Chip Berlet, who is entitled "senior analyst," Political Research Associates (PRA), billing itself as an "independent think tank," is one of the main proponents of the term "conspiracism" and has authored a so-called study entitled, "Toxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, and Scapegoating." Yes, I read the full report.

Here's my quick response to Chip Berlet since he's misleading.

The following paragraph is not the style I'll use throughout this article, so don't let it throw you. I'm assuming you've at least overviewed the linked page and perhaps the full report. You can look at his executive summary instead. You'll find the link to that on the linked page. You can also hear him, read him, here at Democracy Now.

"Bankster" is not a right-wing populist term, per se. It was a term also used by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his New Deal. "Plutocrat" is a populist term that is neither right nor left wing. The rule by the rich is simply a fact of evil's rule. It is why the proverbial/biblical Satan is the god of this world rather than God being universally recognized. Cronyism does exist. Obama has totally mishandled his birth certificate issue. Conspiracism is a term used by self-styled anti-conspiracy theorists to suggest that conspiracy theorizing is a conspiracy. In other words, it's a stupid term. It very nearly does everything it is designed to suggest is wrong. It is put forth by those with an agenda of their own who stand against those who don't agree and see them as likewise dangerous.

He's obviously a pro-homosexuality, humanist, who fears that the general population will become wise to his harmful agenda. Yes, homosexuality is harmful."

He's a propagandist for Satanic ideas, by definition. He demonizes my view of him while telling others that I'm bad because I demonize his ideas. He's now exposed!

Well, I don't shrink from calling evil, evil and assigning it to "Satan." Chip dances around trying to demonize while only pointing his finger at everyone right, left, above, wherever, who doesn't think his mind is the ultimate in correct thinking. Chip, you're dreaming. Ernie Lazar and Chip seem to be cut from much the same cloth, although Chip is a bit more honest because Ernie actually claims to be libertarian while being a huge fan of J. Edgar Hoover. Ernie may not be alone in that, but I've never heard of another libertarian who's pro-Hoover. Most libertarians view the FBI as a sort a Big Brother, and rightly so, albeit not quite as bad as the CIA.

Chip hates Jesus. He thinks the bankers are just fine. He thinks that if you have a problem with bailing out the bankers, you're anti-Jew. I have to tell you, I hate Chip's propaganda. He's led astray and leading astray. You see, what Chip doesn't care to think about is that evil is a conspiracy from the beginning to turn souls away from the perfection that is God. He wants homosexuality and usury and violent coercive force for the sake of his ideology. I don't.

Some on the Left, however, picked up phrases such as "international bankers," "globalist elites," "secret government," "international bankers," and "banksters," that historically have been used as coded references to alleged Jewish power. While their target was Bush and Cheney, the accusations and catchphrases employed were laden with antisemitic bigotry.

That's Chip Berlet quoting someone else in Chip's report. Do you see what is going on there? If you say there are international bankers, I call them world bankers, so does David Rockefeller the banker by the way, you're at the very least to be condemned for some lapse in judgment for not steering clear. Well, what are they if not international bankers? What about the non-Jew international bankers? Don't they exist?

There is no global elite? Who are those who have stood at the top of each empire down through the ages? Were they not the elitists? Now that we have truly global Empires since the British Empire and now the American Empire, which is mainly British, American, and Israeli, how are we to refer to them in Chip's view? Chip just wants to break the historical connections, the continuity of identifying the worldly imperial, greedy, violent, and perhaps always sexually perverted, spirit for what it was, is, and will be.

The fact that a militant will point out a greedy banker or a homosexual doesn't change the banker or homosexual into something else. That a banker will point to a militant or homosexual or a homosexual will point to a banker or militant changes none of them. They are what they are, and some militants are homosexual bankers: under a triple whammy.

Furthermore, usury is a racket, a scam, regardless of whether Chip Berlet thinks otherwise. It's evil, plain and simple.

Chip Berlet is intellectually dishonest. He's a word gamer. He's playing mind games on people. I don't like it or hold with it. He's wrong, and that's how it is.

Conspiracism is nearly always a distraction from the work of uprooting hierarchies of unfair power and privilege.

