Angel Of Darkness

*edit, October 17, 2012 – I created a link to a Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky discussion (with audience participation) that I found shortly after doing this post. No text was added or altered. I just happened to be discussing exactly what those two teachers were discussing and so…

The word translated as “angel” has the basic meaning of ‘messenger’. Satan means ‘resister’. Devil means ‘slanderer’ and the meaning of the name ‘Gog’ is unknown. But if I had to guess, I’d go with ‘darkness’. Satan has been steadily abased, or brought lower, since he first rebelled against God. The first (visible to us from what is revealed in the Christian Bible) instance of abasement was when he rebelled. That severed his connection with the Source of love and life and light. The second instance was when he got kicked out of heaven and the presence, however useful to him, of God himself. That happened in 1914 of our common era. The next time it happens will occur after Armageddon has concluded. Satan began his role as Gog when he was kicked out of heaven in 1914.

Ezekiel prophesies that Gog and Magog (not solely a ‘place’ but more like ‘wherever followers of Gog reside’) attack God’s people who are dwelling in safety in the center of the earth in later times. Jehovah’s Witnesses, from whom I learned the Bible (which isn’t to say I agree with all that they teach), believe that Gog’s attack is a single, uninterrupted, physical attack that starts Armageddon. While that attack is physical, it certainly has to do with spiritual matters. The universe is at war. Everyone is involved one way or another. Satan is at war with God and any, human or spirit, who have not joined him in his rebellion. Which isn’t to say that Satan doesn’t bring destruction to everyone and everything he touches, if he isn’t up against superior forces. Humans have limited ability to resist the god of this system of things.

My reading of the Christian Bible tells me that Gog’s attack on God’s people prior to Armageddon is not a single, uninterrupted, physical attack. I would argue that that attack began when Satan was barred from heaven but not earth, in 1914 of our common era (when World War One broke out), or shortly after. That attack is spiritual/psychological. Certainly Satan is going to use psychology. But the heart is as important a weapon to Satan and his associates as the mind. Indeed, Without the heart’s involvement, Satan’s influence over a human being doesn’t mean as much. The person caught up in a physical existence but unenlightened is not viewed by God as inadmissible into the new world. And so the attack is spiritual. It’s target? Certainly it’s target is whoever they are who God views as his people. Those ones would properly be those who despite their challenges and flaws remain loyal to the Creator. And how does God view the destruction of innocents who are ignorant? I think he cares profoundly about innocent people (mentally challenged, babies, people who are isolated and uninformed for whatever reasons) and everything he does is meant to rescue them from destruction, for his name’s sake. Do I have all of the answers? No. I’m not making that claim.

Who can argue with the idea that great darkness has descended upon the earth? You have the incredible spectacle of law & order (rightwing) governments employing laws (national security ideology and related laws) in order to control people while their private sector partners exploit them. The game which that crowd plays is Darwinian (although Darwin would no doubt disapprove). I call it ‘riches for the strongest’. It’s the world’s dominant paradigm or organizing principle. The approach of macho elites to society-building and problem solving is to exploit. Not only are elites of that mindset, but even many of their victims think thusly. That approach, by unprincipled people, to building and maintaining civilization involves getting together with everyone else and deciding on the rules that everyone will follow. The claim is always made that the result will be a safe, prosperous society in which everyone will freely contribute and everyone will fully benefit. The goal is life. Then the dark thinkers proceed to strategically break rules that will enable them to dominate in society. From a position of dominance, such ones can then persuade others, by force, to see things their way. Their view? They believe, actively and conveniently only (rather than fully or genuinely), that they are God and there is no actual person named God or Jehovah or whatever you wish. This forcing of the Lie on others is what the god of this system of things requires of his followers. Their reward for carrying out that program of education is their freedom to break rules and thrive, but without guarantees. Their reward for spreading darkness and death is life. But it’s not the real thing and somewhere under their skins the sinners know it.

Chris Hedges

There is only one Creator and Source of life. He sets the standards. We can argue with that and refuse to accept it, but it will always be what it is. Jesus spoke of the wide and spacious road that leads to destruction that many walk on as opposed to the narrow road that leads to life and which few walk on. Today’s capitalists enjoy great freedom, now that they’ve captured governments (stolen them from the mostly law-abiding people who they conveniently regard as the enemy) that they then use to make or not make rules. Then there’s their free trade agreements which give more freedom (liberalization) to corporations while taking away power from governments and elected politicians (with their complicity unfortunately). And now, captured governments, knowing that they and their private sector partners are going to continue to abuse the people, rather than admit that they’ve been abusing them and attempting to fix things, are cranking out laws stripping citizens of their rights and privacy and empowering the state to police too freely, anticipating the anger and reactions their actions will cause and viewing it all as potential investment and profit opportunities for their private sector partners. That involves the criminalization of dissent. And if that isn’t bad enough, When some brave, principled souls try to tell us what our governments are doing in our name, because it’s not all out in the open, the lawless ‘law & order’ state seeks to make an example of them, which it enjoys doing because it is perverted. (Bradley Manning / Julian Assange / William Binney)

