by...
GREEN NAZISM DOESN'T REFUTE REAL ENVIRONMENTALISM
GREEN NAZISM DOESN'T REFUTE REAL ENVIRONMENTALISM
I've been posting a few comments over on InfoWars.com. I'm doing my best to not be taken for a thing people have come to call a "troll" on the Internet. InfoWars is a very passionate, emotional place and mixed-bag of ideologies. It's very liberal in the mundane sense what with the language allowed and so forth. It's trying to be liberal in the humanist Enlightenment sense while also attracting many professing various brands of Christianity among many other things. My comments have not been censored there. The leniency there is actually a hurdle because one must ignore much of the fruitless bickering (eyes of the beholder I'm sure some would think).
I've address two main things there so far: Jesus's pacifism, for one, and now environmentalism, per se, for another.
The following is a comment I left there June 18, 2009. I haven't been back since because I've been busy with other matters.
The people at InfoWars (those who support it's particular ideology that is Alex Jones's ideology) are 9/11 Truthers (those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by elitist crony capitalists with many socialistic bents but all bent on greater and greater consolidation of global power into fewer and fewer hands. It's not incorrect. However, along with those views, Alex and the others hold with an assortment of other platform planks if you will. Among them is the idea that environmentalism is a ploy and really a tool in the above mentioned conspiracy. Well, no doubt there are those within that conspiracy who do and will use environmental issues to further their ulterior prime objective.
What I've tried to do over there is to at least get them to pause a bit to consider that just as they do not like to be all lumped together with neo-Nazis for instance, so too environmentalists should not all be lumped together as evil New World Order minions and dupes. I say "evil" there not to say that the New World Order concept is inherently evil but to differentiate the one Alex and the others have in mind as opposed to the one Jesus is bringing.
By no means do I intend to act as an apologist for evil or the dark side, which does exist in the radical or root spiritual sense. I want the language to stop being devolved or being subjected to what has been termed "dumbing down."
Alex doesn't like the sound bites on other networks aimed against his constituents and him. Well, he needs to elevate up from using sound bites as a counter-offensive. That's not to say that there is never any in-depth analysis on Alex's site. There is. Some articles are very well written and thought provoking.
Anyway, I posted the following over on an article the just begged for my comment. I was truly moved to post it.
Let me also say that I am not an enemy of Alex Jones. I rather like him in many respects. He's too much the mammon-profit seeker for me and gun enthusiast (not for hunting but for "protection"), but I do often see in him a real concern for others regardless of race or ethnicity, etc. He's not a fascist. Although many of his followers avoid and, by doing so, downplay the ways in which the fascists use capitalism on and against Alex, et al., while they (Alex and the others) actually miss or, again, avoid the connections. In the interest of "let do" or laissez-faire capitalism, Alex allows many of the giant corporations to go unaddressed. He does go after them, but it's often indirectly by going after the secret societies and the governments and bureaucracies those corporations and those corporations' owners control.
Global warning is dismissed as a fake even while Exxon, the whole oil industry, and King Coal are the main culprits in air pollution regardless of CO2. So, "let do" allows monopolists to get just as far as they can (as others are willing to accept it and do business with them rather than doing something else at the risk of being attack by those corporatists).
Alex wants a so-called purist's capitalism. It's a psychological position he's advocating. If everyone who just "let the markets work" while respecting everyone else's freedom (a balancing act), everything would progress properly. That's the view in a nutshell. It sounds right until held up against Jesus's countervailing position that asks everyone to go further in understanding the meaning of the term "respect" along with the entire language. That's what this site is all about. You can readily see which view is the more popular right now. Consider the reasons. I don't fault Alex for it. He's not been exposed much to my type of thinking. He's been too convinced that everyone who disagrees is a shill, wittingly or unwittingly.
I am no shill. He knows that. I'm a problem. I'm a problem for everyone except God, Jesus, and myself, so far that I know of. There are those who have been more "tolerant" of me than have others. Some actually rather like the idea of the Christian Commons. Thomas James and Scott McQueen have both spoken up about it without hiding out or then disappearing never to be seen again.
God is going to conflate souls in the spirit of service based upon the consensus of the Holy Spirit within each, based upon a unity of and within congregations all over. This is no dictatorial, violent cult in the offing. There's no intention of standing off while people go hungry or thirsty or cold or homeless, etc. The Christian Commons Project is exactly the opposite thrust of selfishly standing off.
