D.T. Newman - "Evil Men Control Your Mind"

In his famous essay, “Isaiah’s Job”, Albert J. Nock made an important distinction. He told us a nation’s “masses” are not some homogenous bunch comprised of the poor, or uneducated. They are those citizens of any demographic who have neither the intellectual will to learn civilized decencies, nor the values to adhere to them.

After first reading Nock's jolting definition, I naturally did what any Christian gentleman would do: panicked and frantically analyzed myself for characteristics of masses-hood.  No symptoms here, currently.  Though I'm sure it will be a lifelong battle to stave off that disease.

And in the way it spreads, being a member of Nock's masses certainly is a just that - a disease.  Much the same way the rot of an apple extends to the bunch, apathy toward the most important subjects of life - social, political, and religious - extends stupidity over large swaths of any population.

Without doubt, we know a majority of the modern American citizenry is miseducated at best regarding these subjects, and fully ignorant of them at worst.  Why?  How did the Land of the Free - so politically literate at one point that it staved off tyranny better than any other nation in human history - lose that knowledge, as well as the will to obtain it?  How did a nation of fierce individualists spawn so many of Nock's masses?

If we can liken that trend of degeneration to the disease of AIDS, then clearly "Cultural Marxism" was its HIV precursor...

Born in a German city of the same name, "the Frankfurt School" housed no little boys or girls for decent education.  No teachers inspired future greatness there.  No professors, doctors, or students solved the mysteries of existence, made important discoveries, or added any value to life.  Indeed, it was no such "school" of any education at all.  Its aim was to provide quite the opposite.

The early 20th century Marxist Revolution in communist Russia failed to garner military and governmental control over Europe and America as its creators had hoped.  Realizing the futility of openly vying for such control, they then turned to a more covert method.  Tyranny would now be achieved via slow and steady subversion of European and American values, not through government force as before, but with a secret manipulation of culture.  Through that poison the West would be made to bow, desensitized so thoroughly to the nature of their slavery they wouldn't even realize once they wore its shackles.

One of several original conspirators, Georg Lukacs, said:

“I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.... Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

It was through such wordy intellectualizing that the Frankfurt School dressed its brainwash in presentable terms.  By labeling its' deviant machinations the  academic-sounding "Critical Theory" and employing other such highbrow jargon, the less educated public didn't realize the emporer had no clothes, nor that his aim was to strip them as well.  The "new" values which Lukacs schemed for would be those directly necessary for the implementation of communism/socialism - in short, full government control.

Another quite telling line to come from the school (its originator is currently disputed) regards the destructive plan for Marxism's "long march through the institutions" - institutions like the family, education, and Christianity.  One "student" of the school described its body of academic work as the

"destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism."

The Frankfurt School moved from its European base to New York City in 1935.  It was welcomed with open arms by the politically left-leaning Ivey League college system and stationed at Columbia University.  As that cluster of universities still remains today, its place at the top of American education ensured that the Frankfurt School's plans for subversion of family, religion, and traditional values would reach a level of influence only dreampt of previously.  Other universities of lesser standing would emulate its new "approach" to culture, while its own studentry - the nation's most powerful and influential future citizens - would be awash in the Frankfurt School's hidden Marxism.


Today, "Critical Theory" has seeped into the veins of the entire American educational establishment.  It "plays a major role in ideological reproduction, and in enculturating individuals into the dominant system of needs, thought, and behavior," as told from the horse's mouth in the form of Prof. Douglas Kellner, Frankfurt School adherent and UCLA's chair "in the Philosophy of Education in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies."


Kellner reiterates:

"The critical theorists have deeply influenced contemporary social theory, philosophy, communications theory and research, cultural theory, and other disciplines for six decades. The dream of a interdisciplinary social theory continues to animate the sociological imagination. In recent decades there have been many different attempts to articulate the connections between the economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions of contemporary society in the spirit of critical theory."

