything.  The statement, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” could also mean, “I ate a double cheeseburger and pizza for lunch”—or an infinite number of any other combination of 10 words.  Now, many words can mean more than one thing; and that is based upon semantics.  There can be the “leg” of a human, dog, table, or even a journey or race.  How the word is used in the sentence or collection of sentences, that is, the relation of the word to other words used, if coherently expressed, will inform the reader which meaning is intended.  But the word “leg” cannot mean ear, appendix, or happy.  The Law of Contradiction is the fixed value of associations of meanings with individual words.

Psychopaths seem to have a damaged ability of the conscience to maintain firm associations of static morality.  To them morality is fluid.  It is not that they cannot understand right from wrong, in most cases—but that they do not care; that is, when they are on the giving end.  Hypocritically, they do care quite a lot when they are on the receiving end (that is, if someone injures, insults, or robs them).  This devolves into a “dog-eat-dog society”, when psychopaths are in any significant numbers; or when anti-intellectual “Christians” think that it “pleases Jesus” to allow criminals to do as they please and not demand their prosecution; that it somehow pleases Jesus to allow the wolves into the sheepfold and irrationally grant them “equality” (an impossibility as well as a violation of what God commanded)—and yet at the same time, although being declared “equal”, that they don’t have to follow the same rules that the sheep must follow.  Modern propagandizing and demoralization and dechristianization in the schools and media and the importation of nonchristian aliens is exacerbating and accelerating and increasing the quantity of psychopaths in Christendom.  Someone who does not have a conscience cannot “grow” one.  Something was damaged along the way from conception to childhood—possibly it never existed at all (like an infant being born missing a finger or a toe, etc.).  Psychopaths can be “trained” like a dog, to avoid pain (the consequence of getting caught doing that which is unlawful, if society actually enforces godly laws) and to seek lawful pleasure.  However, it is not “society’s” job to spend never-ending amounts of money on never-ending remediation and rehabilitation in the futile (and unbiblical) attempt to fix that which is unfixable and outside of the boundaries that God established.  God’s Law establishes what is to be done when lines are crossed, and when our nations obeyed God, we were prosperous.

[Speaking of euphemisms, psychopaths were “renamed” sociopaths, cleverly, and dishonestly; and the disorder was officially renamed, “Antisocial Personality Disorder” by the DMS-III in 1980.  The condition has little to do with socialization; and the degree that it does is a resultant symptom, not the disease.  Psychopathology is the absence of a moral conscience (the cause) and the resultant criminality (the effect).  The dishonest cleverness of the “experts” is revealed in calling it “sociopathy”, instead of psychopathy—because sociopathy infers that it is “society’s fault”, and that the individual psyche (the psychopath himself) is not responsible.  First of all, society itself is a myth; there is no such entity—it is the individuals in that society who exist.  If the individual born with such a condition of severe moral impairment (or who somehow later develops the condition) is nor responsible, how the heck can it be claimed that every other individual other than that individual is responsible?  The imperial decree that everyone is responsible is a form of communism.*  The Welfare State is a powerful tool of communism that is used to weaken the nation that it is attempting to overthrow.  Once the “useless eaters” have been used successfully and those (disposable) “tools” are no longer needed, they will simply be told: “Get to work or starve to death, and if you attempt to steal anything, including food (all of which belongs to the State), you will be shot.”  There is no honor among thieves, and indeed, it will be the mother-of-all wake-up calls once tens of millions realize that the “Gravy Train” made its final delivery and the destination (“Last stop, everyone off!”) is unadulterated, unmediated reality.

* For the same reason, instead of the one “dunce” being told to sit in the corner wearing the dunce-cap—the entire class is made to sit in the corner with a dunce-cap.  Instead of holding back the few individuals who cannot pass the grade requirements to progress to the next grade, the entire class is held back.  The intention is to permanently handicap everyone on the same inferior level.

The Antichrist doctrine that the majority of the mainstream “Christian” church has adopted wholeheartedly—and which it neurotically believes as “first hand information”, when it is barely hearsay—that Jesus abolished the Law of God, could rightfully be called “The Psychopathy of Christendom”.  Psychopaths “reason” in their defective minds, “Those laws don’t apply to me.  The rest of the the world may recognize x and y as right and wrong, but I don’t.  I am my own person. My body; my mind; my life—my choice!  I make the rules for myself.”  The majority of “Christians”, likewise, will have the mother-of-all wake-up calls when they hear Christ declare, “I never knew you; depart from Me ye that work iniquity [lawlessness]”.]

Without language, thought is not possible.  That is why the destruction of our language is being carried out through the dumbing down of entire generations by not teaching the actual, simple rules of English, and more modernly via the mental derangement and bowing down to the superstitious and unappeasable gods of political correctness.  If people don’t know how to use proper language, their mind is lobotomized, and they do not know how to think properly.*  Dumb people are easier to control through more propaganda—especially paired with fear propaganda (hence the current Covidohoax “pandemic”).  The stupid herd of cattle can be easily stampeded in any direction, any time desired.

[* It is truly dumbfounding that 99% of English speakers 99% of the time do not know the simple rules and do not understand when to use the pronoun I, me, or myself—and where that pronoun should be used in the sentence.  This shows an inability to think, and the result is a vicious cycle of destruction of the language and resultant inability to think—in infinite regression.  If you watch any episode of Australian Survivor,* even people with degrees—even Ph.Ds—in various fields, do not understand this simple part of speech; and if people do not understand such a rudimentary rule, imagine how confused they are in the rest of thought.

* —as I am now doing, as they are free online, and they are “psychology exhibits” (it is both sad and amazing how ignorant, immoral, immature, conceited, and deluded so many are—and unashamed to display it day in and day out for over a month on tv worldwide) and also, tragically, a barometer of the very lowest level of morality and godlessness that Christendom has ever experienced.  It is also subtle “programming” to those who do not realize that it is mind-shaping, morality-eroding brainwashing, desensitization in many areas.  The contestants are “cherry picked” not merely for an interesting contest and show, but for other factors.  Nearly every reality show (such as Survivor, the Amazing Race, etc.) has one or more homoperverts, along with an over-representation of aliens, and most often not a single Christian—and that image is what is projected as being “the norm” in Christendom.  Even if there is a “Christian” every now and then, the person is not a Christian, but a humanist in Christian clothing—and the “Christian” hugs and “accepts” immoral individuals equally as moral individuals.  That too is brainwashing, desensitization, mind-shaping to cause the viewer to think that such is how society should operate, and all individuals are wonderful and to be accepted with open arms, to hold hands with and hug and even kiss on the cheek.  Such know not God.  But more common than the person who is a “Christian” present in such reality shows, is the yoga-practicing, nature-worshipping person who prays to the universe, even saying out loud when in distress, Universe please help me!  Tragically, such are blind and have no hope.

“I” is only used in the subject (as are also “he” and “she”).  I am hungry.  She is hungry.  He is hungry.  This never changes even if other subjects are added.  Unless you are God or the Queen of England, proper English is for you to mention yourself LAST.  Of course, psychopaths and narcissists only think of themselves, so they mention themselves first.  Poorly educated, thinking impaired psychopaths or narcissists are inconsistent in where they mention themselves, and the syntax that they use is simply random chaos: They may mention themselves first, last—or even in the middle! while at the same time using the wrong pronoun for self and others, such as: Bill, me, and him are hungryMyself, him, and Bill are hungry. —or any other random combination.

Understand.  This is not nit-picking.  Language is important.  Without language thought is impossible.  With corrupt language, all that one can have is corrupt thought.  When corrupt language is used on a regular basis, the majority will pick up those bad habits due to hearing it repeatedly, and in time, it is considered “colloquially accepted”; that is, error becomes accepted as truth.  This destroys the language.  That is why this is important.  Furthermore, even if any individual did not have the best education—if he is reading competently written literature, he should have an “ah-ha!” experience, if he is paying attention (and how can you not be paying attention while reading a book?), he ought to realize “Oh!  That’s how that word is spelled”; “Oh!  That’s how that word is used properly in a sentence”.  If any individual does not experience this “on the job training” while he is reading, there is a serious problem!  Understand also: I do not ask of others anything that I do not require of myself.  I’ve learned 100 times more on my own than I learned in college.  Yes, I make mistakes.  I am far from perfect.  However, the difference is that I am not indifferent to my mistakes, and I continually do all that I can to learn, refine, and make fewer mistakes.  Each day every single one of us should desire to learn and do all that he can, to the best of his ability as the task requires.  Scripture says that whatever we do, we should do unto God’s Glory, and with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind.  This applies to our industry as well as learning each day.  It also applies to maturity and spiritual growth.  A motto of mine for decades, which I keep ever before my eyes (and even made it into a bookmark), is: “Each day that I do not make a conscious effort to be more Christ like has been a wasted day of my life.”  Each time I open the Bible in the morning I pray, “Teach me!”  Each time I write, I pray, “Please guide me to write truth, and keep me from writing error: More of Thee and less of me”.

