Sign Up
Welcome home! Here at WTMX you can make new friends and meet people with the same interests as you. All free and ad-free.
Outlaw history
Common Interest
You seem to be using an older version of Internet Explorer. This site requires Internet Explorer 8 or higher. Update your browser here today to fully enjoy all the marvels of this site.
Site logo image unshackledminds.com
VIDEO: Greta Thunberg Says “Save the Banks, Save the World”
VIDEO: Greta Thunberg Says “Save the Banks, Save the World”
- ·
- October 3, 2022 11:58 am
Nogales Eye in the Sky - YouTube
An aerostat balloon has been deployed by Customs and Border Protection in Nogales, Arizona. Its expressed purpose is to surveil the US-Mexico border 24-7. It...
Covid Scam, NATO Wars, Green Extremism: The Tyrannical Trifecta From Hell
By Chuck Baldwin
September 29, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
Everyone feels it, but not everyone see... View MoreCovid Scam, NATO Wars, Green Extremism: The Tyrannical Trifecta From Hell
By Chuck Baldwin
September 29, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
Everyone feels it, but not everyone sees it: America’s greatest threat is not from Russia or China or from any other foreign government. America’s greatest threat is from our own government in Washington, D.C. When will the American people get that through their heads?
The globalist devils inside the Beltway manufactured and implemented the Covid scamdemic: the greatest act of tyranny inside U.S. borders since Lincoln invaded the South.
The globalist devils inside the beltway have turned Europe and the world into a giant military encampment with U.S. and NATO bases on the doorsteps of almost every country on the planet, which only incites nations to retaliate.
And the globalist devils inside the beltway have turned U.S. energy policies over to an extremist Green agenda that if fully implemented will turn the greatest nation to ever exist into a third world country. In fact, America is already headed in that direction.
From the Mises Wire:
When people start freezing to death in Europe this winter, who will be blamed?
Regulations, Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? They all will be, but no one with a recognizable face or name will pay any price.
The war fueled by the US and NATO’s expansionism and military involvement in Ukraine has worsened Europe’s energy problem. In Poland, citizens are lining up in their cars a mile from coal mines to buy enough fuel to prepare for winter. Due to the increased demand caused by the European Union’s embargo on Russian coal, Polish families worry they won’t have enough for the cold season.
“This is beyond imagination; people are sleeping in their cars,” Artur, 57, a pensioner, told Voice of America.
“I remember the communist times, but it didn’t cross my mind that we could return to something even worse.”
Prior to the embargo, Poland was under pressure from EU environmental policy. To Polish families that rely on coal, Russian imports were a household staple due to lower costs. With Poland banning coal from Russia, locals must rely on coal from Polish state-controlled mines, which have rationed sales recently due to the high demand.
On a recent Tucker Carlson Tonight episode, the Fox News host covered the struggle of Europeans trying to secure heat for winter.
Carlson highlighted countries like Germany and Poland, which are running out of fuel, forced to rely on coal or even timber. Could this imminent energy calamity have been prevented? Carlson explained:
Green energy cannot replace fossil fuels. Not now, not anytime soon. Fossil fuels remain what they have always been: the key to civilization…. So-called green energy is not close, is nowhere near replacing gas and oil and coal. It’s measurable. We could have known this. Anyone with eighth-grade math skills could have figured out in about 10 minutes that we cannot replace fossil fuels with renewables or green energy and of course, they must have known that.
While Carlson is right that the EU’s obsession with the so-called green economy is coming back to haunt it, he left out that America’s decades-long policy of foreign intervention has played just as great a role in the current crisis.
Ron Paul has long warned of the risks associated with NATO expansion. In 2008, then representative Paul voted against a bill meant to encourage Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO.
At the time, Paul explained his vote with the following message:
NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary…. This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution.
Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts unrelated to our national interest.
The US support for NATO membership for Ukraine continues. Russia did not want to risk seeing this come to fruition and engaged militarily as a result. Biden is also personally involved, as he was a key player in turning NATO into what it currently is.