The degree to which Kellner says the Frankfurt School influences American thought is staggering.  I surmise that the Frankfurt School ignited latent fires awaiting in the darkest desires of America's political and industrial Establishment.  They now had the Critical Theory's camouflage of false intellectual, academic justification with which they could gouge the power-restraining, freedom-conducive institutions from the mind of the West - primarily, traditional, familial, and Christian values.

The plethora of cultural upheavals in the 1960s presented a prime opportunity for Frankfurt School theorists.  Anger at the Vietnam war draft turned many young people against older groups keen on military action.  They opened their minds in rebellion to many varieties of new and foreign ideas.  Frankfurt-influenced universities, as well as Frankfurt-influenced individuals in prominent positions and the arts and entertainment industry, went to work tearing down time-tested, proven traditions.

The federal government, likely under the influence of its many Ivey-Leaguers, certainly acted in the spirit of the Frankfurt School by beginning its program of expanding single parenthood with  tempting welfare offers for such families, despite the almost nonexistent need.  By the end of the next decade, the black family unit was all but decimated.

The demonizing of the traditional American way of life, coupled with the simultaneous promotion of fringe groups - women, black militants, gays, Marxist college graduates, immigrants - seemed an obviously calculated attempt to create a new political class - the "alienated" and similar "victims" - to replace the old Soviet "proletariat" in the coming Communist/Socialist/Marxist revolution.  Antonio Gramsci, who is perhaps the father of this entire movement, began to see his idea for "cultural hegemony" come to life - that is, the concept that a diverse society in continuous cultural disruption is most conducive to rule by an elite class.

We see this same plan still holding strong in the modern day "Democratic Party."  Fringe groups are herded together every four years to form the Democratic voting block.  All of society's outskirts are gleaned for any potential voters.  Propaganda reigns supreme as it is blasted from the rooftops in effort to unite the victims "rejected" or "hurt" by traditional American value-holders.  Any effort to disprove their "oppression" is quickly demonized as the flawed product
of traditionalist, racist, misogynist, or homophobic thought, currently known as "privilege."

Reverberations of this effect cruise through the culture of its adherents and their minds.  Lewd music lyrics become defended as "art".  Displays of once-private or even detested behaviors become publicized.  Critics become "oppressors."  Desensitization to all explicities grows exponentially.  Those who are taken in by this scheme become distracted, dumbed down, and, for all political purposes enslaved by their most base, animalistic desires.  Hence the need for explicit sex scenes and explosions in movies, drugs and alcohol at social functions, violent and sexual lyrics in music, "twerking" in dance clubs and entertainment videos, and of course, nonchalance toward and distraction from the use of violence at home and abroad by the government.

There are reasons why your grandparents' generation largely didn't partake in such things, but you and yours do, and it wasn't because they were less free.  It was because they were more free.

Although the most fitting name for this most unfortunate phenomena is "Cultural Marxism", today it is commonly known as "political correctness."

William S. Lind, head of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Cultural Conservatism, tells us:

"Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious."

Lind argues that political correctness has resulted in Americans becoming "afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic" and that that fear can be attributed to cultural Marxism as peddled by the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory influences.

DiscoveringTheNetworks.org says the following regarding political correctness/cultural Marxism:

"When addressing the general public, contemporary advocates of Political Correctness – or Cultural Marxism, as it might just as easily be called – present their beliefs with appealing simplicity as merely a commitment to being “sensitive” to other people and embracing values such as “tolerance” and “diversity"...  The reality is different. Political Correctness is the use of culture as a sharp weapon to enforce new norms and to stigmatize those who dissent from the new dispensation; to stigmatize those who insist on values that will impede the new "PC" regime: free speech and free and objective intellectual inquiry."

Today, culturally marxist, left wing influence is a threat to Christendom's very existence. Government-driven mass immigration dilutes the influence of freedom-minded people by replacing them with socialists, communists, and theocratic third worlders. Public education is producing children unable to evaluate and execute successful life choices. The welfare state has devastated the poor. Politically correct speech imperatives prevent scientific inquiry into key population demographics. Feminism, gender fluidity, and abortion continue to injure the prominence of the family unit, which has always been the cornerstone of a free society.  Wild and frenzied accusations of racism threaten to reduce race relations greater than ever before, with current race relations at a twenty year low.