Their idea of rules is a negative one. They see law & order as a mechanism of control. They use the term ‘stability’ to mean a situation in which corporations have all the freedom and citizens are reduced to consumers with no input into how they are governed, at best, and slaves at worst. Todd Gordon writes about imperialism and about Canadian imperialism especially. Here’s a little of what he has to say:

“Imperial powers like the U.S. have also increasingly taken to justifying their military interventions on humanitarian grounds. “War to defend market access,” [David] McNally comments, “sounds just too crass, even imperialistic. Consequently, heads of state have taken to invoking human rights, freedom and defence of civilization as the touchstones of military policy.” Failed states are not only a threat to the North; they are also a threat to their own citizens. If governments in these countries are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens, then it is the responsibility of those of the North to step in and do so – even if not asked. Military intervention, then, is a benevolent act. But as I noted above, “failed” is a highly politicized designation. Lurking not far in the background of the discourse on humanitarian intervention is the old racist trope that the South is a place of inexplicable savagery and violence – helpless without the support of the civilized nations. Imperialist powers have always cast their invasions of other nations in a positive light.” -pages 293 & 294 of “Imperialist Canada” by Todd Gordon

And why is the less developed world – which is reflected in the undeveloped or destroyed regions of developed countries – that way? The kings, great and small, of the world make it so. Here’s a list of African dictators that the world’s most powerful individual, president Barack Obama, supports and supported. It’s taken from Patrick Bond’s recent ZNet article titled “Washington In Africa 2012. Who Will Obama whack next?” And this is typical for American presidents:

The standard list of African tyrants Obama has had to relate to, in order of longevity, includes:

· Muammar Gaddafi, Libya – 1969-2011

· Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasago, Equatorial Guinea – 1979-present

· Jose Eduardo dos Santos, Angola – 1979-present

· Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe – 1980-present

· Hosni Mubarak, Egypt – 1981-2011

· Paul Biya, Cameroon – 1982-present

· Yoweri Museveni, Uganda – 1986-present

· King Mswati III, Swaziland – 1986-present

· Blaise Compaoré, Burkina Fasso – 1987-present

· Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia – 1987-2011

· Omar al-Bashir, Sudan – 1989-present

· Idriss Deby, Chad –1990-present

· Isaias Afewerki, Eritrea –1993-present

· Yahya Jammeh, Gambia – 1994-present

· Paul Kagame, Rwanda – 1994-present

· Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia – 1995-2012.

Three US-backed dictators above were overthrown (one, Gaddafi, through Obama’s direct intervention once he became less helpful than potential successors), and one, Zenawi died.

While I’m at it, President Obama is the first American president (who we know of) to directly murder innocent people. See “Jeremy Scahill Says Obama Strikes In Yemen Constitute Murder'” – Information Clearinghouse. See also “Noam Chomsky on WikiLeaks, Obama’s Targeted Assassinations and Latin America’s Break from the U.S.” – Democracy Now

Jeremy Scahill

The law & order crowd doesn’t make or not make rules because they believe, on principle, in law and order and seek to create a civilization in which everyone can live peacefully and fully. They use law and order, or rules, to gain power and control people. They believe in inequality and exploitation. They get a kick out of surviving by taking the means of survival from others. And that in turn furnishes them with the glory which they crave and which they probably instinctively seek in order to dampen the disquiet they feel as a result of their moral choices. Talk about pouring fuel on a fire! Law-abiding citizens, on the other hand, find that life is hard. They can’t do this and they can’t do that without becoming lawless like their leaders, and so their road is, as Jesus noted, narrow. But he also noted that that road leads to life.

* I apologize for the scripture links. The JW online Bible used to be more user friendly. I could link to the specific scriptures, if I recall. I know I was able to do something along those lines. Perhaps the scriptures I was trying to show readers would appear highlighted. Perhaps they just want to force already busy people to read more Bible. Good plan, if so. Not. And for the record, I am not recommending Jehovah’s Witnesses to anyone. At least that’s not my intention. My intention is to show you where the information is that I’m using. But if you want to learn what’s in the Christian Bible, I know of no better organization for that purpose. If you go to them, be sure to think for yourself and be prepared for a negative reaction when you disagree with them or fail to agree with them. That might not happen right away. But it will come.