In 1998, then senator Biden voted in favor of expanding NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, stating that this move would be “the beginning of another 50 years of peace.”
As Paul wrote recently, Biden was quite off.
Unfortunately, as we have seen this past week, my fears have come true. One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it.
Amen!
America’s constant meddling, interventions, trade sanctions, false flags, forced regime changes, political assassinations, breaches of state sovereignty, bombing campaigns, clandestine terror campaigns and proxy wars around the world have created the vast majority of global conflicts and domestic recessions since at least World War II.
Conservatives and Christians twice, in 2008 and 2012, had an opportunity to nominate a true constitutionalist and patriot, a true pro-peace non-interventionist and a true Christian gentleman, Dr. Ron Paul, for President of the United States. Instead, they stupidly rejected Dr. Paul’s candidacy and chose two of the most controlled and corrupt politicians in modern history: John McCain and Mitt Romney.
Look what’s happened since.
America now has undoubtedly one of the most amoral, inept, incompetent and criminal governments, not only in the world today but in world history!
And as far as the mainstream media goes, it is truly nothing more than a Ministry of Propaganda for the Deep State.
And speaking of the Deep State, conservatives everywhere love condemning it—and talking about Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, et al.—but almost none of them ever mention the sizeable influence within the Deep State exerted by Zionist Israel. But you’ll never truly understand the Deep State if you do not understand the immense influence that Israel wields over it. For starters, just take a peek at who controls the Federal Reserve.
I would like to believe that things would get better if Republicans took control of Congress this November and the White House in 2024, but the harsh reality is Republicans have a masterful way of talking a lot while changing almost nothing.
I have no confidence in politicians from either party having the courage to make the hard decisions that would help correct the direction of our ship of state from the path of destruction that it’s currently on.
It would help tremendously if America’s pastors would step up to the plate and demonstrate some courageous leadership. But they have already proven what they are willing to do: NOTHING!
The Covid scam, NATO wars and Green extremism are the tyrannical trifecta from Hell. Defeat these three satanic attacks against our liberties, and you will solve a host of problems, not the least of which is inflation and our overall economic malaise.
The Covid tyranny has already doomed the lives of millions who foolishly took the jabs and forever enslaved the minds of millions more. The expansion of NATO and America’s perpetual war agenda has brought us to the precipice of nuclear war. And if allowed to grow into maturation, the Green agenda will do as much—if not more—damage to our country than nuclear war.
Looking back, I wonder if Ron Paul’s candidacy was America’s last opportunity to set its ship of state aright. In a spiritual sense, when Christians and conservatives rejected Dr. Paul, they rejected the Biblical Natural Law principles that he represented.
At some point, the chickens come home to roost—even for America.
By Chuck Baldwin
September 29, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
Everyone feels it, but not everyone see... View MoreCovid Scam, NATO Wars, Green Extremism: The Tyrannical Trifecta From Hell
By Chuck Baldwin
September 29, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
Everyone feels it, but not everyone sees it: America’s greatest threat is not from Russia or China or from any other foreign government. America’s greatest threat is from our own government in Washington, D.C. When will the American people get that through their heads?
The globalist devils inside the Beltway manufactured and implemented the Covid scamdemic: the greatest act of tyranny inside U.S. borders since Lincoln invaded the South.
The globalist devils inside the beltway have turned Europe and the world into a giant military encampment with U.S. and NATO bases on the doorsteps of almost every country on the planet, which only incites nations to retaliate.
And the globalist devils inside the beltway have turned U.S. energy policies over to an extremist Green agenda that if fully implemented will turn the greatest nation to ever exist into a third world country. In fact, America is already headed in that direction.
From the Mises Wire:
When people start freezing to death in Europe this winter, who will be blamed?
Regulations, Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? They all will be, but no one with a recognizable face or name will pay any price.
The war fueled by the US and NATO’s expansionism and military involvement in Ukraine has worsened Europe’s energy problem. In Poland, citizens are lining up in their cars a mile from coal mines to buy enough fuel to prepare for winter. Due to the increased demand caused by the European Union’s embargo on Russian coal, Polish families worry they won’t have enough for the cold season.