This is also why morality is important and why it needs to be practiced on a regular basis (and why you should not be in the company of those who do not).  As the old saying goes, “Those who lay down with dogs arise with fleas”.  If you are around people (for example, on the job site) and those individuals are continually cursing, or if you watch movies in which foul language is common—you will find yourself thinking those obscene words, or you may even blurt out such a word and shock yourself, as well as everyone else who knows you.  It is dumbfounding and disheartening how the majority, even professionals, in society today use the f-word or any other foul word so commonly, so shamelessly, even in news interviews for all the world to hear.  It is shameful that the only time the majority of people ever speak the words “God” or “Jesus Christ” is when they are cursing.  They, indeed, will have Hell to pay.  The average person could not talk if you required him to not use curse words.  They would not know what to say.  It is a sign of low intelligence, low morals, poor education, and poor upbringing.  At least in Australian Survivor they bleep out many curse words, and blur the video on the person’s mouth so you cannot see what they are saying.  But is shameful to see how casually most people use such vulgarity—and many times it is even anti-intellectual.  I’ve heard some people say, “We ate the sh*t out of those eggs you gave us”; or while eating, “That’s some good sh*t!”  Really...?  There was no feces in the eggs when I gave them to you—what on earth did you do to them...?  I’m sorry, I don’t eat feces, so I really don’t know what you are talking about.  I’ve never sampled feces, and am not a connoisseur, to know the difference between good feces and bad feces, but apparently you are, so I will have to take your word on it.  If the majority of individuals used numbers and mathematics incorrectly as commonly as they use simple words, we’d be in even more trouble.  But words should add up to make sense also.

“Me” is only used in the predicate or object, etc., (as are also “him” and “her”).  [You] Give that to me, please.  [You] Give that to him, please.  [You] Give that to her, please.  [You] Give that to him, her, and me, please.  

If ever someone is confused and does not know whether to use “I” or “me”, especially when other individuals are mentioned in the same sentence, all you have to do is make the compound subject or predicate simple (singular) and leave out everyone else but yourselfPlease give that to Bill, Steve, and I is wrong.  Leave out Bill and Steve and it should appear more clear, Please give that to I.  This clearly should sound wrong because it is—but, what is wrong will even sound right if all that one hears is others speaking that which is wrong.

“Myself” is a reflexive pronoun, and is only used when you have already used “I” or “Me” earlier in the same sentence (as I pointed out in the above paragraph with the words you and yourself); and again, if a string of subjects or objects is used, you mention yourself LAST.  I requested that Bill, Steve, and myself I be appointed to the committee.  It is not “myself” in this example because the relationship is not reflexive: It is someone else doing the “appointing”.  Again, the easy way to tell is to leave out the other nouns in the same class: I requested that myself be appointed, is wrong.  The correct usage of myself would be, After careful consideration, I appointed myself to be in charge.  The reflexive relationship only exists if you mentioned yourself earlier in the same sentence and if it is you that is doing the action.  Similarly, Steve took my own idea and used it against myself me, is wrong.  Again, it is not “self” performing the action so the reflexive relationship is not there.  Correct usage would be: I outsmarted myself.  The pronoun myself (or himself / herself / yourself / yourselves / themselves*) is also used at times for emphasis: Anyone who may feel uncomfortable please understand that I myself will be there.  Also, a sentence such as, On our team we have Bill, Steve, and myself, myself indeed is correct, for “I” am included in the “our / we”.

* but notice, never I-self, he-self / hisself, sheself, or theirself, theirselves.]

The masses are propagandized, and taught that good and evil are not clearly defined entities,* and that what may be good for you may not be good for another; and by the injection of the immoral thinking of “situation ethics” and “if it feels good do it”, and the blurring and outright erasure of all moral boundaries: black is white, good is bad, right is wrong, male is female, all religions and people and cultures and philosophies and systems of government are “equal” and “the same”; that we all evolved from common ancestors—all the way back to monkeys and primordial soup / goo.  Notions such as have sex with whomever, whenever, however you want, regardless of whether you are married to someone else or not married at all, parallels the “unity of inter-faith” heresy and that all religions and peoples and cultures are the same, and valid and have wonderful contributions to make to society—even as the iceberg had a “wonderful contribution” to make to the Titanic; even as a match has a “wonderful contribution” to make to a gas station.  The blurring of all these moral boundaries, the blunting of the edge and point of truth has scrambled the brains of our people.

[* —that is, there are no “moral absolutes”.  However, this too is taught inconsistently and hypocritically (dishonestly).  They imperially establish clearly defined boundaries when they attempt to attack traditional morality—and even declare traditional, Biblical morality to be “immoral”—and consider it evil and a crime to not accept or celebrate the very opposite of morality; and even claim that traditional Biblical morality “has no place” in the civilization and nations that it created!  They, of course, are also hypocritical in championing luv, equality, tolerance, acceptance, inclusion, and celebration—except of those who disagree with their perverse notions of morality.  They declare good, what God declared evil and forbade; and they declare evil that which God declared good and commanded.  If you oppose their socialist, multi-cultural, interfaith, gender-perverse and confused agenda, they consider you “evil” and you receive no luv, acceptance, tolerance, or inclusion.  They have no intentions of making you feel “safe”.  Christ declared,

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18);

which John also reiterated:

“Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” (I John 3:13) 

Christ also declared,

1These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.  2They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.  3And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor Me.” (John 16)

Even as I type, it disgusts me that just about any business (seed company, vitamin / herb company, food supplier, used book seller, etc.) are sycophants who jump on any bandwagon to make a sale; and I receive emails from such companies asking me to order something as they “celebrate” (it should be “sell-a-brate”) Juneteenth, Pride Month—or anything else regardless of morality.  The majority have no conscience and no character.  If they could make a buck they would even advertise on “National Spit On Jesus Day”.  That notion is not too far from reality.  A decade or so ago there was a class in some school here in the U.S. in which the “teacher” required the students to write the words “Jesus Christ” on a piece of paper, then put the paper on the ground, and then get up and step on and stomp the piece of paper.  Some students participated with enthusiasm, others indifferently complying, and a few who refused and the teacher attempted to shame them.  Jewish “comedians” routinely insult Jesus within Christendom, and “Christians” don’t raise an eyebrow or offer a whimper of protest.  When they don’t they deny Christ; and one Day Christ shall return the favor...!  News stories abound in Christendom (and the vast majority of them are written by aliens; and the majority of news reporters are aliens) and if you pay attention you realize that we have aliens and antichrists teaching us how to be us!  The wolves are teaching the sheep what it means to be a sheep; and how sheep should behave.  In England and the U.S., there are Hindus and other third world peoples—for whom English is not even their first language and they cannot speak without their thick accent, who are “English teachers” in our schools and “English professors” in our colleges.  Feminists, socialists, perverts, and antichrists are teaching our children.  There was one story in which an African is a teacher in a school in Ireland who is teaching the Irish students Irish culture and history...!  African “professors” in U.S. universities, paid exhorbitant salaries and benefits, whose “degree” is in some invented field (a Ph.D. in “Black women’s Empowerment studies”, or whatever) blatantly spew anti-white hatred and then defend their own speech by saying, “I have tenure, I can say whatever I want”.  I know someone who was going to a Methodist Bible seminary in North Carolina or Virginia, and one book that was “required reading” for which he also had to write a book report, was: Santa Biblia: The Bible Through Hispanic Eyes by Justo L. González.  It is now common for Latino, African, or Korean “pastors” or “Christian” book authors—who became wealthy and raised to positions of eminence in Christian denominations to then turn on the host nation and Christian community that made them famous and wealthy, and spew anti-white hatred.  They are destroyers that come to deceive and destroy from within.  Similarly, multi-billion dollar corporations that grew fabulously wealthy off white, Christian consumers who have bought their products over many decades, then jump on the perverse bandwagon and begin perverse—in your face advertisements; not caring if they disenfranchise 95% of their consumer base (knowing that most “Christians” have no moral character and will not boycott their product) in order to cater to a perverse 5%.  Rainbow pasta advertisements; soup commercials with 2 daddies feeding the child alphabet soup; multicultural or all black settings for every family in advertisements; homoperverts in every t.v. show, and even entire shows built around them.  Even one season of Australian Survivor (#7) had a tatooed, pierced lesbian—who wore a necklace with a cross on it! throughout the season; and in a “reunion” episode, “her wife” was brought on, and showed them kiss, and all the other contestants and the host were “so happy” for them, and thought that they were “so wonderful”; and one contestant, who reportedly is a Christian, hugged her without reservation and considers her to be someone who will remain a “life-long friend” even after the reality show is over, and even considers her to be like “family”.  Such know not God.  Welcome to Babylon.]

