How Do You Know That It Is Not Satan Sending Me Miracles

Source: Orthodox England

November 30, 2015

    

Kevin Barrett: "It is worth noting that Russia and Iran – the two nations most successfully resisting NWO authorities change – are doing and then in the name of God…. Putin'southward reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World Order elites, who – though they push militant secularism on the societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists."

"So, y'all want to worship Satan? By all means, but leave Russian federation out of information technology. Rest assured that I volition be your worst nightmare. You can quote me on that."

During the Cold War, the United States and much of the West argued that the Soviet Union was a "godless nation."[1] Concluding year, Vladimir Putin took that pendulum, swung it on the other direction, and landed information technology on the Zionist regime. As Patrick Buchanan put it and so, "In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russian federation that is on God's side. The Due west is Gomorrah."[2] Putin said:

"Many Euro-Atlantic countries take moved abroad from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that identify on the aforementioned level a multi-child family and a same-sexual practice partnership, a organized religion in God and a conventionalities in Satan. This is the path to degradation."[iii]

If y'all think that Putin is simply pulling your leg here, and then go this:

The Washington Times reported and then:

"In his country of the nation address, Mr. Putin also portrayed Russia equally a staunch defender of 'traditional values' confronting what he depicted equally the morally bankrupt West. Social and religious conservatism, the former KGB officer insisted, is the just way to prevent the earth from slipping into 'chaotic darkness.'

"As part of this defense of 'Christian values,' Russian federation has adopted a police banning "homosexual propaganda" and another that makes it a criminal offense to 'insult' the religious sensibilities of believers…

"Although Mr. Putin has never made a hole-and-corner of what he says is his deep Christian religion, his starting time decade in power was largely gratis of overtly religious rhetoric. Lilliputian or no endeavour was fabricated to impose a set of values on Russians or lecture to the West on morals."[4]

Certainly Putin put the moral equation back on the table. Kevin Barrett alleged that Putin hither was trying to "put the fearfulness of God in the New Globe Order." Barrett moved on to make the forceful statement that much of the Zionist establishment in the W is afraid of Putin because the establishment lives in fear. "Russian President Putin is resisting," said Barrett. "That is why the Western propaganda car is calling him names." Barrett continued to argue cogently:

"It is worth noting that Russian federation and Iran – the two nations most successfully resisting NWO regime change – are doing and then in the proper noun of God…. Putin'south reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World Society elites, who – though they button militant secularism on the societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists.

"Anyone who doubts this should run the proper name 'Lt. Col. Michael Aquino' through a search engine. Aquino, an avowed Satanist and credibly-accused mass child abuser, was rewarded for his crimes against children with an engagement as Primary of Psychological Warfare for the US military…

"The shock troops of the NWO'southward war against religion and tradition (and Russia and Islamic republic of iran) are the neoconservatives. Operation Gladio terrorist Michael Ledeen explains:

"'Creative devastation is our eye name, both inside our lodge and away. We tear down the old order every twenty-four hours, from business to science, literature, fine art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of free energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their disability to keep pace … We must destroy them to accelerate our celebrated mission.'

"Putin is stopping New World Order 'creative destruction' in Syria and Ukraine. He is part of a growing coalition opposing the NWO – not only religious traditionalists, merely besides progressive anti-globalization forces, including Hugo Chavez inspired anti-imperialists in Latin America."

Kudos for Barrett here. The regime proved Putin right past applauding the Pussy Anarchism,[5] a Trotskyite group that ended upward having sex activity (literal pornography) at the Moscow National Museum. (Nosotros have discussed this consequence in the past.) Equally always, Neocons like Seth Mandel of Commentary were on the front line defending their brethren.[six]

But the crucial point here is that Putin, like Emmanuel Kant and even John Adams and others, understands that a nation cannot exist without objective morality, and objective morality cannot exist without Logos,[vii] the essence and sustainer of the moral universe.

In that sense, and whether he notices it or not, Putin was implicitly or indirectly attacking the Neo-Darwinian ideology, which states that objective morality is an illusion and has no metaphysical basis. Information technology is here that we detect again that Neo-Darwinian metaphysics is intellectually useless and worthless considering it denies the very essence of a moral universe.