Here’s the thing. When people choose a dark path and are aware of it, but they lack the humility to change course, then they acquire a disquiet in their souls. It’s reflected in their behavior, for they are no longer peaceable. They can’t be. They possess the need to convince themselves that there is no God and no need therefore to condemn themselves for their rapaciousness, and they try to do that by convincing others that there’s no God. And they are very free to do that. They must be. By being so free to act the way they wish to act, they are in that way free to believe the way they wish to believe, a requirement for judgment. We will always possess free moral agency. But for now, People who make dark choices are also free to cause problems for others. That’s happening like never before.

The scary thing is that in their zeal to prove to themselves and others that there is no God, the lawless ones go from bad to worse. The evil ramps up. There is an idea in their brains that if they do the worst crap imaginable and God doesn’t stop them, then that’s because there is no God. And that is why their behavior will call God down, eventually. As Revelation 11:18 states, God “will bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” Of course, you can interpret that as meaning something specific such as the world of wicked mankind. Or not. But when you destroy the liveable earth, for profit and just because you possess the power to do so…

What is drone murderer, country thief and murderer of mother earth Barack Obama’s message to the world? It is: *Abandon all hope. There is no God who can deliver the weak from the strong. I’ll prove it to you.* And there’s another message that he sends to a segment of the population. For those who lack a moral foundation but who aren’t evil, his message is: *Good is sometimes bad.*

Jehovah has a message for him, his God and that crowd:

“”Here I am against you, O Gog… And I shall certainly turn you around and put hooks in your jaws and bring you forth with all your military force… And it must occur in that day that things will come up into your heart and you will certainly think up an injurious scheme. And you must say “I shall go up against the land of open rural country and I shall come in upon those having no disturbance…” It will be to get a big spoil and to do much plundering… And I will send fire upon Magog and upon those who are inhabiting the islands in security. And people will have to know that I am Jehovah.” (Ezekiel chapters 38 & 39)

It’s Gog’s desire and idea and Magog’s desire and idea, but God knows that and manipulates Gog and his crowd for his own, good, purposes. Gog and his followers can’t help themselves. But God will help his people because of it. Obama and people like him and those who follow the example that leaders like him set will push, like goats, until they get the response from God that they dread. They just can’t help themselves. They need to know that God, who they abandoned and even tried to replace, is not there. And they won’t rest, and the world will know no peace, until they’re certain he isn’t there. That certainty will never come. The peace, however, will. But not for all.

Darkness is it’s own reward. People view Barack Obama as being a clever man. Obviously he is, although to my ears I’ve only ever heard slickness from him. Still, The outright lies he speaks can disarm you until you catch on.

When you – anyone – choose darkness over light, for perceived gain and when you fail to feel remorse and show humility that enables you to admit your mistake and change course, then you will go deeper into darkness. You will rationalize and justify your evil deeds and dark course and you will make your getaway with the help, or moral support, of others who have similarly entered onto that dark path. And what do you find therein? You find vileness, hate, anger, dishonesty, deceit and manipulation, disloyalty and violence. Your idea of survival has become not ‘how’ you survive, but only that you ‘do’, no matter how you do. Anything goes. And on the wide and spacious road that leads to destruction, ‘anything’ is permitted – by this world’s invisible, powerful ruler. Is there bright light at the end of that dark road?

Barack Obama has single-handedly kickstarted the nuclear industry, in all areas. Consider these facts assembled by assorted writers and researchers. Immediately below is an excerpt from Darwin Bond-Graham’s entry in “Hopeless – Barack Obama And The Politics Of Illusion,” edited by Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank. It’s titled “Obama’s Nuclear Weapons Surge”:

“Only one aspect of Obama’s presidency deviates significantly from his predecessor’s. Rather than projecting an unambiguously belligerant US foreign policy resting openly upon the nuclear arsenal, Obama has promoted an agenda that my colleagues and I have defined elsewhere as anti-nuclear imperialism.

“And again, as with many with many aspects of the Obama presidency, liberals and even many anti-nuclear activists have failed to see the president’s policy agenda for what it is. Instead of focusing on the reality of the Obama nuclear weapons surge, and instead of acknowledging the true pro-nuclear weapons goals of the administration, as they have been outlined in budget and planning documents (which exist in stark contrast against Obama’s vacuous public pronunciations), many contine to dwell on his idealistic rhetoric.” -pg 207

In other words, Fools just swallow Obama’s shameless lies and take seriously his vacuous public announcements. But his leadership drags the world, and the huge US government bureaucracy, in it’s wake. And so everyone who has to justify a paycheque in the government there scrambles to make the darkness look like light, the lies look like truth, the gangster approach to running the world look like professionalism. They have no choice. The wild beast of corporatocracy is a money system, among other things. As the Bible notes, it compels everyone to get it’s slave’s mark. You have to get it or die. Fascism would have a harder time taking root if the paid shock troops (soldiers, police, judges, you name it) weren’t afraid of not getting paid. In a money system, money means life. Especially now, with the ascendence (ripening) of capitalism into it’s neoliberal phase, in which social safety nets are shredded, protections of all sorts for regular people are altogether missing and Benefactors in power take the view that if you can’t participate in the economy in a positive way then it’s because you’re evil and you deserve to die like a dog in the street, which is getting easier for more people to do.