We also aren't desirous of doing "good" works to expand some worldly empire we envision. We aren't wanting converts so we may satisfy our lusts. Who's "we"? Yes, where are they? They have their faith in mammon. Look what's happened. There will be a recovery you think. What will be lost in that process? On balance, mammon always robs. It came out from the devouring spirit. The only thing to do with it is translate it into the Commons that has been robbed since mammon's invention or dump mammon all together, which will eventually happen.
Yes, I sound the alarm against greed, violence, and sexual harm in all forms including homosexual. Yes, I'm strict, but so too are God and Jesus. It doesn't mean a lack of love or compassion or sympathy or empathy, far from it. The strictness of God is the most freedom one can enjoy forever. It's the conscience within. God is conscience. God is many things — all good. God and Jesus didn't shrink from rebuking. I've been on the receiving end. I've come to love it. It's saving. There's no doubt about it. I want the gentle instruction too. I want it all. Yes, I want it all. I want to join. I believe Jesus when he said we can join/return. How can anyone calling himself a Christian not believe it? I don't want to take it away from anyone but to spread it and to share it. I'm no usurper. I'm not starting a new religion. I'm going home. I'm bringing it here.
Is it by faith, works, grace? Yes. So, if you have faith and believe in grace, then bring forth as Jesus said to do. Where's the church? Is it just building feel-good self-esteem while members love the worldly while brothers and sisters suffer for lack of the Commons? That's the lowercase church, the false. Don't imagine you can love capitalism and then just tithe. It doesn't work that way. Don't point me to the "good" works you brag of while you don't share all with the whole Church.
Bring forth the outward manifestation. Bring forth the tangible. Don't sit around quoting Paul as to why Jesus's words are a distraction. Don't try to rationalize away the fact that capitalism is antichrist. You either believe in giving and sharing and serving as Jesus said or you don't. If you believe it, you're not going to be a Christian capitalist. You may be working in the world that is ruled by Satan and is capitalist, but you're going to be a Christian anti-capitalist doing what you can to help peacefully to bring forth (return) the rightful inheritance of all that is the Commons.
Tom Usher Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pmHello All,
Jurriaan Maessen wrote, "It is a well documented though seldom highlighted fact that the Nazis were very much into environmentalism- not for environmentalism's sake of course, but rather as a means of oppression and control." The Nazis had many members. They didn't agree about everything. Can it be substantiated that none was an environmentalist for the sake of the health of the natural environment?
Perhaps Jurriaan means as a Party and not so much as individual members of the Party. I suspect it. The article's context suggests it. In addition, the notion of a genuine Party-concern for environmentalism is inconsistent with Germany's military industrialization and warfare, which contributed to great quantities of environmental pollution.
The quote also strongly suggests that the author views environmentalism for environmentalism's sake as at least not unworthy. The complaint concerns governmental coercion, especially when the motives are ulterior, and not environmentalism, per se. Therefore, within this comment thread, there are many libertarians who may disagree with Jurriaan.
I do not hold with coercing while I also do not hold with polluting.
Mercury in vaccinations has been roundly criticized on this site. There is mercury pollution largely from coal burning that has contaminated great quantities of the freshwater fish population in the U.S.
One is unreasonably selective to hate the mercury in vaccines while having no issue with unbridled coal burning that as resulted in mercury poisoning of unsuspecting eaters of polluted fish.
Is the prevailing consensus on this site that no one should tell anyone else that burning coal presents health issues but everyone should speak out against the same toxicant in vaccines? That would be hypocritical on its face.
To avoid leaving the question of hypocrisy dangling, it would be an improvement were the clear distinction between environmentalism, per se, on one hand and using it as a pretext for evil ends on the other hand to be featured more prominently and with greater clarity.
There is nothing wrong with the right kind of environmentalism. The right kind of environmentalism is beautiful. It's consistent with the Golden Rule.
Peace and love
Jesus was the greatest environmentalist who has ever lived because he was the best teacher of the real understanding of the Golden Rule.