“This is beyond imagination; people are sleeping in their cars,” Artur, 57, a pensioner, told Voice of America.
“I remember the communist times, but it didn’t cross my mind that we could return to something even worse.”
Prior to the embargo, Poland was under pressure from EU environmental policy. To Polish families that rely on coal, Russian imports were a household staple due to lower costs. With Poland banning coal from Russia, locals must rely on coal from Polish state-controlled mines, which have rationed sales recently due to the high demand.
On a recent Tucker Carlson Tonight episode, the Fox News host covered the struggle of Europeans trying to secure heat for winter.
Carlson highlighted countries like Germany and Poland, which are running out of fuel, forced to rely on coal or even timber. Could this imminent energy calamity have been prevented? Carlson explained:
Green energy cannot replace fossil fuels. Not now, not anytime soon. Fossil fuels remain what they have always been: the key to civilization…. So-called green energy is not close, is nowhere near replacing gas and oil and coal. It’s measurable. We could have known this. Anyone with eighth-grade math skills could have figured out in about 10 minutes that we cannot replace fossil fuels with renewables or green energy and of course, they must have known that.
While Carlson is right that the EU’s obsession with the so-called green economy is coming back to haunt it, he left out that America’s decades-long policy of foreign intervention has played just as great a role in the current crisis.
Ron Paul has long warned of the risks associated with NATO expansion. In 2008, then representative Paul voted against a bill meant to encourage Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO.
At the time, Paul explained his vote with the following message:
NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary…. This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution.
Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts unrelated to our national interest.
The US support for NATO membership for Ukraine continues. Russia did not want to risk seeing this come to fruition and engaged militarily as a result. Biden is also personally involved, as he was a key player in turning NATO into what it currently is.
In 1998, then senator Biden voted in favor of expanding NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, stating that this move would be “the beginning of another 50 years of peace.”
As Paul wrote recently, Biden was quite off.
Unfortunately, as we have seen this past week, my fears have come true. One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it.
Amen!
America’s constant meddling, interventions, trade sanctions, false flags, forced regime changes, political assassinations, breaches of state sovereignty, bombing campaigns, clandestine terror campaigns and proxy wars around the world have created the vast majority of global conflicts and domestic recessions since at least World War II.
Conservatives and Christians twice, in 2008 and 2012, had an opportunity to nominate a true constitutionalist and patriot, a true pro-peace non-interventionist and a true Christian gentleman, Dr. Ron Paul, for President of the United States. Instead, they stupidly rejected Dr. Paul’s candidacy and chose two of the most controlled and corrupt politicians in modern history: John McCain and Mitt Romney.
Look what’s happened since.
America now has undoubtedly one of the most amoral, inept, incompetent and criminal governments, not only in the world today but in world history!
And as far as the mainstream media goes, it is truly nothing more than a Ministry of Propaganda for the Deep State.
And speaking of the Deep State, conservatives everywhere love condemning it—and talking about Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, et al.—but almost none of them ever mention the sizeable influence within the Deep State exerted by Zionist Israel. But you’ll never truly understand the Deep State if you do not understand the immense influence that Israel wields over it. For starters, just take a peek at who controls the Federal Reserve.
I would like to believe that things would get better if Republicans took control of Congress this November and the White House in 2024, but the harsh reality is Republicans have a masterful way of talking a lot while changing almost nothing.
I have no confidence in politicians from either party having the courage to make the hard decisions that would help correct the direction of our ship of state from the path of destruction that it’s currently on.
It would help tremendously if America’s pastors would step up to the plate and demonstrate some courageous leadership. But they have already proven what they are willing to do: NOTHING!
The Covid scam, NATO wars and Green extremism are the tyrannical trifecta from Hell. Defeat these three satanic attacks against our liberties, and you will solve a host of problems, not the least of which is inflation and our overall economic malaise.