Bond-Graham writes: “Showing much deference to this [retained Bush admin appointees] NNSA-Pentagon center of gravity, the Obama administration (mostly through Defense Sectretary Gates’ office) worked on an important policy statement, the Nuclear Posture Review. It was repeatedly delayed, in part because White House and State Department officials were trying to magically graft together otherwise mutually exclusive policies. They sought language to balance the anti-nuclear rhetoric, necessary for an aggressive foreign policy under the pretext of nonproliferation, and language that would simultaneously symbolize a continued, even boosted committment to nuclear weapons. This was achieved in the document released in April of 2010, which succeeded in being many different things to many different readers.” -pg 211

Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop. But are they having fun working like hell to create hell on earth?

Interestingly, Michel Chossudovsky offers a solution to the insanity issuing from the American throne that would free underlings in the administration from their mindless, destructive routines supporting and enabling destruction. But he ‘misses’ the fact that you can’t get your soul back once you’ve sold it. However, Has every underling who hasn’t yet blown a whistle or spoken out against imperialism and rapine sold his or her soul? Probably not. But probably there are not enough of such ones trapped in the machinery to make a difference were they to attempt to sabotage it.

“What are the countervailing forces which might prevent this war [with Iran] from occurring? There are numerous ongoing forces at work within the US State apparatus, the US Congress, the Pentagon and NATO. A broad debate should be initiated within the state system, the military, the intelligence agencies in the US and NATO countries. Public employees, including federal, state and municipal government officials, military and intelligence personnel at all levels must confront and challenge the authority of war criminals in high office: a “bureaucratic blockade” from within the state, by public sector employees at all levels must be implemented.” -page 96 of “Toward A World III Scenario,” by Michel Chossudovsky.

But Chossudovsky also realistically states, on page 89 of his book, that we can’t just ask this clearly corrputed president to do the right thing. While we can’t realistically expect that everyone who works for the US government (and similar corporatocracy governments) to be lost, the basic idea that people choose their paths and stick with them applies. Once you sell your soul for gain, you will then commit to the course which that transaction set you on. (“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” – Matthew 6:21)

More fun times in the Devil’s workshop. In the Clinton admin When Bill Clinton decided to sell nuclear reactors to China, and Jiang Zemin “brazenly vowed at the time not to abide by the so-called “full scope safeguards,” the entourage had to scramble and probably didn’t enjoy it much. But, you stroke the hand that feeds you – if you’ve committed to work for it’s owner. “The move was apparently made over the objections of Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who cited repeated exports by China of “dual use” technologies to Iran, Pakistan and Iraq. The CIA also weighed in against the deal, pointing out in a report to the president, “China was the single most important supplier of equipment and technology for weapons of mass destruction” worldwide. In a press conference on the deal, Mike McCurry said these nuclear reactors will “be a lot better for the planet than a bunch of dirty coal-fired plants” and will be “a great opportunity for American vendors” – that is, Westinghouse.” – Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank, in their entry in “Hopeless – Barack Obama And The Politics Of Illusion” titled “Obama And Nuclear Power: Resurrecting A Failed Industry.”

That’s the corporatocracy for you. It’s insane. And it will take a higher power to destroy it. But no power can make people choose to see it for what it is. That’s up to us.

The above authors go on to point out that:

“The atom lobby during the 1990s had a stranglehold on the Clinton administration and now they seem to have the same suffocating grip around the neck of Barack Obama…

“During a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing in 2005, Obama, who served on the committee, asserted that since Congress was debating the negative impact of CO2 emissions “on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration.” Shortly thereafter, Nuclear Notes, the industry’s leading trade publication, praised the senator. “Back during his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, [Obama] said that he rejected both liberal and conservative labels in favor of ‘common sense solutions’. And when it comes to nuclear energy, it seems that the Senator is keeping an open mind.”…

“One recent study by the Rocky Mountain Institute found that “even under the most opportunistic cost projections for future nuclear electricity, efficiency is found to be 2.5 to 10 times more cost effective for CO2-abatement. Thus, to the extent that investments in nuclear power divert funds away from efficiency, the pursuit of a nuclear response to global warming would effectively exacerbate the problem.”” – page 89