- Technorati Tags: 9/11, 9/11 Truthers, air pollution, Alex Jones, anti-capitalist, antichrist, bring forth, capitalism, censored, Christian capitalist, Christian Commons, Christianity, CO2, coal burning, compassion, conflate, congregationalism, conscience, consensus, consolidation, conspiracy, contaminated, corporations, corporatism, crony capitalism, cult, dark side, dictatorial, dumbing down, elitist, empathy, Enlightenment, environmental, environmentalism, environmentalist, environmentalists, evil ends, Exxon, faith, fascism, freedom, freshwater fish, Germany, giving and sharing all, global warning, God, Golden Rule, governmental coercion, grace, greed, green Nazism, gun enthusiast, health issues, Holy Spirit, homosexual, humanist, hypocrisy, hypocritical, ideologies, ideology, industrialization, infowars.com, inside job, Jesus, Jurriaan Maessen, King Coal, laissez-faire, leniency, let do, liberal, libertarians, love, mammon, mercury, mercury poisoning, military, monopolists, natural environment, Nazis, neo-Nazis, New World Order, oil industry, oppression, pacifism, Paul, polluted fish, pollution, pretext, racism, rationalization, religion, rightful inheritance of all, Satan, Scott McQueen, self-esteem, sexual harm, shill, socialism, sound bites, spirit of service, strictness, sympathy, Thomas James, tithe, toxicant, U.S., usurpation, vaccinations, vaccines, violence, violent, warfare, works, worldly empire
Tom Usher
Standing Comment, all posts and pages:
To all homosexuals and their supporters, condoners, promoters, accepters, confirmers, and the like:
Unless you have something completely new that hasn't already been refuted, don't bother. It won't show up.
Rehashing what has already been refuted is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine, giving the children's bread to the dogs, or rebuking a forever scorner.
Learn or go away: There is zero wisdom in homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Nothing any homosexual or anyone else can say or do will alter it. No one needs the Bible to know it either. It's prima facie. There's no such thing as an unrepentant-homosexual Christian. There never has been and never will be. That's the way of it. If you don't like it, change.
Do site searches on the various topics concerning homosexuality to determine if your "point" has already been handled. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.
The same can be done regarding militarism, capitalism, coercion, and many other main issues and themes.
TREATMENT, RUDENESS, POLITENESS, OFFENSE, TRUTH
Many times over the course of this website's existence, I've had commentators complain about how I've treated them and/or others. Much less frequently has anyone taken exception to those commentator's comments. I assume that's because for one, I appear to be holding my own.
Often, I have raised the fact that Jesus called certain people "serpents." I've often also mentioned how he cleaned the temple with whip in hand, not that he used it on anyone. It certainly doesn't say that he did, and neither was he charged with it in the kangaroo court of the serpents who ended up murdering him by proxy just for, among other wonderful things, speaking out and speaking truth.
If I say that those who are engaged in serpentine behavior are the New Testament "serpents," then why take offense at my saying it rather than standing with Jesus and me about it?
If others don't like it that I treat others or them the way I have in this regard, why don't they take it up with the serpents and/or their own consciences and God?
If I wanted to catch flies, I'd use honey. I don't want flies on this level. Human beings aren't to be on the level of flies. If the truth is bitter as vinegar, then ask yourself why and learn to taste it as sweet but not sickeningly so. Why attack the message and messenger, as the serpents did, and become a serpent by so doing?
The issue is not "name calling" on some bratty, childish level. When Jesus said "serpents," he was not being as a brat. His level was completely adult to adults and children. He dared say that the children understood the clear and plain truth before the adults who, afterall, had been abused and socialized by the serpents. He still calls adults back. Those who hear him and know his voice (truth) turn around and do the other required things together as well.
What is it for a human being to be more serpentine or reptilian than what God initially gave? What was and remains Jesus's point? What is the reptilian brain versus the vastly higher human brain with its cerebral cortex and frontal and temporal lobes and specific areas of altruistic sentiments and abilities? What are those higher areas before they are damaged, before the communication pathways to them and between them are diminished by evil that is always some form of abuse? How are those pathways reestablished or created where they never were in this fleshly life?
The snake lays its eggs. The eggs hatch. The snake parent doesn't nurture or raise the offspring. It's every snake for itself. Human parents and family are not designed to be that way. Humans hand down the learning of nurturing. Many people get better training than do others, and many people have a greater aptitude for learning and predisposition for the higher and highest virtues. Many are less abused. People can change for the better and best though, no matter where the starting point. They only can't if they don't — if they reject it.
