A glimmer of truth is not enough

Just watching the Tommy Robinson interview with Jeremy Paxman, you can see that Robinson is not the sharpest tool in the box. Although he comes across as a "just a normal bloke" type, its no excuse for not having the faintest idea of what he is talking about.
Just the appearance of having a valid point about the evils of Islamism, is enough to get him noticed, and the "blokey bloke" persona fits in well with most of us who are fed up with smooth talking politicians.





 

 

Ok, he has a point, but so did Sayyid Qtub the Egyptian scholar who is regarded as the founder of Islamism. Its easy to have a valid point when exposing obvious evil. A glimmer of truth is not enough though. It is the glimpse that acts as bait to introduce our perception to all kinds of ideologies, religious and political.

Why do we not really drill down into the essence of these things? It is almost as if we suppose that the veil of illusion is superficial and ready to be parted at the merest exploratory gesture. This is not so. Lack of diligence to search out the truth, will only ever result in being wrapped in increasingly elaborate layers of deception. Look, the whole thing is complicated ok, the socio/econo/political framework is extremely detailed but that's not really what is important, what counts is the spiritual dimension, and its not impossible to fathom out, but we have to get on the right footing, disregarding the various strands of christian apostasy without disregarding the truth about God.



How Long Is A Piece Of String Theory?

Years ago, my mate had a theory that "high end" Hi Fi turntables were, so good that they were rubbish. What he was saying that, the arms were so sensitive, you couldn't walk across the floor without them skating across the record. He was right
.
The same applies to the new self service checkouts at Morrisons. One day the machine was just eating my coins without registering them. When the manager had opened up the coin mechanism, he found bits of fluff that had clogged it up. He maintained that the machines were state of the art, to which my reply was, "They're so good, they're rubbish" It's true.

The principal can apply to all sorts of stuff, String theory for example. It's so clever, it,s rubbish.
How can you measure how long a piece of string is without giving a value to something that is immeasurable?
Then there is Super String and M theory, D brane theory and 11 different dimensions.

It's at the point where more faith is required to believe it, than to believe in the supernatural.

Maybe science is a religion. It certainly punches above it's weight in my opinion.
I am quite convinced that aspects of modern science are just a form of legitimised gnosticism but maybe that's another story.

On a slightly different note, I was quite surprised when I looked up the definition of "technocracy" It appears that "Social sciences" are not included in the definition. I would disagree most strongly, since it is clear that the development of social science at the time of the enlightenment, most definitely became a tool by which the ruling elites, "managed" society. maybe the dictionary writers are not as insightful as one would have hoped.

Deterring The Already Dead

This article by Laurent Murawiec, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. Illustrates why the fight against all kinds of religious fanaticism is impossible.
It also helps to explain why Christians believe in "taking up their cross daily", 

 

Deterrence works because one is able credibly to threaten the center of gravity of the

enemy: the threat of inflicting unacceptable losses upon him, whether in a bar brawl or in
nuclear escalation. The calculus deterrence relies upon is:

is it worth it?

 

Is the Price/Earning Ratio of the contemplated action so hugely negative that it would wipe out

the capital? Deterrence works if the price to be paid by the party to be deterred hugely
exceeds his expected earnings. But deterrence only works if the enemy is able and willing
to enter the same calculus. Read More here...


 

The Alternative Reason for Pope Benedict's Resignation

When I was young, I was always told, "Never get into arguments about politics or religion" That piece of advice turned out to be vaguely correct. However, this is the Internet where nothing is real so it doesn’t matter.

I am intrigued by some of the reports that were circulating from alternative news sources from the time of Pope Benedict's announcement to retire.The gist of the reports were that the Pope was forced to retire because of an international arrest warrant issued against him for sexual abuse.

I was shocked at the magnitude of the scandal and set about to find out more about it, only to discover that, despite page after page of Google results from websites like David Icke, Prison Planet and Beforeitsnews.com, none of the mainstream media outlets, were carrying the story. Not one.

After some investigation, it transpired that the "News" reports, had originated from a single source, the "International Tribunal against Crimes of Church and State" (ITCCS) which despite its official sounding title, actually comprises of only one man, Kevin D. Annett, who is a bit of a crackpot, given the fact that he intends to initiate a campaign of occupation and confiscation of Church property. I also discovered that renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, had tried to find a way to have the pope arrested during his visit to the U.K.

Reuters revealed that because the resignation was unprecedented, the Pope would stay in the Vatican for for immunity, and security reasons, as there would be a likelihood of pilgrimages to his home. 

It seems to me that a clear pattern of anti-Christian or anti-church sentiment has become evident within the truth seeker/alternative news community. I suspect that this is largely due to the influence of the Zeitgeist films, which are described as, “Conspiracy theory meets the New Age”.

Since anyone who is familiar with the truth about Alice Baily’s New Age agenda and the work of the Lucis trust, will likely diverge from the Zeitgeist philosophy, there is some disagreement in store.