The Covid tyranny has already doomed the lives of millions who foolishly took the jabs and forever enslaved the minds of millions more. The expansion of NATO and America’s perpetual war agenda has brought us to the precipice of nuclear war. And if allowed to grow into maturation, the Green agenda will do as much—if not more—damage to our country than nuclear war.
Looking back, I wonder if Ron Paul’s candidacy was America’s last opportunity to set its ship of state aright. In a spiritual sense, when Christians and conservatives rejected Dr. Paul, they rejected the Biblical Natural Law principles that he represented.
At some point, the chickens come home to roost—even for America.
Christianity Soon To Be Minority Faith In America
By Chuck Baldwin
September 22, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
The number of people adhering to the Christian faith in America... View MoreChristianity Soon To Be Minority Faith In America
By Chuck Baldwin
September 22, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
The number of people adhering to the Christian faith in America has been on a steep downward spiral since the advent of the current century. That trend is only accelerating. It will not be long and people identifying themselves as Christians will be a distinct minority in this country.
Here are snippets from a recent CBS report:
Christianity has remained at the forefront of the nation's political and social conversations for centuries — but new research shows that could be changing.
A new report by Pew Research Center and the General Social Survey published on Tuesday found that the large numbers of people in the U.S who practice Christianity are declining. The religion's demographic has been dwindling since the 1990s, the report said, as many adults transition to an identity of atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular."
In the early '90s, about 90% of people in the U.S. identified as Christians, the report said. In 2020, Christians accounted for about 64% of the U.S. population, including children. Meanwhile, those who are not affiliated with a religion have grown from 16% in 2007 to 30% in 2020, according to the research. All other religions, including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, accounted for about 6% in 2020.
"Depending on the future of religious switching, people who identify as atheist, agnostic or 'nothing in particular' could become America's largest (non)religious group within our lifetime," Pew researcher Stephanie Kramer tweeted.
Look no further than this one report for an explanation as to what happened to our once-great nation.
John Adams rightly warned:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious [meaning the Christian religion] people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
The collapse of Liberty in our country is directly related to the collapse of the Christian faith in our country.
Please observe that the dramatic decrease in the number of professing Christians transpired at the same time that megachurches were popping up all over the place and television evangelists were ubiquitous.
I hate to say, “I told you so,” but I told you so.
When I saw President G.W. Bush turning evangelical Christians into warmongers and sheepish slaves of his Orwellian surveillance society in the early 2000s, I said this on my national radio talk show:
G.W. Bush is destroying historic Christianity, and in 20 years evangelicalism will be unrecognizable and Christianity will collapse into a minority faith system.
Per the report at the top of this column: WE ARE THERE!
The Exaltation of War
Evangelicals were the loudest cheerleaders for Bush II’s unconstitutional and immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were the loudest cheerleaders for Bush’s “preemptive war” doctrine that expanded America’s Warfare State all over the world—especially in the Middle East, Near East and Northern Africa.
There hasn’t been a bomb dropped, a missile launched, a political assassination, a clandestine military operation, a drone attack or a private contractor murder that evangelicals have not cheered. The war in Ukraine fulfills all kinds of fantasies and fetishes for evangelicals.
Evangelicals’ fascination with war and killing has emboldened politicians from both major parties to literally bankrupt our country in order to feed America’s insatiable lust for war—while enriching themselves in the process, of course.
The war in Ukraine is nothing more than a 21st-century version of the Roman colosseum. Only this time, the Christians are in the stands doing the cheering and pointing their thumbs to the ground.
Warmongering evangelical pastors have never repudiated their support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have never repudiated their support for America’s attacks on Bosnia, Haiti, Iran, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Uganda, Yemen, ad infinitum.
How can Christians expect anyone to take them seriously when, after talking about the love of Jesus in church on Sunday, they go to a political rally and lead the shouts for killing and death on Monday?
The Exaltation of Zionist Israel
In actuality, the exaltation of war and the exaltation of Zionist Israel are one and the same. Most of the wars and conflicts America has fought in the 21st century are directly in support of the Zionist state.