Obama finds it realistic that nuclear energy (and weapons) be pursued. Here’s the thing. When you have disconnected from reality, ‘your’ reality is suspect. Don’t you think? You can’t slave for God and for Riches, as Jesus noted (Matthew 6:24). You can’t slave for light and darkness. And you won’t. If you choose to slave for darkness, for all the rewards that the ruler of this world offers to those who will sin for him, then you may also ‘use’ the light. But that isn’t the same as choosing light over darkness. Michel Chossudovsky puts it nicely (if roughly) in “Towards A World War II Scenario”:

“Public opinion, swayed by media hype, is tacitly supportive, indifferent or ignorant as to the likely impacts of what is upheld as an ad hoc “punitive” operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than an all-out war. War preparations include the deployment of US and Israeli-produced nuclear weapons. In this context, the devastating consequences of a nuclear war are either trivialized or simply not mentioned.

“The “real crisis” threatening humanity, according to the media and the governments, is not war but global warming. The media will fabricate a crisis where there is no crisis: “a global scare” – the H1N1 global pandemic – but nobody seems to fear a US-sponsored nuclear war.” -pg 50

Reading Chossudovsky’s above statement carefully, the reader will not find that Chossudovsky is calling global warming a fake crisis. His wording unfortunately makes it appear so. He ties the idea of a fake crisis in with the H1N1 global pandemic scare about which I’m not informed fully. At least I hope that’s the case. But Chossudovsky does nail the Orwellian aspect of the US government’s posturing and pronouncements surrounding nuclear war nicely. Consider the following excerpts (and I will retain Chossudovsky’s hard to view punctuation, otherwise the quote wouldn’t be a quote):

page 13
“Formally endorsed by the US Congress in late 2003, the mini-nukes are considered to be “safe for civilians”. Once this assumption was built into military planning, it constituted a consensus, which was no longer the object of critical debate. Decisions pertaining to the use of these nuclear weapons will be based on the prior “scientific” assessments underlying this consensus that they are “not dangerous for civilians”. Based on this premise, the US Congress in 2003 granted the “green light” to the Pentagon and the military industrial complex to use tactical nuclear weapons in “conventional war theaters” (e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons. In December 2003, the US Congress allocated 6.3 billion dollars solely for 2004, to develop this new generation of “defensive” nuclear weapons.”

‘Conventional’ also means ‘special’, because those with power say so and it’s convenient for them to make those words have those meanings. People lie because it’s perceived by them to be a shortcut to getting what they want or because they feel it will make life easier for them. And that’s clever, on the surface. But when you jettison principles and take up lying you do more than just more easily get what you want. You disconnect from reality. You may ‘know’ you’re lying when you lie, but what about when it’s not just one lie you tell and then you’re out? What about when that’s how you live? Look at all the lies you tell without thinking. Will you be able to keep everything sorted out in your mind? Will there be no material consequences? If I deny that – lie about – the bus I see coming down the street is coming down the street and I step out in front of it, Will the bus disappear or will I disappear? Let’s look at the remaining two excerpts from Chossudovsky’s book:

page 56
“The Western media is beating the drums of war. The purpose is to tacitly instill, through repeated media reports, ad nauseum, within people’s inner consciousness, the notion that the Iranian threat is real and that the Islamic Republic should be “taken out”. A consensus-building process to wage war is similar to the Spanish Inquisition. It requires and demands submission to the notion that war is a humanitarian endeavor.

“Known and documented, the real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance, yet the realities in an inquisitorial environment are turned upside down: the warmongers are committed to peace, the victims of war are presented as the protagonists of war….”

page 73
“The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by US-NATO-military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large part of the Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asia. In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas those of the US and Israel are “instruments of peace”, “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”.

Obama, with his lies about wanting peace and democracy for the world and for the people of Iran, is in effect a messenger, or angel, of darkness, since what his government and military planners have in mind for Iran, and the world, is not “building peace,” unless we take that peace to be the peace of the cold, dark grave after bombs have dropped. And before the grave, for millions, it will be hell. It’s hell on earth now for most of us. Fascists are just busy in their Devil’s workshop dreaming up ways to make it hotter and they are implementing their hellish plans all the time to the extent that they can get away with it. But are they clever? They do want life for themselves and their family and friends, like the rest of us. Are they going to find it on that dark road they are dancing down?

The following is an excerpt from “The Fate of Humanity Is at Stake — Why Are Romney and Obama Too Cowardly to Talk About What Really Matters?,” by Noam Chomsky:

“With the quadrennial presidential election extravaganza reaching its peak, it’s useful to ask how the political campaigns are dealing with the most crucial issues we face. The simple answer is: badly, or not at all…

“There are two issues of overwhelming significance, because the fate of the species is at stake: environmental disaster, and nuclear war. The former is regularly on the front pages.”