Snakes, of course, also come in venomous varieties and in strangling varieties, etc., such that they have been attackers and even devourers of humans for eons, guilty and innocent alike.
Now, Jesus knew that most people could relate to what were, and still are, largely considered "good" parenting skills and "good" "family" relations. He regularly used those concepts to get people to consider the wider implications for the whole of humanity. He did know that many would refuse. He let them go. He didn't demand secular or false-religion legislation to rein them in with threats of violence and imprisonment. He was not and is not coercive. Even his Church is a voluntary place to be.
What he still teaches (through the written words in the New Testament and as those connect with the Old and also teaches through the Holy Spirit he definitely sent as he said he would) is, among many other things, that "good" is vastly better than has been commonly accepted and that real "family" is everyone left after all the rest have rejected the higher and highest good. He raised the standards far above the Old Testament and far above the "modern" standard.
The American Empire and the American people in general aren't even touching the hem of his garment, let alone even attempting to stand upright and side-by-side with him.
I point out that Jesus was, and is, a Real Liberal Christian. He is the one who brought back this censored truth that is the light. After he had spoken it and lived it and was murdered for doing so, the censors set about to re-censor it and did. They couldn't put it out though — couldn't completely extinguish the truth. I wouldn't be saying it now again with all credit to God, just as Jesus, if they had been able to completely block it.
I point out that each of those terms ("real," "liberal," and "Christian," along with "Church") are actually redundant terms — synonyms that are so close that they become one. The term "liberal" here is not the common usage, which common usage is a deliberate corruption of the term. There is no harm in real liberalism. There is no vileness in it. There is only beneficence. "Real" may be understood as the opposite of false-hearted, dark side, and dead of the Holy Spirit. Christian is both real and liberal in those senses. To arrive at living, doing, being those full senses requires what Jesus lives, does, and is in the highest. Finally, the Church is the whole.
Who are they who want to drag it down, censor it, work against it, lessen it, ignore it, etc.? Well, who sides with Jesus and who sides against him? Did the serpents side with him then? Do they now?
We call war-mongers "hawks." We call "peacemakers" blessed and "doves." Why do the hawks not take offense at "hawks" but do take offense at "serpents"? "Hawks" is not yet as telling to the general public, but I must tell you that all hawks are serpents. Why do some say, "Greed is good" but take offense at "serpents"? I tell you there is no difference between the selfish and the serpents. Why do people take offense at serpents when they do not take offense at homosexuality? I tell you the homosexual spirit also comes out from the dark side. It is a choice. It is harmful. Many are abused with it. Many never overcome it. Their very brain matter is transformed by it. Then they claim it is good when it remains confusion and definitely wrong and harmful.
Many arguments were put forth in support of tolerance. I understood that Jesus "tolerated," as in he did not execute wrath but rather told the truth and let the blind follow the blind (blind to the truth) into the ditch of their own making. I have watched while the movement has been corrupted into condoning what was once only to be tolerated. I have watched further while it has moved from condoning to promoting even to the youngest children to get to them before the truth does. I have seen evil at work, and I sound the alarm. I face censorship and other negative reactions for it.
As the American Empire claims to be a light to the world, it murders innocent babies by Hellfire missiles fired from predator drones controlled by armchair, video-gaming serpents in uniform. It tortures those who are not even suspects. It spies on its own without even probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It lies its way into wars for spoils and control. It neglects its poor, whom it treads down for the sakes of the superrich — for the sake of the massive flow of mammon from the bottom up (no trickledown — trickledown is a farce and always has been). All is claimed to be okay in America though — that America is headed in the right direction — because soon, even "don't tell, don't ask" will be a thing of the quaint past and homosexuals may be able to sleep together and have sex in the barracks with the "blessing" of the Empire while they practice murdering the innocent for the sake of homosexual, greedy plutocrats who own them and who, in turn, are owned by the dark-side spirit named by God and Jesus as Satan.
Whose side are you on? I speak truth to warn. I don't tell the secular government what to do other than occasionally to say what at least would be less hypocritical within their fallen, unenlightened system. I do so for spiritual reasons. What I want is the Christian Commons.
Now, if you submit a comment:
What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it. Don't be tempted by the devil to stand opposed to the call of righteousness. Overcome such evil temptation. Help others to help yet others to come to righteous behavior through-and-through.
Check out how even after reading this, people will still take it out of context and twist it to an evil end.