The nation's young people, in particular the elites and Ivy-League types, exhibit religious and maniacal adherence to the above mentioned problems, championing them not only as good, but as deserving expansion.  They will eventually leave their coddling universities and become senators, presidents, governors, congressmen and industrial leaders. They will take their idiocies with them.

The promotion of their destructive behavior as virtuous is ceaselessly promoted by Big Government through law, speech, and Hollywood film subsidies.  When leftists assert claims of “racism”, “sexism”, or “homophobia”, they are aiding in the growth of government.  It matters very little whether they explicitly request for government to repsond. They are spreading State "anti-discrimination" propaganda, the hidden aim of which being to drum up the fear and discontent necessary to outlaw virtually all criticism, which has long served as a natural deterrent to degenerate behavior and societal decline.

They promote rampant hedonism, irresponsibility, and reality detachment, because this destabilizes a society and encourages it to readily acquiesce to new laws, even beg for them. If a woman can become a man, or if a caucasian like Shaun King can deem himself black, then the idea that reality and nature are concrete becomes disempowered. Silly politically correct beliefs and federal diktats can take the place of obvious truths, and once a people may no longer declare plain truths without persecution, a New Tyranny becomes ripe.  And of course, if reality is fluid, then so are economic laws, which can then be decided by the almighty Marxist State.

Albert Nock's definition of the "masses", was, again, those people of any demographic who are unwilling to learn civilized decencies and do not have the values to adhere to them anyway. After that group the rest, Nock said, can be likened to the faithful “remnant” that our dear Yehovah commanded Isaiah to save from destruction.  Let us pray that God would show us how to see through the machinations of Marxism in this troubled time, that we may survive it as well as rescue our friends and countrymen.

Long live the remnant!

D. Newman - Celebrities and "The Nothing"

Celebrities are a fairly stupid bunch, and fairly vocal about it to boot.  A life on the big screen is usually preceded by one on a small stage.  The career begins

early on and doesn't allow for much educational development.  Those

exceptionally informative early years devoid of structured education are instead filled with perpetual attention and praise.  It seems stars are socialized from that young age to see fame not as an excessive state of reality, but a state of normalcy.  If ever that 'normalcy' begins to wane, no cost is spared in resuscitating it, self-respect or mental health be damned.

Stories of actors requiring therapy after an intense role are particularly curious.  Ridding themselves of the character they've mentally constructed proves too intense without professional assistance.  I surmise this is because they have very little naturally developed personality infrastructure of their own.  The years crucial to cultivation of the 'self' have passed, replaced by a blur of costumes in lieu of play clothes, makeup rather than mud pies, and classes to learn how to be someone else.  Too much acting, not enough being.

Perhaps this leaves them as hollow shells to be filled by the next character role, which of course is subsequently dumped yet again after the tapes are made.  Mr. Johnny Depp may provide a good case study of this phenomenon, as he seems quite unable to exude any unique personality characteristics in his private life.  His recent drunken appearance at the latest awards show seemed to me very unnatural, and full of subtle acting techniques.  As someone who's met enough drunks to supplant a mid-sized Asian nation, I know the difference between a faker and someone who's truly done-zo.

To the point: Celebrities, who often have oversized needs for eternal praise and approval, as well as potentially underdeveloped cognitive and logic skills, are hardly in a position to act as purveyors of public wisdom, despite their frequent attempts to.  This becomes all the more unfortunate since what seem to be their favorite subjects - socioeconomics, religion, politics - are society's most

important.  When they do weigh in, the two traits above may (and, I surmise, do) lead them to simply blurt out whatever platitudes will garner the most positive feedback.  Of course, this would mean the most politically correct party lines and buzzword trivialities of the week, no matter how easily disprovable or borderline retarded they may be.  Surely, then, with the lamentable amount of influence that crowd wields, the stupidity of celebrities is in large part directly responsible for the perpetuation of government sponsored cultural Marxism, a.k.a. political correctness - the strangulation of thought.