I’m reminded of Chossudovsky’s lament that the news about global warming is meant to divert our attention from the threat of nuclear war that truly looms. Chomsky adds the not so secret information that while global warming is news all the time, real solutions from politicians aren’t forthcoming. Chomsky continues:

“The second major issue, nuclear war, is also on the front pages every day, but in a way that would astound a Martian observing the strange doings on Earth. The current threat is again in the Middle East, specifically Iran – at least according to the West, that is. In the Middle East, the U.S. and Israel are considered much greater threats…

“Whether Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, U.S. intelligence doesn’t know. In its latest report, the International Atomic Energy Agency says that it cannot demonstrate “the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran” – a roundabout way of condemning Iran, as the U.S. demands, while conceding that the agency can add nothing to the conclusions of U.S. intelligence…

“Missing from the debate is the obvious way to mitigate or end whatever threat Iran might be believed to pose: Establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. The opportunity is readily available: An international conference is to convene in a few months to pursue this objective, supported by almost the entire world, including a majority of Israelis. The government of Israel, however, has announced that it will not participate until there is a general peace agreement in the region, which is unattainable as long as Israel persists in its illegal activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. Washington keeps to the same position, and insists that Israel must be excluded from any such regional agreement. We could be moving toward a devastating war, possibly even nuclear.”

Referring to the incredible spectacle of the rapidly disappearing Arctic ice, which can ‘only’ lead to global climate change, and the way our ‘leaders’ ignore the implications for human (and their own) existence, Chomsky writes that “This reaction demonstrates an extraordinary willingness to sacrifice the lives of our children and grandchildren for short-term gain. Or, perhaps, an equally remarkable willingness to shut our eyes so as not to see the impending peril,” which would also be the appropriate response for those leaders plans for nuclear war.

Obama and his associates, including the Hollywood/Pentagon industry, want us to join him on his dark road. For thousands of years, the masses have often had to experience the negative consequences of their leaders’ bad decisions. This is a result of Adam and Eve’s enlistment in Satan’s rebellion. That caused questions to be asked and the issue of universal sovereignty to be raised. Jehovah is a God of light. He would not lyingly cover up the issue raised by those rebels, which angels in heaven observed and humans to come would learn about. Also, Jehovah is a God of love. ‘We’ were in Adam’s loins when he willingly and knowingly embraced Satan’s idea of ‘life’ and ‘knowledge’. When those ones were judged (and sentencing initiated) for their actions, Adam and Eve were given time to produce offspring. We possess inherited imperfection – and it shows. But we are not automatically denied life by God. Nor are we, despite our imperfection, unable to freely choose, once we’re educated. As with any issue, time was needed for the issue of universal sovereignty, posing the question of who’s form of rule is best, to be settled. That time is fairly up. It won’t be long now. We can see clearly that God’s form of rule, guided by and embodying ‘love’ (aga´pe love, which is love based on principle), in which we accept and live by his standards and get to enjoy the fruits of that loyalty (everlasting life, health and democracy), is worthy of consideration if the alternative consists of the rewards of sin, mandatory for worshippers of Satan, which are: old age, sickness, death and imperfection, which allows for all kinds of folly, some not serious and some very serious.

Nuclear war and an unliveable earth are serious consequences of being separated from the source of life and light and of making the decision to try to steal Iran. Satan’s form of rule would be best summed up as ‘force’. Satan has given us the game of ‘riches for the strongest’. Strong, wise, enlightened; All are potential rewards held out by Satan to those playing his game. Satan told Eve that God was lying to her and Adam and witholding something from them that they could have by disobeying God. “At this the woman said to the serpent: “Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But as for eating of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said ‘You must not eat from it. No, You must not touch it that you do not die.'” At that the serpent said to the woman: “You positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.” (Genesis 3:2-5) But his idea of strong, wise and enlightened is based on his own now dark standpoint (John 8:44). Obama and Mitt Romney’s crowd play ‘riches for the strongest’ and would demonstrate just what that means by stealing, using suicidal force, yet another country, namely Iran. And the fact that they won’t talk about the implications of that insane plan, nor the destruction of the liveable earth that their class is responsible for, figures.

“”Now this is the basis for judgment, namely that the light has come into the world but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he who practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light in order that his works may be made manifest as having been worked in harmony with God.”” – John 3:19-21

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are not alone on the dark road that leads to destruction. Take note that by ‘destruction’ I don’t mean obliteration from a nuclear blast or sickness from the radioactive fallout that eventually kills it’s victims. Those two may or may not meet such a fate. But for intending to inflict that on others (and for what they ‘have’ inflicted on others), including their own Israeli ‘allies’ and even their family and friends – since radioactive fallout would not confine itself to Iran’s borders – in defiance of all that is righteous, and out of a pathological (but unforgiveable) need to prove that God (who they believe in deep down) doesn’t exist, they get their names removed from God’s invitation to life in the new world to come.

