The Chinese Have a Detailed Plan to Control the United State's Congress

 I don't think it is a workable plan right now as it will only work in swing districts, but they have a plan. And they will get better at figuring out how to do it as they go. The size of our economy has helped protect us for a while, but as China rises and super corporations collude, that protection is eroding. Erecting barriers, multiple barriers in a layered defense, to such capture like the ones discussed in "Localism a philosophy of government" is the only way to stop it. 

Get the books:

The Plan for Total Control of Buying and Selling Revealed in One Minute

 Does it make anyone else nervous that what these people are talking about sounds just like something from the Book of Revelation? 

Mis-Education and Mental Illness

Mis-education may be a larger problem in America today than ignorance. As the government-controlled education establishment continues to indoctrinate people with misinformation and logically incompatible premises we run into an intractable problem: People who believe that they are educated are actually further from moral and physical reality than the uneducated.

It is all too easy for such mis-educated people to dismiss all disagreement with their views as ignorance and all dissension from their moral perspective as bigotry.

Thus the formally recognized status of their mis-education can actually serve to wall them off from learning anything. It protects their fragile world-view, for a time, from having to compete in the marketplace of ideas. What matter if their positions are logically indefensible? Who needs logic when one has credentials?

Mis-education is not, in theory, limited to any part of the political spectrum. But because the government backs the statist left, it manifests in the United States most often from those who consider themselves liberals (but are actually leftists rather than classical liberals.) Being distant enough from moral and physical reality so that it seriously interferes with functioning in everyday life is a pretty good definition of insanity. Indeed one veteran psychiatrist has determined that today's 'liberals' are "mentally ill." Personally I am not comfortable with the idea of labeling disagreement with my political views as a psychiatrist disorder, but the left does it all the time (see "homophobia") so I suppose whats' sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Here is how Dr. Rossiter frames it from the above link..

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”
I am not a trained mental health professional, but I can testify that my attempts to engage leftists in rational dialogue reveal some very important truths; namely that they are not interested in rational dialogue. Reason is treated as an alien enemy, not an indispensable tool for determining truth. What they want is an echo chamber where their delusions are supported by others who share them. The right isn't immune to this either, but they don't have control of the education system.

Dr. Rossiter focuses on a desire to evade responsibilities as the seminal issue in their neuroses, or psychosis depending on degree of detachment. He's the doctor, but I would zoom out a bit. Many leftists meet their daily responsibilities quite well, especially those propped up with paychecks from the government and government supported academia. I suspect the larger issue is a desire to put short term emotional satisfaction over truth.

I will never forget what an old black Pentecostal preacher said to us at a revival I was attending; "Emotions make a good caboose, but a bad engine." Our minds, renewed by and connected to the Holy Spirit of God, ought to be the Engine. If we do that then our lives will be guided by reason, justice, principle, and truth. The cars of the train should be our actions which follow along where the engine of our mind takes us.

Lastly, the caboose should be the emotions. We will have positive emotions if our minds are right, and our right actions follow our right minds. People who put emotions first fall into a trap. They want to feel good now regardless of what the righteous mind might think of it and regardless of what the actions will lead to in the long run. People who put feeling good first often wind up miserable. People who put right thinking first wind up with the most satisfying emotions as a side-effect.

What I believe is happening here is that leftists want to put emotions over reason. That is the core of their psychosis. Feeling right matters more than thinking right. When this desire to indulge short-term emotions over logic, reason, and truth leads to painful consequences, rather than re-examine the propriety of their priorities they simply call for the government to "fix it". I see it all as an attempt to keep living with their emotions first instead of putting reason first.

This mal-adjustment leads them to support unsustainable policy answers in which "the government" somehow has the resources to insure that we are all taken care of regardless of the quality of our personal decisions. Rush Limbaugh once noted that being a 'liberal' was the most gutless decision a person could make because they can just say "yes" to everyone. "Yes, you deserve free health care and a college education. Yes you deserve affordable housing. Yes you deserve a living wage." Anyone who is in any pain, you can just say "yes" they can have what they want, even if they have not earned it.

Again, it feels good to be able to tell people "yes", but sane people don't tell other people "yes" just to feel good. They only tell people "yes" when it is a reasonable request that can be realistically paid for. Leftists do tell people "yes" in order to feel good about themselves. They then blame the delivery failure not on the impossibility of their promises, but rather "the rich." Those awful rich who greedily want to keep what they earn rather than surrendering it in order to validate the leftist's emotional desire to feel good by promising what is not theirs.