Despite this, celebrities of all sorts remain a permanent subset of the movers and shakers of thought-engineering.  Those at the height of that group, the Ruling Elite - a very factual label - will continue to use them and other such powerful means of influence to stifle individual thought, lest you get out of line.  The prevailing system of taxation, corporatism, socialism, and warfare-wealth redistribution must be kept unquestioned, didn't you know?

From this, I am reminded of that telling scene from "The Neverending Story."  Young warrior Atreyu is worried.  Something evil is approaching Fantasia.  It is "the Nothing."

As the land crumbles around him, the evil G'morck explains:

Atreyu: What is the Nothing?
G'mork: It's the emptiness that's left. It's like a despair, destroying this world. And I have been trying to help it.
Atreyu: But why?
G'mork: Because people who have no hopes are easy to control. And whoever has control, has the Power.

There is a Nothing approaching us, too.  It is the emptiness of mind.  It is resulting from the ongoing death of our previously prized institutions.  The wearing away of the family unit, individual rights, and the moral compass of Judeo-Christian values are destroying the western world.  It is our despair.  Make sure you are not trying to help it.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay's lost lessons, art. by Dylan Thomas Newman

"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I" was a fine film.  Not only does it boast well known names, there is also some impressive acting - those two things not being synonymous these days.

Hollywood freshman Ms. Jennifer Lawrence seems to have matured well from her original take on character "Katniss Everdeen", which was significantly less captivating than her last two go-arounds.  Perhaps working with and learning from Hollywood veterans on the set of "American Hustle" was the source of her newfound umph.  Maybe she's just coming into her own.  Either way, Ms. Lawrence will certainly be around for a while.  Her talent range from family film hero to raunchy R-rated floozy will see to that, even if her starlet power eventually falls short.

The late Philip Seymour Hoffman is absolutely superb.  Despite a role inconducive to displays of his full acting range, he still manages to convince us so well, it evokes the same sense experienced at his work in "The Talented Mr. Ripley": that he actually was his character, rather than an actor playing it.

If I must pick a flaw to harp on, I'd say Mockingjay's lighting and CG special effects are easy targets, but this is true for the majority of such films.  Never been a fan of the fake stuff.  I guess the older I get, the less capability for "suspension of disbelief" I have, on all subjects even, particularly since learning how often reality is actually stranger than fiction.

And.. that story.  Oh, that wonderful story, which I so quickly excused as another preteeny, Twilight-esque culture fart at first glance.  But this is no simple tale of of vampires or adolescent wizards with clear cut morals battling wholly evil enemies.  The typical black-and-white scenarios so common to young adult series has no place in "The Hunger Games."  Murky gray becomes an increasingly  prominent color throughout "Mockingjay Part I", as Katniss finds herself surrounded by allies willing to bend the rules of morality in the quest for victory against the evil Capitol.

A similar phenomenon wages a particularly well-written war within our heroine herself.  She warily decides deceptive methods are necessary to corral her fellow rebels into action.  Upon the constant stream of deaths that follow, the guilt of that responsibility bears cripplingly upon her.  Was it truly necessary?  Is the Capitol correct that pursuing the revolution isn't worth the mass slaughter and suffering of innocents? If the revolution fails, will Katniss be able to live with herself?

These internal struggles, so everpresent in " Mockingjay Part I," give the story a realistic and relatable element necessary for literary greatness.  Such intrinsic character dimensions are fleeting or trivial in similar young adult series, yet so well realized in the character of Ms. Everdeen, they nearly contrive a character unto themselves.  Katniss is real.  She feels fear, sadness, anger, and - above all - nearly tangible guilt.