Scripture declares,

“Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the Law, happy [blessed] is he” (Proverbs 29:18). 

God does not randomly pair completely different, unrelated ideas together; nor are concepts paired by accident.  [“Hey, you got peanut butter on my chocolate!”]  They are indeed “a match made in Heaven”.  In this passage, the vision clearly is not referring to any person’s individual, subjective daydream or fantasy.  It is referring to an oracle or a revelation from God.  Again, this is not referring to any personal “vision” or “dream” that any individual thinks that he has had (whether Catholic or Pentecostal).  God clearly explained through whom and how He would reveal His Will (His Word, His Law, His Truth).  This is the whole purpose of the calculated plan of dechristianizing and paganization of Christendom—to destroy the vision, that is, Divine Revelation in the never-changing Plan and Law of God.  The purpose is to get our people’s eyes off Christ; which, when Peter did so, he sank while walking on the water, and then even later denied Christ.  That vision is the Purpose and Plan and Law of God. 

Balaam, after realizing that he could not curse God’s people, because God controlled his mouth when he opened it to prophecy a curse upon them, then offered dark, evil counsel to Balak, King of the Moabites, who were confederating at that time with the Midianites (who themselves were pure kinsmen with Israel until the Midianites began intermarrying with the Moabites, who themselves were half-Canaanite, though originally pure Hebrews, born of incest—and whom God cursed*).  Balaam told Balak to have the Moabites and Midianites prostitute their own daughters, to have them (like the adultress typified in the Book of Proverbs) dress seductively and daily allure the Israelite men to stop and have a chat (like a spider inviting a fly to tea).  The women were then to seduce the Israelite men to the point that the men were eager and gave in, surrendering to their lusts, but the women would not consent to having sexual relations with them unless first the Israelite men sacrificed unclean animals to the pagan gods with them, and until they ate the unclean animals that had been sacrificed.  The women were to tell them that is was perfectly natural to have such interrelations, since they were “brethren” (that is, until the Midianites began intermarrying with the Moabites, and then devolved into being illegitimate, cursed “brethren” who were “brethren no more”).  The genius of this plan was that Balaam taught Balak that the only way to defeat God’s people was to entice them to fall into sin—and then God would not hear their prayers or protect or deliver them.  It is here that we find ourselves again.

[* Most “Christians” decry God doing as He will with His universe.  God makes the rules.  Those who don’t like them and rebel against them are anti-God—antichrists.  If we obey those Commands, sin is short lived and dies out.  However, the majority of “Christians” want God’s Rules to die out (and they accuse Him of being evil if He does not do what sinful man thinks that He should do) and instead want to breed, nurture, and embrace sin—and then cause all of Christendom suffer perpetually.]

True Christianity is Revelationally based—based upon the limited, specific, exact revealed Word of God, in the Canon of the Holy Scriptures.  The problem is that the majority of “Christians” do not possess faith, and they do not hold to the actual doctrine of the Word of God—but instead hold to “Kindergarten Theology” (superficial Bible “stories”, incorrectly understood) and humanism with a thin veneer of Biblical trappings.  The majority of modern “Christians” have a “faith” that is “experientially” based; that is, they imagine that right or wrong, true doctrine, reality is established based upon their individual “experience”, what “feels good” to them, what “makes sense” to them (in their illogical minds), what benefits them, what they think is “fair”; based upon what a “dream” they had contained; if it fluffs their aura and gives them the warm fuzzies; if it allows them to do as they want, to live as they please.  This is not Christianity—it is paganism, humanism, and superstition.  It is Antichrist.  True religion, Bible doctrine—Theology centers around GOD, and what He decreed and commanded.  Humanism (which passes for 95% of “Christianity” today) centers around man, and what man wants to believe—and God be damned if He does not agree.

The primary reason that people do not think logically is because they are nontrained to think and anti-trained not to think.  Ralph Waldo Emmerson wrote:

“God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose.  Take which you wish—you can never have both.” (Essays: “Intelligence”) 

That statement is true in its utilitarian aspect, though not in its “free will” aspect.  Thomas Jefferson expressed,

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was and never will be.” 

Benjamin Franklin expressed,

“A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved.  It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.” 

This applies a spiritual level, as well as geo-political.  The sovereign nation of which Jefferson and Franklin spoke is not an autonomous entity, but is comprised of a homogeneous people.  A subverted nation, a melting pot, is a socialist State.

The majority of people within Christendom do not think because—

- The dumbed-down, demoralized, dechristianized, paganized schools have purposely lobotomized the majority of the population.  Nonthinking slaves are easier to control—especially if they are trained to become dependent on “welfare”, “insurance”, “government” protection from all forms of “evil”: real or imagined; which the “government” itself purposely creates in order to have job security and the ever-growing “need” and “self-fulfilling prophecy” for more and more control; i.e., more “government”, laws, agencies, police powers—and of course, more and more taxes to pay for it all, with more and more “government” counterfeiting, making the money that you have worth less and less, to pay for those more and more taxes and ever-increasing prices.  None of this is natural or by accident; it is all planned and artificially created and manipulated by the “government” (corrupt, treasonous politicians, or tares sown in among the wheat).

- The dumbed-down population is purposely demoralized by being taught sexual “freedom” (which is actually “bondage”—70% of the U.S. population under the age of 30 has a sexually transmitted disease—THAT is an “epidemic”; especially since young people constitute the majority of people in food service; potentiating the contamination of all of us).

While pretending to be waging a “war on poverty” and a “war on drugs” and a “war on illiteracy”, the corrupt “government” actually creates the environment that breeds all of these problems on a commercial scale, to then give them the “excuse” to demand more money to “fight” the problems that they themselves import and breed.  The corrupt politicians and their handlers are themselves secretly involved in the drug trade—because it is a lucrative industry and it is the “gift” that “keeps on giving”; creating another lucrative industry: rehab drugs and clinics.

There is a total absence of morality in the schools, because the students are propagandized with immorality encouraged to “experiment” with everything.  They are taught to question and rebel against everything—against their parents, against God, against morality and normalcy—but not against “the State” (that is, the corrupt politicians that constitute the subverted government). 

[That is as hypocritical as ignorant preachers who preach that Jesus abolished the Law of God—but then remind you that it is a Command of God to tithe.]

Movie stars, “singers”, athletes, Hollywood, magazines, novels, etc. have created an amoral—or rather, anti-moral society in which promiscuous sex and drugs are a nostalgic part of American “culture” (to those who fried most of their brain cells; and burned their consciences with their bras).  The corrupt educational system, and the media (including publishing houses) and entertainment industries (including the music industry, as well as Hollywood, Broadway, etc.) are responsible for the glorification of every stripe of perversion to the point that nearly every form of immorality and abominations are all considered “normal”, legislatively protected, glorified, and celebrated.  I wrote a decade ago that the only sins / abominations / taboos left to legalize and “normalize” are pedophilia and cannibalism.  Nothing is considered “taboo” any longer (except traditional Biblical morality).  Cannibalism will probably be legalized eventually (all that meat going to waste!).  About a decade ago there was an unbelievable news story about a man in Germany (whose features did not appear to be German) who took out an advertisement in a newspaper saying, I’d like to kill someone and eat him.  Another “German” (who appeared to be of middle eastern origin) responded, apparently with the impression: Hey, that sounds like a wonderful Idea; I’d love to be killed and eaten.  Unbelieveably, they got together and it happened!  The eater was arrested and prosecuted for killing and eating the “eatee”.  I would guess that the real crime in the eyes of the State, was that it was not asked permission and a “fee” was not paid.  That sounds outlandish to those whose hearts and minds are not perverted, but it is not far from reality.  Seriously, tell me, if a woman can kill “her baby” even after it is born, based upon “My body—my right!” then would it not be hypocritical to not allow someone to be killed and eaten if that is what he wants for “his body”...?  Yet hypocritically, women who think it is all right for a woman to kill her own baby are outraged if someone culls an unwanted litter after his dog or cat got pregnant.  Incest is not even prosecuted in various U.S. States or cities any more, and is considered legal (as long as there is no offspring—but just wait long enough, and if the “right” laws are passed, that offspring can be killed and eaten...!).  Pedophilia is actually fast-tracked toward being legaled.  Various “organizations” exist that promote such perversion, such as The North American Man / Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)—founded in 1973...!  An undercover detective, c.1995, discovered that there were 1,100 members, and thus NAMBLA was at that time considered to be the largest group constituting an International Pro-pedophile Activist Organization (IPCE).  Groups on this list used to be surveilled.  I image soon they will be given the key to the city!