To illustrate the power and influence that Israel has over the United States, take a look at this report from The Times Of Israel:
South Carolina’s treasurer on Wednesday threatened to cut the US state’s ties with the multibillion-dollar investment firm Morningstar over alleged anti-Israel bias, part of an ongoing offensive against the company by Republican officials.
Republican state leaders have repeatedly accused Morningstar of supporting the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, in violation of the law in some states, due to the conduct of one of its subsidiaries, Sustainalytics.
In response, the company has investigated anti-Israel bias at Sustainalytics, taken measures to address the issue, and repeatedly denied any support for BDS.
South Carolina Treasurer Curtis M. Loftis, Jr., in a letter to Morningstar CEO Kunal Kapoor, said the firm may be violating state laws that bar BDS support.
“We require proof that Morningstar meets the requirements of the law,” the letter said. “Absent proof of compliance, the [State Treasurer’s Office] will choose to terminate the service.”
South Carolina uses Morningstar guidance for the state’s 529 education savings plan, which has close to $6 billion in assets, Loftis said. The state also uses Morningstar’s Advisor Workstation, a financial research and planning tool.
On Thursday, Loftis said he will sit out annual rating calls with Morningstar to demonstrate “solidarity with Israel.”
What other nation in the world could wield that much power and influence over a U.S. State? And never mind that governmental anti-BDS laws are an egregious violation of the First Amendment, the freedom of commerce, the freedom of conscience and Religious Liberty.
But remember that South Carolina is home to more evangelical churches and Christians per capita than any other State in the Union. So, once again, we see evangelicals promoting war and the welfare of a foreign government (Israel) above the freedom of the people of the United States—and in this case, the people of the State of South Carolina.
Do evangelicals really expect people to not notice?
The Exaltation of Prosperity Preachers
When the average person thinks of evangelicals, they think of America’s money-grubbing televangelists: people such as Jim Bakker, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, et al.
Except for the unfortunate evangelicals totally deceived by these conmen, everyone in the country knows these are corrupt charlatans, hucksters, swindlers and snake oil salesmen who worship only one thing: the almighty dollar.
But as they watch the teeming thousands of gullible Christians who follow these fakers and the uber-opulent lifestyles that they are provided, people are left with the impression that they must represent evangelicals as a whole.
The Exaltation of Corrupt Politicians
The almost universal adoration of evangelicals for Donald Trump has cost the Church millions of adherents. Think of it: The only two Republican presidents of the 21st century so far are Donald Trump and G.W. Bush.
What Bush started Trump accelerated.
And it’s really not so much Bush and Trump themselves but the hysterical—almost fanatical—adulation that evangelicals have heaped on these men that disgusts people so much.
What’s at stake here is not the future of evangelicalism, but the future of FREEDOM.
As I have said over and over: America’s problems are not political, they are spiritual. And that means the solutions are spiritual. And that requires the action of spiritual men.
If you visit the Concord Bridge in Massachusetts today, you will find a plaque outside The Old Manse House overlooking the bridge where the colonists began driving back the British troops after they had killed 8 colonists on Lexington Green outside Pastor Jonas Clark’s Church of Lexington at the Battle of Lexington.
Written on that plaque are these words:
During the 1770s, the Rev. William Emerson, grandfather of writer Ralph Waldo Emerson, vociferously criticized Parliament’s colonial policies from his Concord Congregational Church pulpit. He quickly became known as the “patriot preacher,” and in the Concord town center just prior to the clash on the bridge he said, “Let us stand our ground. If we die let us die here.”
It was the men of Pastor Jonas Clark’s congregation who stood on Lexington Green in defiance of tyranny. It was the men of Pastor William Emerson’s congregation who stood on Concord Bridge in defiance of tyranny. THIS is the heritage of America’s freedom and the heritage of America’s pastors.
God gave Liberty to America because of the courage, indefatigable determination and fearless preaching of men such as Jonas Clark and William Emerson. Our Liberty is being stolen from us today due to the lack of this type of preacher.