As we have noted in the past, serious Darwinists agree that objective morality is an illusion. The noted biology philosopher Michael Ruse once again said that "there are no grounds any for being adept…. Morality is flimflam."[8] Yet like his intellectual antecedent Charles Darwin, Ruse ends up contradicting himself in the very next sentence by proverb, "Does this mean that you tin just go out and rape and pillage, carry like an aboriginal Roman grabbing Sabine women? Non at all. I said that there are no grounds for beingness skillful. It doesn't follow that you should be bad."[9]

Well, duh! If there are no grounds for objective morality, and so expert and bad are also illusion. There is non such a thing as rape or bad behavior. What is good for you lot may not be good for me, and at that place is no fashion of adjudicating competing explanations. In that kind of world, might makes right. Ruse does not really accept a trouble with this statement hither. In fact, he moves on to say that morality "is something forged in the struggle for existence and reproduction, something fashioned past natural selection. It is every bit much a natural man adaptation as our ears or noses or teeth. It works and information technology has no meaning over and higher up this. If all future nutrient were Pablum, nosotros would probably be better off without teeth.

"Morality is only a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and antisocial toothache and mark educatee papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If nosotros thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down.

"Earlier long, we would notice ourselves saying something like: 'Well, morality is a jolly skillful thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or ill, I can rely on my fellow humans to assistance me. Only actually it is all bullshit, so when they need assist I tin and should avert putting myself out. There is zip there for me.' The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and then very chop-chop in that location would exist no morality and society would plummet and each and every 1 of us would endure. "So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to announced to exist objective, even though really it is subjective."[10]

Ruse, like some genetic theorists, really believes that "morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator…"[11]

This, by the way, is logically congruent with Darwin's survival of the fittest. And survival of the fittest is logically congruent with Zionism. If evolutionary theory "explains how warfare contributed to fitness in the class of the evolution of Man sapiens," as scholar Bradley A. Thayer maintains,[12] then how can a serious Darwinist say that social Darwinism or fifty-fifty Zionism is really bad on a consistent and logical basis?

Thayer, of form, struggles mightily to rationally defend the thesis that "Warfare contributes to fettle"[13] and that "people wage state of war to gain and defend resources"[fourteen] while maintaining that social Darwinists were wrong in taking social Darwinism to its logical determination. He says that "social Darwinists perverted Charles Darwin'south argument" and "distorted evolutionary explanations because they misunderstood Darwin's ideas and were ignorant of or consciously chose to ignore the naturalistic fallacy. Those who utilise evolutionary theory to explain aspects of human behavior must recall the social Darwinists' errors. Doing so makes information technology possible not simply to avoid repeating errors but also to accelerate scientific agreement."[15]

But Thayer moves on to make this argument: "The ultimate causation for warfare is anchored in Darwinian natural selection and inclusive fitness….warfare can increment both the absolute and relative fettle of humans…From the classical Darwinian perspective, warfare contributes to fitness considering individuals who wage war successfully are better able to survive and reproduce."[16]

Thayer repeats this thesis over and over in the course of the book:

"An ultimate causal explanation for warfare based in evolutionary theory begins with the recognition that warfare contributes to fettle in certain circumstances because successful warfare lets the winner larn resources.

"For evolutionary biology, a resource is whatsoever material substance that has the potential to increment the individual'south ability to survive or reproduce. As such information technology may exist food, shelter, or territory, especially high-quality soil or wild foods; abundant firewood; or territory free of unsafe animals, such as lions, or insect infestations, or disease; and also condition coalition allies, and members of the opposite sex."[17]

And then this: "Warfare might exist necessary and then for offensive purposes, to plunder resources from others. In these circumstances, an individual becomes fitter if he can successfully attack to accept the resources of others."[18]

Thayer cites evolutionary theorist William Durham maxim that "War is one means by which individuals 'may improve the material weather condition of their lives and thereby increae their ability to survive and reproduce…Thus successful warfare would assist the tribe gain resources, and for an agronomical economy state is critically of import."[xix]

So, is Thayer really confronting social Darwinism? Ideologically, yes. Consistently and logically? No. I honestly don't blame him, for his intellectual grandfather could not solve that problem either and had to live in contradiction until his dying day. Darwin declared at the finish of his Origin of Species:

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and decease, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."[20]

Correct me if I am wrong here: isn't he saying that war and famine and decease are things that will get the higher animals ahead?

Scholars of all stripes agree that this is Darwin at his all-time. Yet when social Darwinists took his thesis and spread it across the political spectrum, Darwin disagreed![21]

If the Dreadful Few are in the struggle for survival, and so the Goyim must swiftly be eliminated. That is certainly consistent with Darwin's grand scheme. If people cannot see this and try to avert this vital contradiction, then you can be certain that they are not to be taken seriously or they do non sympathise logic.

Then, when people are trying to maintain an objective morality past either highly-seasoned to the and so-called "evolutionary theory" or fifty-fifty DNA, then you can be sure that those people either are out of bear on with the scholarly literature, are not well equipped to sympathise or articulate their own position, or are just deliberately lying.

Furthermore, to appeal to reciprocal altruism to evidence objective morality, a central protocol in Darwin'south grand scheme,[22] is also a dead end because the life of Mother Theresa and countless other examples prove that this idea volition not work. I was hoping that modern Darwinists would brand some adept comeback on this warfare theory, simply so far virtually everyone has failed.