In truth, if we looted the rich even more than we do, we would find they don't have enough to satisfy the promises already made. Not that the rich would consent to hang around and be looted. They would of course flee the country rather than have their fortunes confiscated in a hopeless attempt to sate the appetite of insane people. That's why leftist demagogues always wind up turning their guns on the middle class. They are the only group with enough resources to loot but not enough to be able to defend themselves or escape the government looting.

The government has basically bought education in this country. And because they have, the spirit of free inquiry has been stamped out. It has been replaced by indoctrination posing as education. No ideas that are a threat to the statist status-quo will be tolerated- and this will even be done in the name of "tolerance!" And of course the ideas they push are ideas that government is good, and that it is right and just. They teach that it is realistic to think the wise rulers in Washington can solve all our ills if only given more power and money. That's what "education" will devolve to every time it is funded by the central government, as far as I can tell without exception.

I recently chimed in on a FB discussion where the instigator posted a George McGovern quote about how bigotry against women was the only acceptable bigotry left. I mentioned that he said that before bigotry against Christians became so popular. His friends jumped all over me demanding to know where this bigotry was. I showed them. They then said basically the victim in my example had it coming because bigoted Christians should stay out of politics. I calmly showed conclusive evidence demonstrating this view did not square with the position taken by either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. At that point, they said that I was a white male, and as such had no business highjacking a thread about bigotry against women, and that they would no longer respond. Ah, the sex and race card. So, who is supposed to be the bigot again?

The above is but one example of something I have begun to experience more and more often. Leftists claim the mantle of intellect and reason, but they are not interested in having to use either to defend their positions. They don't want logic and reason. They don't want dialog. Thomas Paine (a real liberal) once said, " 'To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.'" Most of them have not formally renounced the use of reason yet, but they are getting close to making that break with the last link in their mind. The are close to casting off the last tow line they might use to begin the long, painful, but ultimately rewarding journey back to moral and physical reality.

Get the books:

Facists Despise Choice- Parties on Top Ban Ranked Choice Voting

 Ranked-choice voting, also called "Instant Run-off voting", is a way to provide voters more meaningful choices on the ballot, while avoiding the negatives of traditional run-off elections. 

The "first past the post" method of determining a winner is that whoever gets the most votes in the general election is declared the winner, even if they get less than fifty percent of the vote. In practice, this means that people are afraid to vote for third party candidates or independents out of fear of "splitting the vote" and allowing the party they hate to sneak in with less than a majority of the vote. The two establishement parties don't even have to sell themselves anymore, just demonize the other side so that their base is terrified of what will happen if the "other side" wins. No matter how corrupt they get, their base feels compelled to make excuses for them, because the alterantive is the-end-of-the-world. 

The solution is to have run-offs so that people can vote their conscience without fear. If the dominant party they favor goes corrupt, they don't have to keep voting for them. They can vote for a third party or independent in the general election to send a message that the major party better clean up its act. This would not result in throwing the election to the other party because if no one gets over 50% of the vote, there is a run-off election where the voter can then cast their vote for whoever else is left. 

This kind of freedom is viewed with great alarm by Republicans and Democrats alike. They are "bi-partisan" in their belief that voters should be terrified into voting for them even if another candidate seems like a better choice. 

Sarasota Florida and Memphis Tennessee decided to use ranked-choice voting for their city elections. It should be their business, right? Despite citizen overwhelming citizen support for Ranked Choice Voting in both cities, even against the oppostion of political "leaders", the state legislature off both states have passed laws making the practice illegal.

The two dominant parties want to force Americans into voting for one of them or not at all. That way, it doesn't matter that they don't represent you and you know it. They only have to be slightly less repulsive than the only other choice. 

Get the books:

Who Did "Federal" Reserve Loan Twenty TRILLION Dollars to at Bargain Rates?

The "Federal" Reserve didn't have to reveal who it loaned money to at below-market rates for two years. So we are just now learning what happened right before COVID hit. Six investment houses got the majority of the privileged loan money to the tune of almost 20 TRILLION dollars. It's an almost incomprehensible amount of money to go to six businesses. Three of those six are banks that control the Federal Reserve Bank of New York!

That's right, they administered the federal program by which they could get overnight loans at rates that were a fraction of what your community bank has to pay. Foreign banks got a massive share too. They gave the big foreign banks (who owed them no doubt) bargain-rate loans before they gave it to your local community bank (if there still is one). Heck, they could borrow money from the Federal Reserve overnight and use the money to loan to a community bank at market rates and make money. It's free money. A chimp could get rich doing it. No wonder small banks are being scooped up by big ones. 

