Posted on 11/11/2005 3:19:08 AM PST by Lindykim
The 'problem' began in the Garden of Eden.
I will be reading/pinging this out later. Just sneaking in for a minute, illegally.
:-)
This article is useful because of the quotations from the population control freaks, especially the banning of DDT. It may not be a conspiracy in the sense that they have regular meetings, but there is certainly a common goal amongst liberals to reduce the world population by any means. It's the "culture of death."
I would mention that the Black Death signaled the decline of the Western civilization, which proceeded to the creation of tyrannical nation-states and subversion of Christianity, -- the decline that the creation of the United States was not able to arrest. It comes as no surprise that the disciples of the devil long for another plague to finish us off not so much physically as spiritually.
Tony,
Of course there is no conspiracy in the sense of Gunpowder plot conspiracy. Such conspiracies rarely succeed and do not bring down civilizations. There is instead a commonality of worldview which results in different parts fitting together without consciously contributing to the single plan. The author makes it very clear:
It appears as though certain Enlightenment thinkers—Darwin, Marx, Hegel, Saint-Simon, and Rousseau among others, ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and each man received certain ideas which, when combined with the others, produced a malignancy-filled system of philosophy comparable to a grimoire of goetia (black magic) which, like Sauron's One Ring, holds out for the bearer a seductive illusion of power, wealth, and glory. The key to the power, according to the grimoire, is through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions so necessary for the continuance of mankind. In his book, The Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton described the reversal process as the ''theology of demons''Obviously, Marx, Darwin and Rousseau never met to plot together, and if they had met, they would not have agreed on much. But they served the same devil all the same.
Why would the creation of a democratic republic be expected to arrest the decline of feudal monarchies in the first place?
The feudal system was replaced by the system of nation-states. That was one step toward the decline. Then late 18 and 19c saw a formation of democratic republics, which were not able to come up with anything much better than monarchy, and in fact often were worse, becoming step #2.
It would certainly seem so.
Or the #1 fan
Linda Kimball
Lindykim
How was feudal England not a nation-state in 1346?
Indeed England, due to its insularity, went down that road first. Still, I doubt that in 14c people in England viewed themselves as royal subjects and Englishmen rather than vassals of a suzerain without regard to nationality. Jacque Barzun considers the conversion to nation-states complete by 1500 in Europe.
Considering that 1346 was the year before the plague hit Europe, it's rather difficult to reconcile England already being in decline with the claim that the Black Death marked the beginning of the decline.
Annalex oft confuse us. Are you saying that Darwin's ideas were advanced to push a social agenda, and not to reflect the development of life on Earth?
Phy....Are you saying that Darwin's ideas were advanced to push a social agenda, and not to reflect the development of life on Earth
Yes. Totally. Without any doubt.
Darwin conceived of an idea, an idea of which he himself had extremely grave doubts. Engels read Darwins book and wrote to Marx that in effect, Darwin's idea was just the ticket/facade needed to disguise their neopagan worldview system.
One of these days, maybe sooner rather than later, you're going to discover that the so-called 'science & reason' by which you've lived your life and assumed thereby that you occupied the 'moral high ground' was nothing but smoke and mirrors.
I recommend that you obtain a copy of The Black Book of Communism and begin your journey to true Enligtenment.
True, but at the same time we don't know whether, had the plague not occurred, the West, including England, would not have remained substantially decentralized politically, while united spiritually. The plague shattered the worldview where men were divinely ordered to holiness, and at the same time it devastated the clergy, who were primarily exposed to the disease because of their duties. This paved the way to a society more ordered to physical survival and therefore clamoring for greater physical security of a strong state, while at the same time skeptical about Divine providence. It is one thing to organically form ethnic bonds thanks to the commonality of geography and language, another to replace the concept of man as an individual making his own security arrangements with a concept of man as a subject/citizen of a state, born with a duty to serve the government. From this fallacy we have not recovered and in fact it seems to be getting worse under democracy.
What Lindykim said.
It is possible that Darwin subjectively thought of himself as discovering scientific facts, and some of his observations, such as of the beaks of polynesian finches, reflect scientific method, but the venture into the origin of life was a venture outside of science into some kind of speculative secular pseudotheology.
The origin of life is a legitimate and ongoing bit of scientific inquiry. It is outside the study of evolution, however.
I'd like you to give a source for that assertion. I believe it's wrong.
But here's what you're missing: It doesn't matter to me what Darwin thought of his idea, or what his motives were for advancing it. I'm a scientist. I judge the merit of his idea on whether it is right or wrong, and I make that judgment based on the evidence. And having looked at the evidence with a professionally trained eye, I conclude that his idea so correctly and comprehensively describes the development of life on Earth, that I consider it to be one of the greatest achievements in the history of science.
One of these days, maybe sooner rather than later, you're going to discover that the so-called 'science & reason' by which you've lived your life and assumed thereby that you occupied the 'moral high ground' was nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Are you saying that all of the evidence I've seen is wrong, or that I've been fooled by a suite of simple but incorrect theories that accidentally fits all of that evidence spectacularly well?
...or are you saying that you personally don't like the consequences of those ideas being correct?
Darwin's theory addresses the origin of the species, i.e. the development of a diversity of life from common ancestors. By what standard does that fall outside of science?
What a pantload. So how about when someone reads and misinterprets the Bible and decides it justifies the killing and oppression of other people? Shall we condemn the bible with equal vigor?
Back all the way up....The civil rights movement was communist? Sorry, not buying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.