Further, a recent Newsweek article titled “Who is Allyn Walker?  ODU Professor Quits After Pedophilia Remarks Spark Backlash” by Brendan Cole (11/25/21) reported on a “trans” professor at Old Dominion University in Virginia, who wrote a book and aired some short social media videos that advocate the “destigmatization of pedophiles”, offering instead the perverse euphemism, “minor-attracted persons”.

[Below are a few new “u-fem-isms” that I (sarcastically) recommend:

The words rapists and murderers are “too harsh”, and are certainly stigmatizing; how about...?

Rapists: “univited guests to bodies that are not theirs”.


Murderers: “next-life facilitators”.

Similarly, I wrote in my book, End of Freedom on Planet Earth (2001) in regard to the Persian Gulf War:

“While the War Department is being all “touchy-feely” and trying to get in touch with its more-sensitive girlish persona, shouldn’t we reconsider even calling it “WAR”?  Isn’t that a pretty harsh word?  How about “Powerful Display of Negative Friendliness”?  Or better yet — (that negative word “brings my mood down” and makes me “feel sad”, which ruins all the “good energy” that this war is creating; and that powerful word is too direct and forceful) — How about, “Firm Display of Positive unFriendliness”?  That’s better; isn’t it?  Now we can feel better about killing thousands of innocent people, and in time, the history books will praise us for our moral decision to engage in a “campaign exhibiting a FIRM DISPLAY OF POSITIVE UNFRIENDLINESS.”

Also, recently, someone filmed a short clip of a “teacher” as she was waving a “pride” flag in her middle school (Fallston Middle School, in Harford County, Fallston, Maryland) around children.  The person who filmed it posted the four-second video clip online and it went viral—and there was a backlash by parents and others; but all that the media did was demonize the parents and objectors, and report the outraged backlash against the backlash.  Parents and other adults left social media comments that told the teacher: Leave your agenda at home.  The teacher began whining about being upset, overwhelmed, her “reputation” that she worked so hard to build (she is a health teacher and adviser for the school’s Gay Straight Student Alliance Club—despite the fact that she is a “devout Catholic”), and whined that she feels “belittled” and fears for her safety.  My, my, my, how the snowflakes whine under the smallest heat and pressure, and cry persecution—even though they perpetrate attacks 10,000 times worse against anyone with whom they disagree, and simply expect them to “take it” and “change”.  She now fears for her life and she and her family are in seclusion.  Quite possibly, any individual who posted bonafide “threats” on the social media, or who made threatening phone calls, was part of the leftist community itself, in order to create the volatile situation and denounce those who opposed perversion to be “haters” and “violent”.  Similarly, during the so-called “insurrection”, there is one individual, I believe, Ray Epps, caught on numerous video clips, repeatedly attempting to incite patriotic Americans around him to storm the Capitol building.  One patriot even began pointing his finger at the guy and yelling, “Fed!  Fed!  Fed!”  This individual, who is reported by some to be a former F.B.I. cooperative, has never been arrested, though the videos are on social media and common knowledge; although hundreds of other Americans are still in jail, uncharged, merely for being in the area.  Of course, the Attorney General or others in positions of power and the Democratic “Hearing” on the “insurrection” is completely silent concerning this glaring evidence, even as they are of the undeniable mountain of evidence and testimony of experts concerning the very real and massive voter fraud and rigged election machines.

Some members of the educational community sided with the teacher who was waving the “pride” flag and said that they would not tolerate such “bullying” of one student against another, so it will not tolerate the “bullying” of parents against the teacher; and decried that the teacher was now the object of “terrorism” and “fears for her life”.  My question is: WHAT would the schoolboard have said if a teacher had been waving a CHRISTIAN flag or a WHITE PRIDE flag or a CONFEDERATE flag...?  THAT is the litmus test of sincerity...!

Leftists now demonize all nonleftists and call “bullying” anything that does not agree with their agenda. “Hater”, “Racist”, “Antisemite”, “Homophobe”, “Denier”, “Islamophobe”, “Xenophobe”, “Sexist”, “Chauvenist”, “Misogynist” and now, “Bully”—these are all black magic incantations, revolutionary, reactionary political voodoo spells that are cast by the wicked upon the “righteous”, and the “righteous” cower in fear under the hex from the hecklers.  These terms are themselves the most-blatant form of BULLYING and themselves create an environment in which people do not feel “safe”, and which words are INTOLERANT, HATEFUL, and non-inclusive—and they are a “one-way street” that has only left-handed (and underhanded) turns.

In one tiny (probably temporary) “victory”, the “pride” flag is now banned in that school district in Maryland.

I have long written: If 50 to 100 million moral, patriotic, Christian Americans stopped allowing themselves to be incapacitated by the FALSE notion,

“I am only one person, what good could the little that I do accomplish...?”


Furthermore, GOD COMMANDS us to do what is right, whether we are one person or not...!

“To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

IT DOES NOT MATTER if you think that you will have success.

“Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” (I Corinthians 4:2)

As Stonewall Jackson said,

“Duty is ours; consequences are God’s”.

IT DOES NOT MATTER if it is easy, popular, fun, or if it feels good.  THAT is not the litmus test for doing what is right.  In Greek mythology Nike was a goddess who personified victory in any field including art, music, war, and athletics.  I have a better idea: “Morality—Just do it!”

Where has the Christian teaching gone that “We are supposed to do what is right simply because it is right”...?  Just imagine... if God had not made food tasty and sex pleasurable—mankind would have starved to death due to no desire to eat, or forgetting to, and mankind would have gone extinct millennia ago from not reproducing...!  Instead, modern society is like a dog devouring its own vomit; and embracing every form of perversion, even if it is self-destructive.

A person is not supposed to believe the truth or do what is rightly solely because of the “payoff” that he hopes he will receive.  We are supposed to do what is right for the right reason and with the right attitude in order to obey God—and afterwards trust God to bless us.  The GREATEST blessing would be if others by seeing true Christians stand up and do what is right, in the face of evil, the “reverse domino-effect” would operate FOR GOOD, and countless others would stand up and true change in the the right direction would be affected...!

Scripture commands,

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [rebuke] them.” (Ephesians 5:11).

Most “Christians” are taught Antichrist doctrine, and violate what God commands, and instead, embrace evil because it is “family”, or out of fear of what others would think, or they irrationally think that they are being a “good witness”; but they actually ally themselves to wickedness and are therefore the enemy of God. 

You cannot hold hands and walk with both God and evil, because: 1. God and evil go in opposite directions; and 2. God will let go of your hand and abandon you to evil.

True Christians and moral people need to stand up and not be silent... every time that evil raises its ugly head, Christians, moral people should “boo” and shout down the leftists, antichrists, and perverts, the very same way that leftists do to moral people who hold traditional values, who in cowardice submit.  Moral people ought to shout them down... not remain silent; and they should tell the leftists, repeating the best line from the movie The Bucket List, in which Jack Nicholson, when his queer assistant interjected, “I have an idea...”, Nicholson walked past him and gave him a patronizing pat on the chest and said matter-of-factly as he continued to walk past as if he was not even there: “Nobody cares what you think.”  That’s what the leftists, perverts, and antichrists need to be told when they spout off or act out in our nation.  Nobody, no Christian should care what evil thinks; and the evil individuals are the ones who should shut up and be ostracized.  In the same vein, Christians should stand up and applaud and support and defend those who do stand up to testify for what is right and to rebuke that which is evil; not be cowardly and remain silent.

The leftists and antichrists are winning because they are loud and in-your-face, while so-called “Christians” remain silent; the left is active, “Christians” are lazy and passive; the left has deep pockets and support those promoting their agenda, “Christians” are tightwads; the left cares about their agenda, Christians are apathetic; the left is bold, Christians are cowards.

MY BIBLE says,

“The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion” (Proverbs 28:1)

WHY is that not experienced as a reality...? —because the majority who think themselves “Christians” are not... “every tree is known by its fruit”.]