Folks, hard work and merit can't withstand this sort of uneven playing field. America is becoming increasingly unfree each and every decade of her existence since the Federal Reserve was instituted and that won't change until it is ended and we go back to honest money. Money like silver and gold because they couldn't print it at will and so it was impossible to do things like loan themselves 20 trillion dollars at subsidized rates. 

If you had access to twenty trillion worth of virtually free money for two years and could make even 1% profit off that money, you'd have 400 billion dollars. And that's without considering additional compounding from investing gains. It is the equivalent of making four-hundred more bankers into billionaires simply by standing in the middle of the overnight loan business and offering no real goods or services to others. How hard do you work for your paycheck doing some real good? Yet who do you think has more access to "your" congressman? 

The system is broken and people don't get why. Ultimately it is spiritual but to the extent it is systemic, follow the (fake) money. People don't understand the threat because it is a shell game done a bit at a time in secret, and the big media won't tell on their partners. But the threat is real. If they are not stopped, in time they will own everything and you will own nothing. 

Get the books:

Don't Hate Authority, Hate the Abuse of Authority

 

Christ Demonstrating the Proper Affect of One in Authority

We live in times where the powers that be are increasingly losing the trust of the average person. Young people look around today and what they see in high places is layer upon layer of corruption. They see it in government, they see it in the media. They see corruption at the upper tiers of much of the corporate world, and especially in high finance.

It would be easy for them to take the wrong lesson from what they have experienced and I fear that many of them are taking the wrong lesson. Rather than objecting to the abuse of authority, they are very close to rejecting the legitimacy of authority itself, especially as it relates to governmental authority. In so doing, they risk becoming rebels, not just against illegitimate authority, but against all authority, just or unjust.

I'd like to make government a lot smaller than it is now, in particular I'd like to reduce the power, scope, and cost of the central government. But that does not mean that I think we'd be better off without a government. As bad as a corrupt government is, the realities of living without a government in a society of fallen people would be much worse. One of many reasons I exhort people to live a life of personal virtue is that it permits the reduction of government. Virtuous people have no need of masters. The weak and the wicked do. Thus a virtuous population is the best defense against big government.

It's true that for most of human history government has been wicked, violent, and oppressive. It often represented nothing more than the toughest gang rather than an institution with the just mission of preserving the rights of those under its protection. In the West, that changed as a new concept of what authority meant and how it ought to be exercised saturated the culture. Authority become more than power under this new concept, it became a duty of love and justice. Where did this new concept come from and how did it differ from what happened before? And most critically, why is it fading from the cultural fabric?

The new concept of authority, which changed the world, came from the scriptures. In Mark chapter 10 (Amplified version) James and John ask to be Christs' right and left hand man in the Kingdom He is setting up. They want the authority. The other disciples get indignant at James and John because of their request. In a beautiful passage of Scripture, Jesus explains the difference between what "authority" means and how it is used in His Kingdom vs. what it means and how it is used in the Gentile nations, whose governments lack the wisdom of Divine guidance......

42 But Jesus called them to [Him] and said to them, You know that those who are recognized as governing and are supposed to rule the Gentiles (the nations) lord it over them [ruling with absolute power, holding them in subjection], and their great men exercise authority and dominion over them.

43 But this is not to be so among you; instead, whoever desires to be great among you must be your servant,

44 And whoever wishes to be most important and first in rank among you must be slave of all.

45 For even the Son of Man came not to have service rendered to Him, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for ([y]instead of) many.

Various people, at various stages of their lives, can benefit from authority. When my young anarcho-capitalist friends have children of their own they will better understand. Authority, even government authority, is not intrinsically evil. At its best it restrains evil. Even a very corrupt government, if it rules an even more corrupt population, can restrain evil. But like Washington said, it's like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master. As long as the weak and wicked are among us, it will be needed in some form.

 

Even today the high officials of many governments in the Old World are called "ministers" out of recognition that their office was supposed to be one of service to God and man. In the United States they secularized the titles in part because they were leery of government's attempt to co-opt religion for the state's own use, but the Biblical concept of authority ran deep in the culture.