The retreat of Liberty in our land is directly commensurate with the retreat of “patriot preachers” in our pulpits. And the retreat of “patriot preachers” is directly commensurate with the retreat of people from America’s churches.
If preachers would begin preaching the kind of messages that gave birth to this country, we would not have to worry about the decline and death of this country.
America—and Christianity within America—is dying today because the patriot pulpit died a long time ago.
Resurrect the patriot pulpits, and God will resurrect America.
© Chuck Baldwin
By Chuck Baldwin
September 22, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
The number of people adhering to the Christian faith in America... View MoreChristianity Soon To Be Minority Faith In America
By Chuck Baldwin
September 22, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
The number of people adhering to the Christian faith in America has been on a steep downward spiral since the advent of the current century. That trend is only accelerating. It will not be long and people identifying themselves as Christians will be a distinct minority in this country.
Here are snippets from a recent CBS report:
Christianity has remained at the forefront of the nation's political and social conversations for centuries — but new research shows that could be changing.
A new report by Pew Research Center and the General Social Survey published on Tuesday found that the large numbers of people in the U.S who practice Christianity are declining. The religion's demographic has been dwindling since the 1990s, the report said, as many adults transition to an identity of atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular."
In the early '90s, about 90% of people in the U.S. identified as Christians, the report said. In 2020, Christians accounted for about 64% of the U.S. population, including children. Meanwhile, those who are not affiliated with a religion have grown from 16% in 2007 to 30% in 2020, according to the research. All other religions, including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, accounted for about 6% in 2020.
"Depending on the future of religious switching, people who identify as atheist, agnostic or 'nothing in particular' could become America's largest (non)religious group within our lifetime," Pew researcher Stephanie Kramer tweeted.
Look no further than this one report for an explanation as to what happened to our once-great nation.
John Adams rightly warned:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious [meaning the Christian religion] people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
The collapse of Liberty in our country is directly related to the collapse of the Christian faith in our country.
Please observe that the dramatic decrease in the number of professing Christians transpired at the same time that megachurches were popping up all over the place and television evangelists were ubiquitous.
I hate to say, “I told you so,” but I told you so.
When I saw President G.W. Bush turning evangelical Christians into warmongers and sheepish slaves of his Orwellian surveillance society in the early 2000s, I said this on my national radio talk show:
G.W. Bush is destroying historic Christianity, and in 20 years evangelicalism will be unrecognizable and Christianity will collapse into a minority faith system.
Per the report at the top of this column: WE ARE THERE!
The Exaltation of War
Evangelicals were the loudest cheerleaders for Bush II’s unconstitutional and immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were the loudest cheerleaders for Bush’s “preemptive war” doctrine that expanded America’s Warfare State all over the world—especially in the Middle East, Near East and Northern Africa.
There hasn’t been a bomb dropped, a missile launched, a political assassination, a clandestine military operation, a drone attack or a private contractor murder that evangelicals have not cheered. The war in Ukraine fulfills all kinds of fantasies and fetishes for evangelicals.
Evangelicals’ fascination with war and killing has emboldened politicians from both major parties to literally bankrupt our country in order to feed America’s insatiable lust for war—while enriching themselves in the process, of course.
The war in Ukraine is nothing more than a 21st-century version of the Roman colosseum. Only this time, the Christians are in the stands doing the cheering and pointing their thumbs to the ground.
Warmongering evangelical pastors have never repudiated their support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have never repudiated their support for America’s attacks on Bosnia, Haiti, Iran, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Uganda, Yemen, ad infinitum.
How can Christians expect anyone to take them seriously when, after talking about the love of Jesus in church on Sunday, they go to a political rally and lead the shouts for killing and death on Monday?
The Exaltation of Zionist Israel
In actuality, the exaltation of war and the exaltation of Zionist Israel are one and the same. Most of the wars and conflicts America has fought in the 21st century are directly in support of the Zionist state.
To illustrate the power and influence that Israel has over the United States, take a look at this report from The Times Of Israel:
South Carolina’s treasurer on Wednesday threatened to cut the US state’s ties with the multibillion-dollar investment firm Morningstar over alleged anti-Israel bias, part of an ongoing offensive against the company by Republican officials.