Returning to the primary reason why most people don’t think, because they are trained not to think:

- The mind-shapers (destroyers) of society program the masses from childhood to be addicted to endless amusement, leisure, entertainment and mind-numbing, perverse “music”, movies, television, sports, and newspapers, magazines, radio, and tv talk shows that turn any existing brain to pudding.  Such media* mindlessly talk about a plethora of meaningless nonsense: that a mindless, immoral, savage that is being hired by certain sports team and that he thinks that $150 million / year is not enough money, that he is worth more than that so that people can watch him run around and play with a ball; what this or that celebrity is wearing each day; who they are shacked up with or divorcing now, and which rehab clinic they have checked themselves into, and what new tidbit of wisdom they deigned to grace society with—knowing that we all hang on their every word, knowing what pinnacles of morality and wisdom they are.

[* —which is the plural of medium, which in this case refers to the mediating object, the method by which the plan is brought about; such as an occult “medium” who acts as the liason, the “go-between” facilitating a conversation between, in most cases, a sucker and an alleged spirit of a departed loved one.]

It used to be that leisure, amusement, and entertainment, like vacations were “treats”, a “reward” that individuals earned from having first been responsible and industrious, working and studying hard all week or all year—actually producing something each day.  However, a large portion of the population (both rich and poor) have made leisure, amusement, and entertainment a lifestyle and existential.  The vapid persona and bankruptcy of character is testimony to the success of this mental opioid, this narcissistic narcotic upon which the antichrist shapers of society have addicted the majority of the population.

[* In some houses “desert” is something special, served after dinner, every now and then—as a special treat.  However, in many other families, desert is considered to be one of the major food groups that many families would never even consider not serving, any more than they would serve the meal without plates, glasses, or utensils.  This is but one of the many reasons why about 60% of the U.S. population is obese.  Some individuals will not even eat a meal without drinking one or more soft drinks. 

One 12-ounce can of Coke has 9.75 teaspoons (39 g.) of sugar, specifically—high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS, renamed “corn sugar” because too many intelligent consumers became wary of it and started avoiding products that contain it); which wreaks havoc on the body and brain and which blocks the brain from signaling the body that it has been sated (satiated); so the pigs at the trough just keep eating.  Mountain Dew has 11.5 teaspoons (46 g.) of sugar.  However, that much sugar is almost impossible to gag down, so the soft drink manufacturers all add phosphoric acid to dull the sweetness.  Really?  Would it not make more sense to use a smaller amount of sugar, than so much sugar that a chemical has to be added to make it taste less sweet?  Cannot anyone see something seriously wrong with this picture? 

After drinking or consuming such amounts of sugar, blood sugar levels increase drastically within 20 minutes—resulting in a burst of insulin into the bloodstream by the pancreas, which prompts cells to absorb blood sugar for energy or storage; the liver subsequently turns sugar into fat.  A person who drinks only 1 sugar soda a day will gain 15 lbs. a year if he does not do extra exercise to work off those extra grams of sugar (which requires 50 minutes of walking).  Sugar puts stress on the kidneys: 1 in 7 American adults have CKD (Chronic Kidney Disease)—and 90% don’t know it (and kidneys do not regenerate; once destroyed, “game over”).  Sugar also creates an acid environment in the body (as does carbolic acid, the carbonation), which causes inflammation (which exacerbates or causes many chronic degenerative diseases) and cancer feeds off sugar. 

Diet sodas are actually worse for you, because of the chemicals and artificial sugars that destroy the liver, kidneys, and brain.  The only 2 healthy “artificial” sweeteners are xylitol (which is just as sweet as white sugar) and erythritol (which is only half as sweet as xylitol, but has zero calories); but they both must be non-China, non-GMO-corn sourced, which, of course, will be more expensive.  Also, your body produces a small amount of xylitol daily; but it is systemic, not gastrointestinal; so there is a slight learning curve for the stomach.  When you first try it, yes, your stomach will grumble.  That is your stomach telling you, “Yes, there is a problem and we are working on it”.  Your stomach takes a little while to learn how to digest it.  So start with 1/4 teaspoon in tea or coffee; several times a day (back up on dosage or frequency according to your stomach’s feedback to you).  After a week or a few weeks (each person is different), you will be able to eat it by the tablespoon without any problem.  Xylitol is also anti-bacterial, alkaline, causes no change in blood sugar or pressure, and has 40% less carbs and 75% less calories.

See: Sugar Blues, Dufty, 255pp., pocket pb. (dangers of refined white sugar on heath) 9.99 + P&H.  The Sweet Miracle of Xylitol, Fran Gare, 84pp., pb., 7.00 + P&H.  Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Blaylock, M.D. 296pp., pb., 18.00 + P&H; dangerous ingredients added to your foods such as Nutrasweet, MSG, etc., their serious dangers and how they are cleverly disguised without being listed in the ingredients.  Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, Cori Brackett, 95 minute DVD, 20.00 + P&H; expose of the serious health problems caused by MSG and Aspartame (Equal, Nutrasweet, etc.)—the political corruption in FDA (and Rumsfeld) to pass a product (which now laces so many foods and drinks) that causes alarming numbers of brain tumors, holes in the brain tissue, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, cancers, etc. and much more.  This is a very important presentation.  I will not drink diet (or nondiet) soda ever again or eat anything with these artificial sweeteners or HFCS.  I have not had a sugar soda for 50 years; or a diet one for 11 years.  I have also for 50 years avoided MSG (and its evil step-sisters, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate for decades; but all 3 and others are also put in food and drink and immorally hidden under dozens of different names, including, “natural flavors”).

According to information presented by Dr. John Bergman (who has many superb videos on the internet), which I transcribed:

Here is a list of ingredients that ALWAYS contain MSG:
- Hydrolyzed Protein
- Glutamic Acid
- Monopotassium Glutamate
- Monosodium Glutamate
- Textured Protein
- Yeast Extract
- Autolyzed Yeast
- Yeast Nutrient
- Calcium Caseinate
- Anything Protein Fortified
- Barley Malt Ion
- Natural Beef Flavoring
- Protease
- Corn Starch

These ingredients OFTEN contain MSG or create MSG during processing:
- Flavors and Flavorings
- Seasonings
- Natural Flavors and Flavorings
- Natural Pork Flavoring
- Natural Chicken Flavoring
- Soy Sauce
- Soy Protein Isolate
- Soy Protein
- Bouillon
- Stock
- Broth
- Citric Acid
- Powdered Milk
- Anything Protein Fortified
- Anything Enzyme Modified
- Malt Extract
- Malt Flavoring
- Barley Malt
- Whey Protein
- Carrageenan
- Maltodextrin
- Pectin
- Enzymes

While there, of course, are exceptions, you should take nothing for granted, and ask specific questions via the 800 numbers or email / website messaging of the manufacturer of the product in question—and don’t be fooled by the sidestepping of your actual question, by a generalized answer that answers something other than your exact question. If regular soy sauce cannot be trusted, then “organic” brands need to be scrutinized, or even Bragg’s Liquid Aminos, by asking them specific questions. Don’t accept an invasive answer. A direct “yes” or “no”: Does this product or any of its ingredients contain MSG, DSG, DSI, or any similar chemical, “natural” or artificial? Some products may advertise, “No added MSG”. A brand of hot dogs says that it contains no added MSG, but only those natural amounts contained in celery; and celery or its juice is added. Caveat Emptor. If you can not pronounce the ingredients, do not know what they are if you are not a chemist, and need a magnifying glass to read them, most probably you should not be eating it.  Propelyne glycol is one of the ingredients of anti-freeze—and a mere taste of anti-freeze can kill a pet or a human—and it is a regular ingredient in most any creamy product, from ice cream to salad dressings.  Aluminum, a toxic metal that when introduced to the body builds up in the organs and leads to early senility and Alzheimer’s—yet nearly every baked good (fresh, frozen, refrigerated, dry mix) is laced with it.

Again, even as there are many things that you consider “common sense” that those who lack common sense do not consider, you also need to realize that evil people do things that non-evil people would never even imagine.  This explains why so many things are added to food, and even legalized, and the lawyer-eeze sleeze lingo that they deceptively employ.  For many years, many products that advertized, “Natural vanilla flavor” (cookies, ice cream, etc.) actually contained, hold your chair, beaver anus...!  That was considered “legal, truthful” advertizing, because, as it turns out (I will take their word for it), beaver anus smells and tastes like vanilla, and a beaver’s anus, indeed, is natural to the beaver’s body.  Common sense would seem to dictate that no one buying ice cream with natural vanilla flavor would ever in his wildest imagination realize that he is buying beaver anus.  Besides, everyone knows that aardvark anus and racoon rectum are superior!  That notwithstanding, if you want actual vanilla, and not something else, it has to say, “natural vanilla bean” (at least, until the corrupt politicians and lawyers change the law once again).  Many orange and red colored products (red velvet cake, orange colored mouth washes, candies, sodas, marachino cherries, and even ketchup—as if tomatoes are not red enough) are so colored by the larvae of a specific species of scale insects called cochineal.  It is quite possible that this is responsible (in violation of the dietary laws that God established) for various allergies and inflammations, as all things that God forbade us to eat contain an array of toxins and parasites.  Similarly, most people who think that they are allergic to chocolate are probably not allergic to chocolate but to cockroaches; large chocolate manufacturing factories cannot eradicate their cockroach population, so the FDA graciously regulates that chocolate can contain a certain percentage of cockroach parts and eggs.  Bon appetit!]