 

What's happened to us is that we have separated from our culture the conviction that the Biblical world view is the correct one. Why be surprised then when the uniquely just view of authority upheld in scripture is lost as well? When one tosses out the baby of the Christ Child, the cleansing bath water of a high view of government goes with Him. What happens then is that those in power, freed from the restraint of a Godly view of authority permeating the culture, revert to the more corrupt exercise of power which predated the ascension of the Judo-Christian concept. Those young people who arrived after the eclipse of the previous view of authority look at authority, and all they see it rot. No wonder they conclude that authority is intrinsically wicked.

Of course, properly exercised authority (that is, exercised in the manner prescribed by Christ) is not evil at all. It's service, not self-serving. It protects rights, it does not threaten them. It's not a cover-up of their dirt, it's a clean-up of dirt for those under their authority. Just before the Crucifixion He bowed down and washed the feet of His disciples. They protested that it was not right that He, the Messiah, was washing their feet, but He was trying to show them something. This is what Authority looks like when properly exercised. It's humility and service.

12 So when He had finished washing their feet and had put on His garments and had sat down again, He said to them, Do you understand what I have done to you?

13 You call Me the Teacher (Master) and the Lord, and you are right in doing so, for that is what I am.

14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher (Master), have washed your feet, you ought [it is your duty, you are under obligation, you owe it] to wash one another’s feet.

We don't need anarchy, not while we are still this weak and wayward. Nor do we need more rulers who buy into the pre-Christian concept of authority. We need a return to a concept of authority that subjects it to the Highest Authority of all.

Get the books:

Religious Exemption Letter for Injections of a Particular Nature

What is man? Mario Chamorro and I differ on the answer.

Preface: My employer has been really good about this so far. They appear to be doing what is necessary to comply with what they feel they are obligated to do, but are not going beyond it with the fervor of some corporations. That said, they have instructed us to prepare and have ready any exemption letters we may have and I have done as they instructed. Mine is below...

Dear (REDACTED),

I have greatly enjoyed serving (REDACTED) and our client for the projects to which I have been assigned. I believe that I have served well, and brought credit upon (REDACTED) for hiring me. Nevertheless, I object on religious grounds to each of the three injections which the present administration of the federal government is attempting to force upon the very people that any government must rely on- its productive workers. I am writing in order to obtain a religious exemption from (REDACTED) in order to continue my service to this company. It is my hope and belief that the client will be amenable to this request.

Each person will have their own way of documenting the sincerity and depth of their religious viewpoints. Perhaps the easiest way for me to do so is to point out that I have authored a book on early Genesis that runs over four-hundred pages in length. You may or may not agree with the conclusions I come to, but I do hope that you will acknowledge the depth and sincerity of my religious convictions.

In evaluating the substances which the present administration is attempting to coerce me into injecting into my body under the threat of impoverishment for me, my wife, and our three children, it should be noted that one of the injections is not like the others. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine does not use the same methods as the Pfizer or Moderna injections. Although I have religious objections to all three, my reasons are different for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine as compared to the other two.

As a part of my religious convictions, I favor respect for innocent human life and regret the prevalence of abortion in America. If they have to happen, we still don’t have to profit off of them. And we surely don’t have to inject products produced from the same into our bodies! I can document the sincerity of these convictions not only by producing a long list of pro-life political candidates to whose campaigns I contributed, but also by the accounts in another book I wrote- my political autobiography. 

It is my understanding that the Johnson and Johnson vaccine uses aborted fetal cells in all three stages; creation, manufacture and testing. The other two only used such cells in testing. In perfect frankness, using them in testing is more of a gray area for me. The substance could still exist without the testing.

Not so in the case of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. They are intrinsically bound. The product could not exist without aborted fetal material. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience take an injection derived from such sources. I am astounded that I should even have to write a letter in order to say so, it should be so obviously a matter of conscience.

The other two vaccines operate by a different and novel principle. Indeed, the CDC changed the definition of vaccine just this past September. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” It is doubtful that the action of the Pfizer and Moderna products would even meet the CDC’s definition of “vaccine” prior to this change.

This is because these substances are not “products that stimulate a person’s immune system to produce immunity” like every past vaccine. Rather, these preparations change the human genetic material itself in such a way that our own bodies produce spike proteins like those in the initial version of the COVID-19 virus. Our immune system is then stimulated by the newly-engineered products of our co-opted genomic material.

Unlike vaccines of the past and present, the product in the original injection doesn’t stimulate our immune system, rather it changes us so that our own bodies would stimulate our immune system. If they hadn’t changed the definition, it would not be accurate to even label the Pfizer and Moderna injections as “vaccines” because they don’t directly stimulate our immune systems, rather they change us in such a way that we stimulate them.