Perhaps the only disappointing part of the story is its chances of proper reception by the audience, which could conceivably be nil.  Being typical moderners, in all likelihood there will be no absorption on their part or even much critique of the cultural nuances "The Hunger Games" contains.  Popular media - television, music, movies, books, indeed all art - is mere "entertainment" in this Orwellian existence.  It is not a reflection of the culture from whence it springs.  Hence it can all be casually observed - pornography, violence, religious blasphemy, poor values and all - with no adjudication by the viewers (in particular, young viewers) as to its message's moral merit or contemporary relevance.

Partakers of modern movies, music, and television are mere sponges rather than evaluators.  And, unfortunately, in the battle for attention between team A: higher-level, sophisticated concepts for beings seeking to rise above the realm of animals, and team B: explosions, violence, breasts, and copulation - the idle, underdeveloped mind will choose its most base interests every time.  Star Wars creator George Lucas is known for being one of many Hollywoodites to advise filmmakers to market their work toward eleven year-old girls for maximum box office results - not only, I surmise, because twelve year-old females drag more company than anyone else to the movies, but also because most viewers' entertainment mentality reflects those of that gullible, impressionable demographic.

"If you can tune into the fantasy life of an 11-year-old girl, you can make a fortune in this business."                                                                            

So, I'd say it's fairly safe to assume the important messages in Mockingjay Part I will indeed fall on deaf ears.

The scathing critique of war led by governments against freedom-seeking subjects - a major theme admitted wholeheartedly by author Suzanne Collins - as a devious means for enslavement ends will surely continue unnoticed, just as it has since the first book, wherein characters Peeta Malark and Katniss Everdeen slept near each other, causing the parental world to explode with warnings for talks with children about sexuality before allowing them to see the film.  Really?  Is that what you should talk to them about?

Presentation of conclusion

Along with the lessons on war, I fear the fantastic, beginner-level examples of government propaganda use will elude the public as well.  This is most unfortunate.  Collins' bit wherein Peeta is used by the Capitol on television to subvert the morale of the rebelling nation by alluding to Katniss's (the source of their inspiration) supposed lack of interest in the revolution was so subtle, so well written, and, most importantly, extremely familiar in real life.  You see, the most effective method of real propaganda, which was well-exposed in this fictional example, is not the mere presentation of a false conclusion, it's presentation of false information, whereupon the observer comes to his own false conclusion.  The belief that this new thought is an original of one's own is the mortar cementing the desired propaganda in his mind.

Presentation of false
information, observer
formulates conclusion 

Collins' well-written, baby step example of this in Peeta's infomercial - in which Peeta doesn't overtly say that the rebels do not really have a leader/symbol of their revolution in Katniss and should abandon hope, but instead leads them to "their own" conclusion by way of misleading informational puzzle pieces - is a fine elementary-level illustration.  But just in case that condensed example proves ineffective, Collins next takes the audience unabashedly into a virtual classroom session, wherein our heroes are seen sitting round a table (desks) while another of them stands at the afront the meeting room (classroom) literally explaining (teaching) the basic structure of propaganda.  I'm not sure, but I think our author was trying to drive something home here...

Will American audiences receive these lessons and reference them when watching their nightly news programs?  When they read of the wars abroad?  Will they recognize Collins' attempt through this book and film series to educate us on these modern day injustices of critical importance?  Will they even be capable of looking past the explosions and love story?

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to believe the answer is a hard "no." Gone are the

days of reading Dickens and learning to remember your modesty even after achieving success.  Or Twain, and learning that adventurin' makes a boy into a man.  In are the days of watching practical snuff films and wow-ing at the next explosion, or oovling over Christian Grey.  Some believe American culture is dead, or zombified even.  I'd say it's both.

There are various reasons why modern Americans are far less critical of their cultural media.  And with that, the ability of evil men to take advantage of your mind - putting things in as well as keeping things out - has strengthened exponentially.  Hence "The Colbert Report's" recent hit on Christopher Cantwell, whose significant intelligence was very effectively propagandized away as fringe lunacy.  But these are subjects for another day.  Important now is simply recognizing the issue.