The secondary reason that the majority of people do not think logically is due to laziness (and apathy can be included in there, which could be referred to as “laziness of the moral conscience”); it is really an “acquired taste”—nutured, cultivated, developed as a science and / or virtue in Christendom.

The terciary reason that the majority of people do not think logically is because they hate the truth—unless it happens to be something that they already want to believe; unless it is favorable to what their pet sins happen to be; unless it has the “payoff” that they desire.

Some accused Dr. Gordon H. Clark of being cold and mechanical. This was an unfair assessment.  Most probably it was emotional bias and guilt on the part of the antagonists.  Clark expressed something to the effect that 2 + 2 = 4 and other truths are not intended to cause palpitations of the heart (passions).  Emotions should play zero role in the actions of the intellect or legal proceedings.  Chemistry, trigonometry, calculus, physics, algebra, etc. are not based upon “good” (or “bad”) “feelings”.  Even much of what are called the “arts” is actually science.  Music may sound beautiful (if it is truly good music and if it is actually music)—but music is science (the study of which is music theory), with mathematical precision, the interrelationship between one sound and another depending upon its precise mathematical, measurable location and its pitch, volume, and how long a note is sustained, and the speed or tempo of the string of notes at any given point in the musical composition; and a balance and harmony of all those ordered, precise, mathematical notes.  An entire orchestra, in order to play a piece of music, must all operate based upon all those precise rules of order and exactitude of notes and timing; all of which is based upon precise fractions of numbers.  Although music strikes the emotions, which demonstrate appreciation of the music, those emotions do not write the music, the intellect does; and it is the intellect that determines that which will appeal to the emotions.  The emotions are not existential, but are based upon all of the precise scientific musical qualities and arrangement.  It is the same with art: the appreciation of symmetry, harmony or contrast of lines and colors, shading, technique, and order (until some destroyer comes along and teaches people that “ugly is beautiful”—and people “develope a taste for” things that are distasteful).  Some individuals may respond more “emotionally” than others (internally or externally) to art, whether music, a painting, a sculpture, or architecture, but it is all based upon the understanding of intellect and the science of the art (or even the subconsious effect of lyrics or the very vibrations and pitches that strike the human body—which itself would be science, not art).  It is not that many geniuses are not enough in touch with their “feelings”—but that the majority of emotional creatures are not enough in touch with their intellect, and do not consciously know “why” they innately appreciate one sound or color or shape over another.

God gave strict rules concerning exactly who may be judges, ministers, statesmen, the head of the house, church, community, and nation.  Part of this is existential and decretive—simply because that is what God established; part of it is practical: because emotions are to have no place in Judgment.  Emotions are to follow in the train of the intellect.  If they interfere, they cause confusion (derailment), and muddy the waters of truth and justice.  No amount of passion can change what 2 + 2 equals.  No amount of emotions can change wrong to right—but when allowed to interfere, all of nonthinking, characterless, immoral, nonChristian society must continue in the charade of pretending that something is other than it is.  In time, the nonthinking masses firmly believe 2 + 2 = 22, if that is what they have been taught.  Few species of fish swim upstream.  Most go with the current and the tide and the school; and many are bottomfeeders who are content to wait for the filth to float down to them.

Emotions have no place in the determination of judgment: what morality / law is; whether that morality / law was violated or not.  Sometimes, there is room for limited emotions, in sentencing—if the situation and law allows it.  However, the only person who has any right to waive judgment (whether fully, or partially through leniency) of a criminal for the crime(s) that he committed is the victim / injuried party (which includes the family, the authority of the household that was wronged)—and leniency or total absolution is permissible solely in certain offenses in which God’s Word allows.

However, the modern effeminate Apostate “Christian” Church confuses internal forgiveness within the heart / mind of the victim, with “the waiving of the external judgment on the offender”—and the two are completely different things.  You can forgive in your heart / mind, and not hold bitterness against the guilty party—but that does not mean that you must waive the judgment that God commands.  You can forgive someone for cheating you, deceiving you, betraying you—but that does not mean that you do not demand that he repay what he stole from you; and it does not mean that you will trust him in the future and give him opportunity to do it again.

If some deluded soul with a perverted notion of “forgiveness” testifies on the behalf of a murder or rapist, and asks that the charges be dropped and that murderer and rapist is set free and murders or rapes again—any person who immorally assisted in that criminal being forgiven and set free (whether the sentence was reduced or waived entirely) every such person (the judge, anyone who testified on his behalf, even the victim who had a perverted notion of Christian forgiveness) has blood on his hands and is an accomplice and shares in any murder or rape that is ever committed by that criminal that was released.

Clark, rightfully, believed that there is no room for emotions (or any subjective phenomena) in the determination of truth.  This does not mean that there is no room for emotions anywhere.  Indeed, Scripture informs us that there is a time and a place for everything.  I will make an objective declaration that laughing out loud and uncontrollably is not the time or place in the middle of a funeral.  However, the average individual is an undisciplined emotional being; and his judgment, attitude, speech, actions, and choices are usually clouded, in every area of life, because the average individual bases his decisions upon his own uncontrolled emotions, his own ego, and his own subconscious delusion of godhood.*  Indeed, God chooses man’s delusions (Isaiah 66:4).  These delusions that God sends result in the fantasy of complete independence from God and being in control of ones own destiny, and the delusions that GOd sends result in narcissistic, even borderline psychopathology, and arrogance often cleverly masquerading as piety and even humility.

[* Divinely sent delusion is the only explanation for why a person, who is only 1 individual among some 7.7 billion people currently on earth, (and many times that number over a period of 6,000 years), would believe that what he alone thinks or feels is “fair” and should determine reality, to which everyone else (including God Himself) should submit.  This, indeed, is profound delusion—and it is a delusion held by most persons.

Louis Pasteur expressed,

“The greatest derangement of the human mind is to believe because one wishes it to be so.”

English poet, surgeon, and clergyman George Crabbe (1754-1832) eloquently penned:

“Habit with him was all the test of truth; ‘it must be right, I’ve done it since my youth’.”

George Bernard Shaw expressed,

“If we repeat something, even the most outrageous lie, sufficiently often, in time people will accept it as true and [consider] you a wise man for telling it.”

German poet, scientist, and critic, Johann Wolfgang Goethe expressed,

“The phrases men hear or repeat continually, end by becoming convictions and ossify the organs of intelligence.”

American adventurer, author, and geo-political strategist, Homer Lea, keenly noted:

“The Judgements of men are formed, not from facts as they are, but as they wish them to be.  They root through tons of good wheat to find three pieces of chaff, if the chaff lends weight to their belief and argument.  It is not that they want others to know the truth, but to have them believe as they do.  Beyond this they do not care.  The conceit of man ordinarily forms his criterion of truth.”

And even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then; terribly perverse and confused (even insane) German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:

“The majority of men prefer delusion to truth.  It soothes.  It is easy to grasp.  Above all, it fits more snugly than the truth into a universe of false appearances...”

For many hundreds of other profound quotes, see my series:

America, Christianity, Liberty & Truth: What Famous Men Had To Say; proof the U.S. founded as Christian nation; powerful quotes on Bible, Freedom, Race, Heritage, Self-Defense, Property, Constitution, debunking Evolution, Discrimination, etc. World’s greatest minds believed Liberty & Truth inseperable from Jesus Christ & Bible. Contains Supreme Court and Common Law citations. Vol. 1, 54pp., 5.50 + P&H; Vol. 2, 80pp., 6.00 + P&H; Vol. 3, 92pp., 7.00 + P&H; Vol. 4 (the final vol.) 405pp., pb., 20.00 + P&H; indexed. All 4 Vols. 35.00 + P&H.]

As the old saying goes, “the right tool for the right job”.  Emotions have their limited place and purpose.

You cannot use an anvil as a life preserver or as a pole with which to propel yourself upward and over a horizontal bar.  That does not mean that an anvil has no use.  Conversely, a life preserver or a vaulting pole would be useless in place of an anvil over which to pound heated metal into shape.