Republican state leaders have repeatedly accused Morningstar of supporting the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, in violation of the law in some states, due to the conduct of one of its subsidiaries, Sustainalytics.
In response, the company has investigated anti-Israel bias at Sustainalytics, taken measures to address the issue, and repeatedly denied any support for BDS.
South Carolina Treasurer Curtis M. Loftis, Jr., in a letter to Morningstar CEO Kunal Kapoor, said the firm may be violating state laws that bar BDS support.
“We require proof that Morningstar meets the requirements of the law,” the letter said. “Absent proof of compliance, the [State Treasurer’s Office] will choose to terminate the service.”
South Carolina uses Morningstar guidance for the state’s 529 education savings plan, which has close to $6 billion in assets, Loftis said. The state also uses Morningstar’s Advisor Workstation, a financial research and planning tool.
On Thursday, Loftis said he will sit out annual rating calls with Morningstar to demonstrate “solidarity with Israel.”
What other nation in the world could wield that much power and influence over a U.S. State? And never mind that governmental anti-BDS laws are an egregious violation of the First Amendment, the freedom of commerce, the freedom of conscience and Religious Liberty.
But remember that South Carolina is home to more evangelical churches and Christians per capita than any other State in the Union. So, once again, we see evangelicals promoting war and the welfare of a foreign government (Israel) above the freedom of the people of the United States—and in this case, the people of the State of South Carolina.
Do evangelicals really expect people to not notice?
The Exaltation of Prosperity Preachers
When the average person thinks of evangelicals, they think of America’s money-grubbing televangelists: people such as Jim Bakker, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, et al.
Except for the unfortunate evangelicals totally deceived by these conmen, everyone in the country knows these are corrupt charlatans, hucksters, swindlers and snake oil salesmen who worship only one thing: the almighty dollar.
But as they watch the teeming thousands of gullible Christians who follow these fakers and the uber-opulent lifestyles that they are provided, people are left with the impression that they must represent evangelicals as a whole.
The Exaltation of Corrupt Politicians
The almost universal adoration of evangelicals for Donald Trump has cost the Church millions of adherents. Think of it: The only two Republican presidents of the 21st century so far are Donald Trump and G.W. Bush.
What Bush started Trump accelerated.
And it’s really not so much Bush and Trump themselves but the hysterical—almost fanatical—adulation that evangelicals have heaped on these men that disgusts people so much.
What’s at stake here is not the future of evangelicalism, but the future of FREEDOM.
As I have said over and over: America’s problems are not political, they are spiritual. And that means the solutions are spiritual. And that requires the action of spiritual men.
If you visit the Concord Bridge in Massachusetts today, you will find a plaque outside The Old Manse House overlooking the bridge where the colonists began driving back the British troops after they had killed 8 colonists on Lexington Green outside Pastor Jonas Clark’s Church of Lexington at the Battle of Lexington.
Written on that plaque are these words:
During the 1770s, the Rev. William Emerson, grandfather of writer Ralph Waldo Emerson, vociferously criticized Parliament’s colonial policies from his Concord Congregational Church pulpit. He quickly became known as the “patriot preacher,” and in the Concord town center just prior to the clash on the bridge he said, “Let us stand our ground. If we die let us die here.”
It was the men of Pastor Jonas Clark’s congregation who stood on Lexington Green in defiance of tyranny. It was the men of Pastor William Emerson’s congregation who stood on Concord Bridge in defiance of tyranny. THIS is the heritage of America’s freedom and the heritage of America’s pastors.
God gave Liberty to America because of the courage, indefatigable determination and fearless preaching of men such as Jonas Clark and William Emerson. Our Liberty is being stolen from us today due to the lack of this type of preacher.
The retreat of Liberty in our land is directly commensurate with the retreat of “patriot preachers” in our pulpits. And the retreat of “patriot preachers” is directly commensurate with the retreat of people from America’s churches.