SPOILER ALERT! I am going to talk about The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers below. There will be spoilers. Sorry. Also, Jesse Zimmerman makes the point that Christopher Nolan couldn’t have specifically based his movie on the Occupy movement due to the time factor. “This has turned out to be false, as the Occupy movement was sparked in New York City in September of 2011 while the film had started production in May 2011. There was no direct intention of portraying an Occupy Wall Street type story.” But, as someone else noted, revolution is in the air. OWS was inspired after all by the Arab springs (which have gone pretty much nowhere sadly). The elements, issues etc, were already present and available to inspire Nolan.

Something else that struck me as scary about the propaganda in the movies I talk about here is the fact that the Left is not saying much about the nuke angle. There’s plenty of discussion out there about the reviving of the nuclear industry and the potential for nuclear catastrophe, which makes that oversight among the critiques, below, all the more surprising.

Hollywood’s pirates are in trouble. That’s because of the company Hollwood keeps, namely the Dark Knight and the real life angel of darkness (and his instruments of force) who runs the corporatocracy’s most powerful state. I was appalled after watching this year’s Blockbusters. I love fantasy and was looking forward to Batman and The Avengers. I was also looking forward to the latest Bourne installment titled “The Bourne Legacy.” It was utterly boring and should have been named The Boring Legacy. But that is actually sort of the point. The story tended to normalize drone killing, a pasttime of the current human king on the throne of the earthly realm of the wild beast of corporatocracy.

I thought Prometheus was dreadful. I don’t have anything to say about it. But it did make me think about the biotech industry.

Batman was mediocre entertainment. The charm is off of Bale’s Batman. There’s little in the way of fantasy about it. The sets are grim, urban warfare settings and offered nothing like the cool gothic look of Gotham City that you seen in Batman Begins and (more so) the first serious treatment of Batman, starring Michael Keaton. But you could see the beginning of something else even then. The Dark Knight Rises was gritty and came across like one big out of control police assault on an OWS crowd. The only fantasy in movies like this can be seen in weaponry, unfortunately. Depending on the story, and other elements, I can deal with that and even like it, although I’m aware of the Pentagon’s needs and partnership with Hollywood. Michel Chossudovsky mentions that alliance in “Toward A World War III Scenario.”

In The Dark Knight Rises, mini-nukes play a role, even if the role is disguised. The mini-nuke in TDKR is an energy source that gets repurposed by the bad buys into a nuclear bomb. Sure, No one in the movie says “A nuclear bomb? No biggy.” But the way the story is handled conveys just such a sentiment or idea. And audiences are supposed to forget that they’re watching fiction and adopt the same attitude. When Batman manages to lift the bomb and fly it out to sea, which didn’t mean that far out, since he was out of time and had only seconds to get the bomb clear of Manhattan, you didn’t see anyone expressing concern about the effect from it’s detonation in the water close to shore. It’s just a mini-nuke. Nothing to see here folks. Enjoy your sea food and if you go out for a boat ride don’t forget your lifejackets.

The same bloody approach to nuclear weapons jumped out at us in The Avengers, a movie that at least possesses the (partially) redeeming qualities of being colorful and in the realm of fantasy. But the fantasy that an easy recourse to nuclear weapons is without repercussions was unwelcome. The Avengers were fighting off an alien invasion, seemingly all on their own for there were no fighter jets in sight. Police were fighting, but that’s all I saw in the way of fightback of a conventional form. We’ve all seen how the police look when they are going after demonstrators these days. Police forces have been steadily militarized, or turned more into soldiers as the state anticipates resistance from the 99% who it and it’s fascist partners attack. (They did look that way in TDKR.) On regular duty they may not be outfitted with heavy duty weapons and scary uniforms, but increasingly they are engaged in putting down protesters with great force and prejudice and they will look that way.

In The Avengers, it seems the police weren’t as scary as they would have been for example if there had been protesters confronting them who resented having their tax dollars go to criminal bankers who destroyed livelihoods and communities, for the police looked rather benign in their pointy caps and bright blue shirts.

We are free to imagine that the authorities were caught off guard, even though SHIELD was in direct touch with the highest political figures in government, regularly. So, The authorities are on top of things and prepared. But they’re not. Anyway, They decided to nuke Manhattan. No biggy. Sure, Iron Man used the nuclear missile they fired to destroy the alien mother ship just outside the portal to another part of the universe. But, as with TDKR, the whole treatment of nukes is unrealistic. No one ever talks about the radioactive fallout. There’s just the fact of the availability of nukes and the willingness of the government to use them and the matter of fact way the whole deployment of weapons of mass destruction is talked about, or not talked about, in these Pentagon-inspired movies.