Emotions have no place interfering in intellectual matters and certainly should never replace cognitive thought.  Salt and A-1 sauce do not replace the steak; they complement it.  Frosting does not replace the cake; it accentuates it.  Eating a 32-oz pile of salt and A-1 sauce would not be very enjoyable or healthy—and it would make you sick (possibly fatally*).  Eating a can of frosting** would also be unhealthy; and even if someone is so childish or out of touch that he does not realize the harm that he is doing to his body, that does not mean that the internal harm is not accruing; likewise the visceral damage with which alcoholics, drug addicts, and gluttons ravage their bodies.  So also is the case when emotions replace, overrule, or interfere with the intellect.

[* A Fatal overdose of salt consumed in one sitting would be about 0.2 to 0.5 grams of salt per pound of body weight.  This would be 35 to 70 grams of salt (2 to 4 level, measured tablespoons) for a person weighing 154 pounds.

** There are about 247 grams of sugar in a 16-oz. can of frosting; nearly 20 Tablespoons (60 teaspoons).]

In Hinduism, there are billions of gods (the sky and the imagination is the limit), because each individual (intelligent or doltish) creates his god(s) according to his own imagination.  Some of these gods become popular, based upon common agreement of many individuals who share the same delusion.  However, sadly, the majority of “Christianity” today has taken a few pages from the “playbooks” of Hinduism and humanism, and each sinful “Christian” (in his deluded mind) creates God after his own fallen, sinful image (imagination) and likeness—and then projects that image onto the God of the Bible and delusionally believes that false mental construct it is actually God.  But in reality, they are guilty of idolatry and worship a false god.  God even rebukes such, “thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them [truth] in order before thine eyes” (Psalm 50:21b).

Tell me, how many of God’s Attributes could you strip God of (replacing them with sinful human characteristics) and you still be worshipping the true God?  The gods of Norse, Saxon, Slavic, Baltic, Brythonic, Roman, and Greek Mythology (which gods contained the same foibles, flaws, and vices of sinful humans) were created in the very same way—and most “Christians” do the same thing, without realizing it, but in a much-more subtle way.  Like ancient mythology, what passes for modern Christianity (as Hinduism) has developed (or more properly, in many cases, has corrupted) numerous different “denominations” and “sects” of Christianity, based upon the individual or collective fantasies of sinful men, about what they think reality should be, and based upon what they think is “fair” and “equal”—and they demand that God conform to it.  Most “Christians” imagine Jesus to be Gandhi, a blind-love, all-tolerant pacifist—but in this they have a false concept of both Jesus and Gandhi.  Gandhi was actually a terrorist, who realized that his enemy (Britain) was greater than he, and that the only way he could defeat them was to feign peace and destroy from within (and Mandela,* who was also a terrorist, took a page from Gandhi’s playbook).  Those who so imagine Jesus follow a false christ and worship a false god.

[* Mandela was tried and convicted of 193 counts of terrorism: for sabotage and for trying to smuggle, prepare, or manufacture munitions, including: 210,000 hand-grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 144 tons of ammonium-nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder, 1,500 timing devices, and 2,000 lbs. of black gunpowder. Any white man guilty of such in South Africa at that time would have been executed. Mandela nearly was, but to prevent a savage uprising, he was sentenced to prison. 

See the exciting, highly researched historical novel, Bulala: A True Story of South Africa, Cuan Elgin, 392pp., pb., 18.38 + P&H [1838 = Day of Covenant, most special day in Afrikaner history.]; the gripping tale of small, brave, Christian nation born of conflict, turmoil, tragedy; love, dedication, hard work—exciting account, history of South Africa (earliest times to end of Second Anglo-Boer War) woven as rich tapestry into novel; exciting: cross between Shaka Zulu & Little House on Prairie.  The sequel, Return To the Covenant, will soon be ready, Lord willing.]

Again, true Christianity is Revelationally based—based upon the limited, unchanging, revealed Word of God, in the Canon of the Holy Scriptures.  Anyone who has not studied the origin and transmission of the Bible, and how the Canon of Scripture was decided, has no inkling of the complexity of the process and the surety that what we have is faithful to the original manuscripts; and has no standing to refute the Scriptures, and certainly cannot defend what he himself does not know.  Many may believe in some “conspiracy” of men who picked and chose the books that they wanted to better “control” everyone.  Such a mind broadcasts not only his ignorance, but his own evil heart.  Others may think that the Scriptures were determined like some “austere” board, bored and indifferent, that simply had someone introduce the motion, someone else seconded the motion, all took a vote, and the leader declared, “The ayes have it; motion passed. If there is no more business, meeting adjourned.  It’s time for lunch and then 9 holes of golf”.   See the following titles: (all titles mentioned herein, are in stock):

- The Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or the Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions (1851) Archibald Alexander, D.D., 359pp., pb., 22.00 + P&H.

- Evidences of the Authenticity, Inspiration, and Canonical Authority of the Holy Scriptures (1836) Archibald Alexander, D.D. (Prof. of Theology, Princeton University) 308pp., 6x9 pb., the text was very small, and I have enlarged to make it normal sized print. 19.00 + P&H.

- Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts: A History of The Text and It’s Translations (1895) Sir F. Kenyon, 255pp., + 50pp. photos, 20.00 + P&H. Former head of British Museum

[See also his, The Bible and Archaeology, 310pp., pb., + dozens of photos, 22.00 + P&H - firm believer in veracity of the Bible.]

- How We Got Our Bible (1912) J. Paterson Smyth, 152pp., & And God Spake These Words: How We Got Our Bible and Why We Believe It Is God’s Word (1926) Rev. W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., 127pp., 305pp., 6x9 pb., 18.50 + P&H.

- Astounding New Discoveries: Thousands of Amazing FACTS Discovered Beneath the Very Surface of the Original Bible Text (1941) Sabiers, 80pp., 8.00 + P&H.

- How the Bible Came Down Through The Centuries—from its ancient manuscripts—to our modern printed copies (1943) Sabiers, 91pp., comb-bound, 10.50 + P&H.

See also:

- Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism, Dr. Gordon Clark, 60pp., 5.00 + P&H.

- Ivan Panin Collection #1: [4 booklets in 1], containting: An Introduction to the Principles of Bible Numerics (1920?) & Verbal Inspiration Demonstrated (1923) & The Inspiration of the Greek Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated (1934) & Inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated (1928) 152pp., pb., 12.00 + P&H.

- Ivan Panin Collection #2: [4 booklets in 1], 240pp., 8.5 x 7, pb., 20.00 + P&H. containing: Bible Numerics, The Last 12 Verses of Mark, The Shorter Works of Ivan Panin, and The Structure and authorship of the New Testament (retypeset).

- Number in Scripture: Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance (1894) E. W. Bullinger, 305pp., 16.50 + P&H.

- The Signature of God, Grant Jeffrey, 354pp., pb., 14.00 + P&H; Outstanding! Conclusive proof from dozen different angles that Word of God is true; could not have been written by man (w/ or w/o world’s most sophisticated computer)—men wrote what God led them to.]

I received an email to a link that alluded to a statement made by Dr. Anthony C. Sutton*1 (1925-2002), British-American educator, economist, and author who attempted to expose numerous conspiracies (including the Skull and Bones society) whose works*2 have been scoffed at by the left.  The email link was to an article by Dr. Joseph Mercola, “It’s Now Crucial to Understand What We’re Up Against”, June 12, 2022, and reported that Sutton had expressed,

“Only 2% of people have critical thinking skills; 8% of people think they can think; and 90% would rather die than think.  This willful ignorance explains why only 10% of a given population, on average, does not fall into mass formation hypnosis.”

[*1 Sutton studied at the University of London, the University of Göttingen (Germany), and the University of California (L.A.) earning his D.Sc. degree from the University of Southampton (England).  He was economics professor at California State University; research fellowship at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace (1968-1973).

*2 inquire.]

However, what this article did not inform the reader of is that Sutton was quoting a variation (with his own added assertion of the results of this phenomena) of either George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), who expressed,

“Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think”;

or Thomas A. Edison (1847-1931),

“Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think”. 

It is impossible to know which author this quote may be falsely attributed, or which individual expressed the sentiment first, since the majority of online quotation cites are unscholarly and do no research to give the documentation for the quote.  Philosopher Bertrand Russell may have preceded either, at least, in a segment of their declarations:

“We all have a tendency to think that the world must conform to our prejudices.  The opposite view involves some effort of thought, and most people would die sooner than think — in fact they do so.” [The ABC of Relativity (1925), p.166; which quote is for some reason omitted from the revised 1958 edition and subsequent editions]

An abbreviated variant of this is quoted as:

“Most people would rather die than think; many do.”