Seeing Through the Argumentational Haze

Tickling or agitating base-level emotions remains, as it always will, the prime mode of seducing the populace into whatever political swindle is on that week's agenda.  Making someone sad or angry is a primal way to rope him or her into allowing the political class the power to tax or control anything.

Thus, women are to be enraged at their underprivileged status in the workplace, nonexistent as that phenomenon is.  The large business is to be hated as the sky-scraping raiser of prices and greedy hoarder of much needed resources, impossible though that may be.  Women's rights, children's rights, immigrant rights, gay rights, animal rights, etc. must be universally empathized-with and lamented for their lack thereof.

Anything less than cowering before the saints of those causes is itself cause for severe and public reprimanding.  Know your place, citizen.  How else will the political class gain control over these groups and funds with which to line their and their friends' pockets in honor of service toward these "huddled masses?"

But we can't leave out fear, of course, as the ultimate modus operandi of political motivation, particularly for driving a nation's collective mind to accept or, preferably, even desire war.  Be afraid, citizen.  ISIS gona' get you.  Al Qaeda gona' get you.  Saddam, Assad, gone' to too.  Vladimir Putin!  Ebola!

Let us not forget the now-discarded boogeymen either, whose use to the American political class has since ran its course.  The Khorasan Group, Al Nusra, Boko-Haram, the Taliban, Iranian nuclear power, the Chinese economy, the hole in the ozone layer, El Nino - remember that one?, the Red Scare, 1970s oil scare, 1970s global freezing, and of course, today's global warming, which seems to be cooling off.  But don't worry, that one's proven too useful to be going away soon.

Yes, even now as I type the above terms into this blog, some are no longer recognized by the auto-correct dictionary, though they once heavily reverberated in the unhallowed halls of American mainstream media.  Does this serve as evidence of these former "existential threats'" superficiality?  I would say so.

Appealing to the intellect rather than the emotions of others is far less expedient route for governmenteers, seeking to profit from the tax trough.  And indeed, it is the blessing and curse of liberty-minded individuals.  Because that is what it takes - intellectual effort and courage - to "wake up," as they say in corridors and hangouts of the internet where liberty lives.  And though it lives on ventilation and a heart monitor, it burns more zealous every time someone says "no" to the Washington machine of death and suffering.

It is that such seceding of the mind that Americans need.  Peaceful, intellectual secession.  The kind governments hate most.  And one essential tool to be used in that process is education about argument.  When we analyze the quality of arguments the political-class gives for its actions (war, new taxation, monetary policy), it assists in exposing hollow reasoning and therefore corruption.

The chart below was designed by computer programmer Paul Graham, and is called Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.  The higher one's argument content registers on the triangle, the stronger it is intellectually.  The lower, the opposite.  Politicians generally hang out in the bottom four rungs.  You'd think we'd learn this in their public schools, but of course we do not.

Dystopian Novels and Reality

Although Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" is the most widely read book in American history behind only the Bible, I wouldn't label it as "dystopian."

A dystopian novel requires a futuristic setting wherein an all-powerful, commanding government lordes over the daily lives of oblivious citizens, even down to the most minute details. Rand's tale of government-caused economic ruin might reflect a fairly immediate future, rather than one far enough away to properly earn this label (it also focuses only on government control of big business and the economy).

George Orwell and Aldous Huxely, then, are perhaps the two most prolific dystopian authors of the 20th century. Their magnum opi, "1984" and "Brave New World" respectively, have been read and printed the world over in dozens of languages. All students and appreciators of freedom have at least heard of them both, if not read and analyzed them as well to the Nth degree.

Both novels fit the description of dystopian literature perfectly, being set in a distant future where the elite submiss the masses, who remain brainwashedly loyal to their oppressors via the effects of constant propagandizement and control efforts - though here is where the novels' natures split.