An excerpt from “A Long Dark Night: “Gun Violence Romanticized And The New Batman Movie,” by Nicholas Powers follows:

** Early morning July 20, we cheered the new Batman movie as a thousand miles away a crowd watching the same film screamed as a gunman, barged in, flung a smoke bomb and began shooting…

One thing we know about gunman James Holmes is that he wanted a stage. Like the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre gunman Seiung-Hui Cho, who mailed videos of himself; or the 1999 Columbine gunmen, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who meticulously recorded themselves prepping for the massacre; the Dark Knight gunman wanted to be seen. In killing others, he tried to secure for himself the image of a strong powerful man who could wreck havoc on the world…” **

An excerpt from “The Dark Knight Rises: Batman, As Seen From The Left,” by Jesse Zimmerman follows:

** Bane is a false populist, a mercenary for hire, things a genuinely left-leaning or progressive person wouldn’t be. He works for a corporation and kills people who stand against it for money. He eventually takes over the corporation and blows up a bunch of buildings in Gotham too. At one scene of devastation in a stadium Bane tells the people of Gotham that he comes as a liberator. People in Gotham are probably wondering at this point: “How could this guy be liberating us by bombing and killing us and placing tanks on our streets?”

I think that Christopher Nolan has packed this film with political dramas, ideas and concepts. Gothamites get conquered by a warlord who manages to momentarily secede the city from the United States. He does this with a nuclear bomb. There’s here an element of geo-politics, and how might makes right in global realpolitik. Bane is a mercenary with no political ideology from what I could tell; if anything I would argue a fascist interpretation.

Bane is essentially a strong man who is manipulating people and uses violence as a means of cementing his power. Fascists, although usually considered ultra right-wing, have historically used left-sounding rhetoric. They were also funded by corporations to come to power. **

An excerpt from “There’ll Be No Shelter Here! Part II of II,” by Sean Carleton follows:

** While an action-packed, exciting summer blockbuster, The Dark Knight Rises is deeply problematic politically. Much has been made about the film’s anti-Occupy Wall Street sentiment, and for good reason as there are many scenes that undoubtedly tap into the rhetoric and mythology of the Decolonize/Occupy Movement. However, to truly comprehend the insidious, counter-revolutionary politics of The Dark Knight Rises we need to understand more about Charles Dickens. In fact, Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan chose Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities as a framework for the film. Dickens wrote A Tale of Two Cities (1859) in the wake of the 1848 European “springtime” revolutions and chose to tell a cautionary tale about how the French Revolution of the 1790s threatened the aristocracies in the cities of Paris and London. In appealing to his upper class readership, Dickens told his story in a way intended to scare the British ruling classes in the 1850s into thinking that if they continued to abuse their power and the working classes they would be sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Thus, while Dickens is often held up as a progressive writer, A Tale of Two Cities is more a counter-revolutionary reminder to the ruling classes of the importance of cultivating their hegemony over the working poor. The Dark Knight Rises needs to be understood in this context.

The Dark-Knight Rises, then, is not simply an anti-Occupy commentary, but a profoundly reactionary film reinforcing the importance of benevolent capitalism and denouncing the possibility of revolution; the movie affirms a kind of bourgeois justice. Indeed, the film begins by showcasing how Wayne’s neglect of Wayne Enterprises has led to a situation where social services, like the orphanage where John Blake/Robin (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) grew up, are no longer being provided. This is, of course, resolved by the end of the film by Wayne leaving his money and mansion to the orphan society, providing the audience with the happy ending they are expecting. In the age of neoliberal cuts to public services such a conclusion reinforces the idea that it is the responsibility of private corporations and rich philanthropists to “invest” in the social good. This kind of rhetoric provides the backbone of the film and, really, the entire Nolan Batman trilogy (in the end Thomas Wayne’s paternalistic vision is restored). Like Dickens, The Dark Knight Rises creates a portrait of Gotham ransacked by revolution to strike fear into the hearts and minds of both the working class and the capitalist class that, ultimately, is intended to justify and rationalize benevolent capitalism as the desired social order. **

All that effort by our Benefactors in power to have us accept with equanimity their planning for war with nukes, when we are aware of it, and their decisions, if and when they make them, to go ahead and nuke whoever they decide is the enemy of the month, is for what? Perhaps those are just games that our overlords play to distract themselves from the answer from the sky that they feel compelled to seek. They want to learn, the hard way, whether there is an actual God. In that one single area, God supports them.

“However, There also arose a heated dispute among them over which one of them seemed to be greatest. But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. You, though, are not to be that way.”” – Jesus’s words to his apostles as recorded in Luke chapter 22, verses 24-26

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Feel free to comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.