However, versions of similar sentiments of most preferring to die than to think can be traced back to Harper’s Magazine (1857) and Frazier’s Magazine (1874) and Atlantic Monthly (1901).  It seems clear that Harper’s predates Edison and Twain.  However, the most-complete version seems to go back to 1922 in an article by Woods Hutchinson M.D. in The Saturday Evening Post:

“Some cynic declares that 5 per cent of people think, 10 per cent think they think, while 85 per cent would rather lie down and die than think.”

Thus, it is clear that even Dr. Woods was quoting someone else who originated the quote, or at least made it popular.  Concerning who expressed it first, we cannot know; but two humorous quotes have stuck in my mind over the decades...

“Originality is forgetting where you heard it...”


“Plagiarism is the highest form of flattery...”

One of my favorite quotations—well, at least one that has powerfully stuck in my mind since c.1983, I believe, as one college course (I really can’t remember which class or where) required reading the book, What Is Called Thinking? which was originally a series of lectures by German philosopher, Martin Heidegger.  A refrain that is repeated in this book is,

“The most-thought-provoking thing in our thought-provoking age is that we are still not thinking”.

If ever this indictment was true, it is true of our immediate age, in which the public schools have been dumbed down, and the majority—nearly all of the private institutions (secular and Christian*) have replaced academia with propaganda.

[* The majority of “Christian” institutions of “learning” have prostituted themselves, and sold their students into mental and spiritual bondage, in their perverse, insatiable, immoral—and unchristian lust to become friends with the world; as they seriously err, not knowing the Scriptures; and being ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.  As the old saying goes (which also has an equally difficult provenance), “Truth is the first casuality in war”.  In reality, some have never know the truth; whereas, some took a u-turn; which is evidence that they are not “Christians”, but were merely along for the ride, and then got bored, and hungry, lusting after forbidden fruit. 

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (I John 2:19)]

Over the past decade, as I have read nearly all 40 or so of Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s books at least once, I have expressed repeatedly:

“If one has never seriously read at least a dozen of Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s books, he has never truly thought—or, at least, he has never thought truly”.

[All of his titles are in stock.  Email for a complete list and prices and which I recommend be read first.]

We have passed the Age of Irresponsibility into the Age of Anti-Intellectualism and are now in the Age of Perverted-Insanity.  There is only one age left: The Age of Destruction.  You reap what you sow—or that wich you passively allow to be sown before your very eyes:

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...” (Hosea 8:7)

God is the glue that holds everything together: “by Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17).  What can you expect to happen when Christendom has left Him out of every equation?  How would the Empire State Building have fared had they not used any mortar between the bricks?

“And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (I Peter 4:18)

Most people misunderstand the Book of Ecclesiastes.*  Most assume that because Solomon was the wisest man ever to walk the earth (solely by God’s gift of wisdom to him), and because Proverbs was such a “grand slam”, that Ecclesiastes is “Second Proverbs”; but it is not: It is Anti-Proverbs.  Not every word of truth is a recommendation to emulate or practice.  Christ’s Parable to “make friends with mammon” was not encouraging us to do so—it was a slap-in-the-face rebuke and exposure of the Pharisees (Luke 16:1-9); which is evident in how they responded and the Scripture narrative of it (v.14) and Christ’s resultant direct indictment of them (vv.15ff).  There is truth in the exposing of falsehood; but that does not make the falsehood and erroneous thinking true.  The vast “guts” of the Book of Job are to be likewise considered.  While Job’s friends spoke general truth at times—it was truth wrongly applied, and possibly with the wrong motive.  The inner part of the Book of Job is a picture of man’s carnal striving; spinning his wheels in the mud, going nowhere; even as is the majority of the Book of Ecclesiastes; though bits and pieces of truth and wisdom are dropped here and there, throughout Solomon’s narrative of his tour through sinful living.  The purpose is to be a stark reminder of how not to live.  It is like basketball player Charles Barkley, who had a history of getting into trouble.  They made a t.v. commercial with him, in which he looks into the cameras and says: “Kids.  I am not a role model.  Don’t be like me.”  Truer words he never spoke.  So it is with the Book of Ecclesiastes.  Solomon told us from the start, and repeatedly throughout, that he set his heart to know madness and folly.  Why then do readers expect words of truth to be dripping from his lips like golden honey?

[* see S.T.E.Commentary on Ecclesiastes, 554pp., pb,. 30.00 + P&H. See also S.T.E.C.: The Book of Job - Introduction and Chapter 1, 60pp., 6.00 + P&H.]

One can fast-forward through the Book of Ecclesiastes (for those, like me, who cannot speed read; and Scripture should not be speed-read anyway) by reading the last two verses in the first chapter (which encapsulate the problem) and the last two verses in the last chapter (which distill the solution) to all problems, including our discussion of the plight of Christendom—anti-intellectualism and immorality:

117And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.  18For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. .... 1213Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His Commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.  14For God shall bring every work into Judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” (Ecclesiastes)

[Again, understand: The works do not make the nature; the nature makes the works.  Works (good or bad; obedience to or violation of all that God commanded) do not save or damn; they do not even contribute to perdition or salvation.  They are by-products of the individual nature.  A fallen nature can only produce fallen works which God shall Judge accordingly; a regenerated nature will produce good works (obedience to all that God commanded) to the degree that the individual elect believer “walks in the Spirit”.]

16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. .... 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.*  22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.  24And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.  25If [Since] we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” (Galatians 5)

[* Again, understand “cause” and “effect”, even if in the sentence they seem to be inverted; they are not if you understand truth.  It is not that doing such things keeps one out of the Kingdom of God; it is because the individual is unregenerate and has a nature that is uncapable of not so sinning, that bars the individual from the Kingdom of God.]

6As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord [100% by faith], so walk ye in Him: 7Rooted and built up in Him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.” (Colossians 2)

8Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.  9Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of Peace shall be with you.” (Philippians 4)


Douglas Doumas, in his The Presbyterian Philosopher, quotes Abraham Kuyper* as saying, Calvinism is the “only decisive, lawful, and consistent defence for Protestant nations against encroaching, and overwelming Modernism” (p.67).

[* (1837-1920) Dutch theologian, statesman, journalist, and Prime Minister {1901-1905} of the Netherlands—back when it was actually Christian.]

Kuyper also expressed:

“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, the battle is your calling, and peace has become sin.  You must at the price of dearest peace lay your conviction bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.”

[See also:

- The Attributes of God (1930) Arthur W. Pink, “Critical Edition” with detailed Preface, Biography, and Annotations by Balaicius, doubling the page count, 199pp., pb., 17.50 + P&H.

- Does God Repent...? Can God Change His Mind...? [And an Utter Demolishment of the Humanistic Myth of Man’s “Free Will” and Arminianism], Balaicius, 506pp., 25.00 + P&H. Dovetails nicely w/ God and Evil & Sovereignty of God. Lively, profound, revealing, thought provoking, convincing thought, logic, Scripture. Exposes subversion of true Christian faith in counter reformation re-introducing false theology of Origen and Pelagius; corruption of modern church by Jesuits, crypto-jews & terribly deceived humanists (Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, Barth, Schweitzer, Erasmus of Rotterdam, etc.); undermining of Puritan church by Solomon Stoddard, and much more; dissects false theology from 1 chapter of 2 different books (1 by Dr. Norman Geisler and 1 by Brother Andrew).

- God and Evil: Did God Create Sin and Evil?  The Facts of My Imaginary, Evanescent Heresy Trial - The Death Knell of Arminianism at the Hand of the Word of God, Balaicius, 280pp., pb., 18.00 + P&H.

- Salvation Results From God Bestowing Free Grace Upon His Elect not from the Erroneous Notion of Man Having “Free Will” To Choose To Be Saved — The Charles H. Spurgeon Election, Predestination, and Calvinism Collection, 299pp., pb., 17.50 + P&H; containing Spurgeon’s sermons: Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility, The Agreement of Salvation by Grace with Walking in Good Works, All of Grace, Human Inability, Human Responsibility, Sovereignty and Salvation, Predestination and Calling, Election, Election and Holiness, Election no Discouragement to Seeking Souls, A Defense of Calvinism, & Free Will — A Slave; extensive notes by Balaicius.

- The Sovereignty of God, Arthur Pink, Critical Annotaded edition (200pp., of Pink’s original, the rest annotations Balaicius) 648pp., pb., 32.50 + P&H.

- The Sovereignty of God, Predestination, “Free” Will, and the Protestant Reformation, Balaicius, 192pp., pb., 16.00 + P&H.

P&H = 10% (5.00 minimum) within the U.S.  Email for more details]