In Orwell's "1984", control and propaganda are carried out in a punitive way. Citizens are subjected to mass misery in order to maintain their subservience. They are frightened with news of nonexistent foreign "wars" and rampant "disease epidemics". They're spied on via ever-present camera systems. They're given shoddy living spaces with propagandized hopes of minuscule improvements should they remain loyal. Their rulers feed them slop and report lies of food shortages while indulging in delicacies.

It is their rulers efforts at producing misery which keeps them suppressed.

Huxley's "Brave New World" offers a different paradigm of future complete government oppression.

In that novel, citizens all serve assigned roles in society. They are distracted from awareness of their subservient state by pleasurable circumstances, rather than suppressed by a miserable reality.

Daily regimens of "Soma", a euphoria-inducing drug, are required of all. News sources report only positive stories. Public games and vacations are common. Sex-as-therapy is advised for anyone suffering stress, and having plentiful sexual partners is encouraged not only as a cure for ones mental ills but also as a responsibility to your fellow citizen.

Submission-by-happiness is the name of Huxley's game, and although I'm a bigger fan of Orwell's stories, between Huxley and Orwell's predictions of real world elites' strategies of securing rule over the minds of men, surely Huxley got it right...

Because modern America fulfills the vision of Huxley's dystopian future.

Major American news outlets are a joke, bought and paid for. The range of opinion, coverage of major world events' important details, and criticism of federal government actions are all maliciously limited by government's domineering relationship with big media. It is absolutely criminal, and one of the most important things in your life, whether you realize this or not. Stories on gardening, or funny online videos, heart-warming actions of citizens, trials of unimportant Casey Anthonys, Scott Petersons, and Jodi Ariases, racism, and other useless coverage all too often supplant direly needed coverage of issues related to war, our international reputation, the economy, our standard of living, the near-deathly state of our currency, the ever growing police state, and more.

The willingness of Americans to medicate themselves into mental oblivion was realized by the book "Prozac Nation", and now has its 21st century equivalents in the forms of class C pain killers and aderol prominence. Even children are no longer safe - ritalin sees to that. For those willing to go the more nefarious path, street drug use and alcoholism runs rampant in the lower classes and youth. Promotions of pills for this and pills for that, coupled with the government's FDA control of new medicine development and sales, ensures that a significant portion of Americans remain doped up, happy, and less inclined to examine the world around themselves. This is Huxley's "Soma" realized.

Sex and sexual innuendo are propogated by every facet of government's subsidy-riddled Hollywood counterparts. The cozy relationship that exists between between government and media extends to the entertainment sector as well, with the easy opportunities for affecting the thoughts and trends of all Americans through the television and film proves too simple for the federal government to resist.

Throw in major sporting events - nearly all of which are subsidized by the feds, as well as the media coverage of them - overhyped to the point of hysteria by all of television, and you've got yourself a recipe for Roman Empire style "bread and circuses", a common distractor in that empire's day. The typical behavior in which today's fanatics - grown men - prance around in delirious obsession over a mere sports team, proving in some cases willing to kill for it, would astound yesteryear's adults to the point of amazement.

As the Roman commoners were oblivious to the instruments of their elitists' control, Nazis and Soviets too, so remain the majority of Americans to theirs. Governments keep one step ahead. But, "if you see as I see, if you feel as I feel", then you know there is something very wrong with this country, and you are not alone!

"Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." - Jer. 33:3

Dylan Thomas Newman - "Velikovsky and the Genetics of Our Savior"

Immanuel Velikovsky, author of "Mankind in Amnesia", which I am painstakingly making my way through now, was a respected acquaintance of Sigmund Freud as well as friend and contemporary of Carl Jung.  A respected psychologist, medical doctor, and historical and scientific researcher, he was also a personal friend and colleague of Albert Einstein, who was reading Velikovsky's latest book at the time of his death.

Largely independent in his research and writings, Velikovsky was tabooed by the scientific establishment of his day.  But upon writing his world famous book, "Worlds in Collision," and subsequent other writings which seemed to confirm key elements of Biblical miracles, he became the target of a discrediting campaign so intense it plagued him mentally until his death.  The elitists' priest class of university professors can't have credit for historical events or scientific wonders being given to God, and certainly not by one of their own, a fellow unbeliever.  All praise must be directed to the State.