I am certainly not request people to driblet their cherished belief. In fact, there are many people who believe in the tooth fairy. Merely and so long that this neo-Darwinian ideology remains intellectually stupid and morally indefensible, they tin leave me out of information technology.

Going back to Putin, he said in 2013:

"People in many European countries are ashamed, and are afraid of talking about their religious convictions. [Religious] holidays are being taken away or called something else, shamefully hiding the essence of the holiday."[23]

The Zionist regime, of course, made the false accusation that Putin was persecuting homosexuals. But Putin moved on to diffuse the regime'south dizzy statement this mode: "Nosotros need to respect the rights of minorities to be different, but the rights of the bulk should non be in question."[24]

So, yeah, Patrick Buchanan. Putin is one of us. Any serious pol who stands confronting the Mephistophelian establishment is one of us. Every bit Friedrich Hansen of Asia Times put information technology, "Make no fault, Putin is non targeting homosexuals, as he made clear with his welcoming them to the Sochi Olympics. It too seems merely off-white to remind Western readers that e'er since the 1980s, Sochi has been the center of Russia with a vibrant homosexual subculture. Rather, Putin is addressing the whole gamut of postal service-modern incarnations of the 'sexual practice and drugs' revolution: binge drinking of both genders until the doctors motion in, elite illicit drug use, unmanageable crime rates, surging divorce numbers, Hook-Up sex on campus, out of spousal relationship births, fathers and mothers in puberty, abortion on need, public nudism and man copulation in parks, gay promiscuity with a skilful conscience, swinger clubs and darkrooms, ruthless Internet dating and pornography and what have you."[25]

How does the regime respond? Well, you lot know the drill. Owen Matthews, a useful idiot, declared in the Spectator that Putin has a "new plan for globe domination"![26] In gild to slander Putin, Matthews indirectly linked him with Willi Munzenberg, a revolutionary Jew who wanted to accept the Western world to perdition at any toll. Munzenberg was and so passionate almost his revolutionary goal that he wrote:

"Nosotros must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western Civilization stink! Merely then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat."

When Putin said that Russia will "defend traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilisation in every nation for thousands of years," Matthews alleged that Putin "is on to something." What is information technology? Matthews told u.s.a.:

"Putin's new mission goes deeper than political opportunism. Like the old Communist International, or Comintern, in its solar day, Moscow is again building an international ideological alliance."[27]

He again emphasized this point and so that readers could get it: "And again, like the Comintern, Putin appears convinced that he is embarking on a world-historical mission."[28] He moved on to talking about "Putin'southward conservative Comintern."

At the other end of the political spectrum, David Cameron likened Putin to Hitler.[29] John McCain, Lindsey Graham, among other usual suspects, have all placed Putin and Hitler on an equal footing.[30]

Historian Paul Johnson (sorry to say) even went so far as to say that Putin and Hitler are basically two sides of the aforementioned coin. Johnson said that Putin "believes in a strong Stalinist state. His goal is to opposite the events of 1989–the terminate of the Soviet land and dissolution of its enormous empire. He seeks to do this by using what remains of Russia's Stalinist heritage: the military, a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and immense resources of natural gas and other forms of energy."[31]

Johnson is lamentable because "there is no Churchillian voice to sound the alert and call the democratic earth to action."[32] Johnson has got to be kidding. What he ends upwardly proverb is that someone similar Churchill needs to step up and starting time lying to the West about Putin. It is so sad to read silly comments such as this by a skillful historian like Johnson.

Merely the existent question is this: why exercise the regime and their puppets hate Putin and then much? Well, Putin suggested back in 2013 the Soviet government was guided by a night forcefulness whose "ideological goggles and faulty ideological perceptions complanate."[33]

"The start Soviet government," Putin added, "was 80-85 percentage Jewish."[34] Sounds like Putin has read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together. If so, and so it seems clear that he will continue to claiming the Zionist government. Mayhap Putin has been encouraged past Solzhenitsyn'due south bravery. Information technology was Solzhenitsyn who said:

"And thus, overcoming our temerity, allow each human being choose: will he remain a witting retainer of the lies, or has the time come for him to stand straight every bit an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?"[35]

Perhaps Putin is proverb plenty is enough. And this maybe one reason why nearly all the major news outlets accept been relentlessly slandering him. Kevin Barrett ended up his excellent article saying, "God anoint President Putin, who is putting the fear of God into the New World Club." Let us hope that he will never be weary in well doing, for in due season he shall reap, if he faints non.

30 ноября 2015 г.

armendarizsoneanto.blogspot.com

Source: https://pravoslavie.ru/88285.html

Share this post