The bankers are called banksters because it is a racket, a fraudulent scheme that Chip can't see or is hiding, are the unfair hierarchs, Chip. Wake up. You're sleeping on the train to Hell and damnation. You may not otherwise wake up until the train arrives at the last and final stop.

"...most odious characterizations of Jews as 'Christ killers,' the staple of classic European Christian antisemitism."

No, it's about Judaism hijacked by Talmudists who say Jesus is in Hell boiling in excrement. Yes, the Babylonian Talmud does say that. As for Jesus being crucified, who turned him over and yelled for him to be killed? Chip wants to rewrite history. Not all Jews took Christ in the dead of night and tried him in a kangaroo court and then turned him over to the gentile overlords whom they encouraged to crucify Jesus. Many Jews were, in fact, Christians, though they weren't known by that name at that time. The idea that it is anti-Jew to tell this truth is an affront to all that is Holy. Chip clearly is antichrist. As I said, he hates Jesus.

Jesus stands in Chip's way of dominating and self-licensing to do whatever evil Chip has on his mind whether he's cognizant or operating on automatic, hypnotized, subconscious mode most or all of the time.

Chip Berlet, the one-world, secular, humanist government is antichrist. How is it that you don't know that? Do you think it's what Jesus had in mind? Your knowledge is extremely superficial, ironically something you decry concerning your enemies.

Freemasonry is syncretic, Chip. Chip writes as if Freemasonry is benign. It's syncretistic. Syncretism is anti-Christianity. That's how it is. There were plenty of Masons in the American Revolution. Jefferson was a Deist and humanist. He was for a secular government. He was far from alone in that. Why do you paint people who point out these truths as being demented? What's your agenda, as if it's not obvious.

What are you going to do with me, Chip Berlet? I'm a communist and a Christian, the two being the same thing in reality, contrary to Marx's later distortions. Where do I fit in, since I don't hold that all bankers are Jews because they aren't? I don't fit in your systematic thinking because Jesus is a collectivist, total pacifist (meaning anti-coercion.)

You are trapped on the false-ideological spectrum.

You're an apologist for false-Zionists who clearly have committed horrendous war crimes and crimes against humanity in their treatment of the Palestinians.

You want people to fall for the same old garbage that if someone who makes any mistakes whatsoever says something, then everything he or she says has to be discounted. Well, that's not how reality works, Chip. We are to divide the false from the true, not throw the true out with the false.

Really, Chip, are you saying that the magic bullet [update] really did all that they said it did at JFK's assassination? You're rather gullible, to say the least, if you are saying that. Are you aware that the Martin Luther King, Jr., family actually won its civil suit for King's wrongful death at the hands of the government — yes government? Are you aware that CIA agents have been identified in the photos at RFK's assassination, agents who were his sworn enemies? Do you know that the CIA literally washed people's brains? Are you not even aware of psychic driving even though you claim to be an expert on conspiracy theorists? This knowledge has been around for decades, but it's been suppressed. It's now coming out on account of people like me, not you. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Either you know of these things and conveniently avoid them for effect (to further the conspiracy of those who pay you), or you're lacking in the directions in which your research efforts take you. I believe you steer clear of what would prove you wrong. I believe you're a coward.

Have you even read anything from the 9-11 Truth Movement? Do you really believe that building 7 just fell down due to reasons given in the so-called official version of the U.S. government? You don't think you're in a trance? You don't think the investigation into 9-11 was suppressed? Even people on the 9-11 Commission said otherwise. They knew they were being blocked from following the leads where they actually would lead and that it wasn't on account of the national security reasons given by Bush and Cheney. Did you really believe all the lies told during the build up to the invasion of Iraq?

How much is this so-called independent think tank paying you? Where do they get their money? Who's funding them?

You're not very bright, Chip.

You go on about Islamophobia as if Mohammed wouldn't cut you to pieces for being an unrepentant homosexual. Have you read the Qur'an? Mohammed held that Sodom was destroyed by God for among other reasons, that they were homosexual and bi-sexual. It's a fact, and Islam is that mind, the mind of Mohammed. You can't turn it into something else any more than you can turn Christianity into something contrary to the mind of Jesus.

Well, you're for democracy. You're for coercive democracy. I'm not.

Chip Berlet's views are extremely dangerous to open debate every bit as much as the worst of the worst he criticizes.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.