All that aside, in the introductory chapters of Velikovsky's "Mankind in Amnesia", he makes use of theories of Freud, Jung, and himself to establish an overwhelming case for the existence of a super consciousness that is possibly shared by all mankind.  This possible consciousness, says Velikovsky, was and still is shaped by worldwide-scale traumatic events in early history, and has resulted in an unconscious inherited memory shared by all, which is so powerful and pervasive it has imprinted on the human genetic makeup - DNA.

From this, I am reminded of that somewhat illusory Bible verse from Genesis, chapter 3, verse 15, part of the description of God's cursing of Lucifer.

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Notice how He didn't say "between thee and the man", but rather "the woman", referring of course to Eve, with her "seed" being a reference to her eventual genetic lineage to Jesus Christ.  This reference to "the woman" is especially curious since, before this verse, all importance and significance had been placed on Adam alone.

However, God's exclusion of the male seed in the birth of Jesus may provide an extraordinary confirmation of Velikovsky's theory - that of a shared, worldwide human consciousness imparted by our DNA.  It practically jumped off the page when - in an amazing moment of confirmation - Velikovsky began to hypothesize for various reasons that this consciousness is passed down through males alone.

Any severe damage done to the genetic make-up of human beings could very easily equate to the fallen state of man as described in the Bible, and would explain the purpose of and need for Jesus' virgin birth.  If traumatic experiences are recorded in a shared, universal human consciousness and passed down through the DNA of males, then Jesus would not have been perfect in nature had he possessed such DNA.  A virgin birth was necessary for Jesus to avoid the damaged human consciousness and retain a holy, heavenly, perhaps God-connected one that we on earth do not understand, but could easily imply through logic exists.

Even further confirmation of a male-carried, genetically flawed consciousness that could potentially represent at least a part of man's fallen state can be seen in the fact that the fallen state did not come upon Eve immediately upon eating the forbidden fruit, but rather only after Adam ate of it too.  It is as if once his 'state became fallen'/'genetics became corrupted', the lesser state spread to Eve and their nakedness before God became realized.

So we can see that Velikovsky's theory and several Biblical nuances surrounding our Savior support each other strongly and lend evidence to the legitimacy of both.

The Veil Between Heaven and Earth

Unbeknownst to most Christians (and pastors too), the heavenly realm is not far away, or "above", or "in the clouds", though the latter description has some merit.  If you study the Bible, you'll come across several stories where the earthly realm is "opened" and reveals angels and other heavenly things. 

-Isaiah asked God to "rend the heavens" and come down. 
-As he was about to be stoned to death, Stephen looked up and said "Behold, I see the heavens opened", with Jesus at the right hand of God. 
-As Jesus himself was being baptized by his cousin, John the Baptist, we read that "heaven was opened" and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descended down to Him. 
-In a vision of God, Peter "saw heaven opened". 
-The entire book of Ezekiel is based on a vision he received when "the heavens were opened" before him.
-Psalms says God "opened the doors of heaven", raining down manna to the desert-bound Hebrews. 
-David wrote a song in which God "bowed", "parted", or "opened" the heavens and came down. 
-A young man, worried about a battle that was about to take place, was prayed for by Elisha, who said " LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see", causing the young man to be able to see the heavens, and the heavenly warriors and their chariots all around him.

So we see that there is some kind of layer or veil separating us from the heavenly realm.  Hence, it is the thing that must be "opened" for access to that realm.  This used to be common knowledge for believers.  The veil separating the public from the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem is symbolic of the actual veil.  Nowadays, because we are in the part of history the Bible calls "the great falling away", chiefly characterized by believers leaving the faith as clearly is the case in the western world, this knowledge is gone.  The French woodwork painting below is from an early period of history where westerners might have still known this as common knowledge, and for that reason I like it.