It is my contention that what is happening here is more than an inoculation against COVID-19. It is also an initiation into what amounts to a new quasi-religion. One that has a view of man that is the polar opposite of that of classical Christianity. That quasi-religion is “transhumanism”. It turns people into unwitting practitioners of a belief system incompatible with the Christian faith.

In Christianity, man is a creation of God, capable of bearing the very Image of God, and the pinnacle of His creation. Though it is understood that we fall short of His glory, we are but for a little while lower than the angels as it says in the Psalms. This life is just the test, and we look forward to new bodies from God in the resurrection. If humans are to be more than they are now, it will be the gift of God.

Transhumanism holds the exact opposite assumptions about the nature of man. That man is the product of imperfect natural forces, there is nothing special about him other than his ability to shape things by his own power. And they would apply that power to the human form itself, using technology to produce “humanity 2.0”. Indeed, it would be considered an ethical imperative to use man’s power to change in order to change man himself into something they deem better. They would cure us of perceived human imperfections by making us into something else, something greater. By our own wisdom and power, not God’s.

Some even speculate on ways that we could escape the limitations of our own bodies in death. In direct contrast to Christian ideas, they want to elevate us to god-like beings in our own strength. They would have us put an end to death not through the grace of God, but the technology of man.

I want to emphasize that I am not against the use of science and technology on a restorative basis. If for example, someone has lost their sight because of a genetic defect which fails to produce a necessary protein, by all means we should correct that unruly part of nature which is responsible for this terrible result and introduce genes able to make the protein. I would argue that we have a moral duty to do so if we can. But this is not making them something other than what they were meant to be, it is simply healing them so that normal human function is restored in some area. We are not trying to re-make man into some other form in doing so, merely returning him to a condition more typical of our type.

We may have a moral duty to use technology to restore normal human capabilities, but this isn’t what these two COVID-19 injections do. Rather, they give us a capacity which is not natural to humans. It is on a tiny scale what transhumanists want on a large scale. It is the first step to being re-made by science and technology. I for one do not wish to be re-made. I don’t wish to participate in what amounts to their quasi-religious practices.

I do not have any special knowledge as to the motives of those at the highest levels of our government who selected these vaccines and are pursuing these policies. I know that many prominent and rich people are sympathetic to Transhumanist-ideals, but I am not saying that the selection of these particular vaccines is necessarily a ploy to condition the population participate in, and by habit accept the premises of, transhumanism. But I don’t need to know motives in order to judge actions.

In practical terms, this is the effect of their polices, which run counter to two-thousand years of Christian beliefs. Once people have been conditioned into practicing transhumanism by taking a battery of such genomic-altering products, transhumanists win the war of ideas without any ideas being considered. Any contrary theological objection Christians may have would be undermined without an intellectual shot being fired.

Again, I am not privy to the private motivations of those behind these policies. At the same time, the fervor and even fanaticism with which these injections are being forced upon the unwilling is consistent with religious motivations.

By now it is clear that these vaccines are failures. They don’t stop one from getting or spreading the disease. New permutations of the virus easily evade them. What immunizing effects they have are largely temporary. Regions with 90% plus vaccination rates are still seeing an explosion of new cases in the vaccinated. One might argue that they have a moderate effect on reducing fatalities among the infected, but no more so than that demonstrated by safer and time-tested products whose use the government is falling all over itself to suppress. Add to this that the benefits of the well-supported scientific concept of natural immunity are ignored in all their policies.

So while I have no definitive evidence of what would in effect be a conspiracy to condition the population to accept and unwittingly practice transhumanism, their actions are difficult to explain outside of some ulterior motive. Indeed, the more obvious it becomes that the vaccines are a failure, the more strident their efforts to pressure people to comply become. I don’t know that a quasi-religious belief in transhumanist ideas among the elites is responsible, but something must explain this increasingly bizarre and otherwise irrational behavior.

My spiritual forebears risked life and limb for refusing to participate in an innocuous act of burning incense to a statue of the emperor in a support of a state-belief system. From that spark developed the concept of human liberty and freedom which proved a blessing to the people of the west for centuries afterward. I intend to follow in their footsteps. I appeal for a religious exemption from this vaccine mandate.

                                                                                                Respectfully,

 

                                                                                                Mark M. Moore

***********************************

The books which I mention in the piece

    You Tube Channel