If preachers would begin preaching the kind of messages that gave birth to this country, we would not have to worry about the decline and death of this country.
America—and Christianity within America—is dying today because the patriot pulpit died a long time ago.
Resurrect the patriot pulpits, and God will resurrect America.
© Chuck Baldwin
McGuire likes this. 
Elitists Are Turning America Into The Tower Of Babel
By Chuck Baldwin
September 1, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
It is no hyperbole to say that the elitists behind the Covid ... View MoreElitists Are Turning America Into The Tower Of Babel
By Chuck Baldwin
September 1, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
It is no hyperbole to say that the elitists behind the Covid and War tyrannies are attempting to turn America into a modern-day Tower of Babel.
When I talk about America, I’m not talking about the great independent, Liberty-loving, God-fearing American people that cover this land; I’m talking about the vast majority of America’s governmental leaders—especially in Washington, D.C.
These beasts, resembling the ravenous beasts of Revelation, are drunk with wealth and power. In their hearts, their great ambition is to turn the United States into a giant feudal system where they are the owners and rulers and we are nothing but their serfs and slaves.
Over the past few months, I have seen a significant increase in the number of constitutionalist/freedomist writers (Christian and non-Christian) beginning to warn us of an impending collapse into a period tantamount to the Dark Ages of history. I do not know if these individuals read my columns and listen to my messages or not, but I have been issuing that same warning for several years—even before the Covid tyranny.
When national collapses occur, the fall is always lightning fast, i.e., Ancient Egypt, Medo-Persia, Greco-Macedonian, Assyria, Babylon, Israel and Judah, Rome (West and East), the Ottomans, the Soviet Union, etc. Doubtless, the seeds of the fall of those empires were long in the making, but when the end came, it came almost overnight.
The seeds of America’s collapse have been long in the making. I would put the starting gun of our demise at the presidential administration of Abraham Lincoln (1861 - 1865) and then point to President Woodrow Wilson’s (1913 - 1921) acceleration of Lincoln’s war against American constitutionalism. But the fall began in earnest following World War II with the presidential administration of Harry Truman (1945 - 1953).
Truman was America’s first Zionist president, and every president since—Republican and Democrat—has carried the torch for Zionist treachery. But it was G.W. Bush who introduced America to the Surveillance/Police State. And every president since Bush has only expanded this Orwellian nightmare. The latest expansion of federal police powers is Biden’s introduction of a de facto “standing army” of armed IRS agents.
But each president only builds on the blocks cemented in place by the administration before him. Biden’s IRS army is built on Trump’s Red Flag gun confiscation precedent. Biden’s Covid dictates were authorized under the signature and seal of Donald J. Trump. And every president from G.W. Bush and forward is guilty of mass murder and has committed international crimes against humanity. And as far as mass killings go, Trump trumps (pun intended) Biden, Obama and Bush.
America’s decline has been steepening ever since the dawn of the 20th century and accelerating exponentially since the dawn of the 21st century. But the Covid tyranny and subsequent war in Ukraine is likely the final one-two punch that puts America on the canvas for good.
We all know that if Biden should be reelected and the Democrats maintain control of the House and Senate America’s collapse is inevitable—and imminent.
Trump is a Trojan Horse and always has been.
The FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago could indeed be a political Gestapo-esque attack on Trump. If it is, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Everyone in the GOP knew Merrick Garland’s tyrannical character, and after stopping his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, 20 Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted to approve Garland’s appointment as U.S. Attorney General—a position that is far more dangerous to Liberty than one justice on the bench.
On the other hand, since the raid, Trump’s approval numbers have skyrocketed. If this is all smoke and mirrors, and no charges are brought, there would be no one within the GOP who could challenge Trump for the 2024 nomination. If Trump survives the raid, he is certain to be the Republican nominee in 2024—and the Prophetic Futurists will be associating Trump with all kinds of outlandish and bazaar Biblical prophecies.
But back on point: If Trump should regain the presidency, he would continue selling out America’s liberties just as he did in his first term when he championed both the Red Flag gun confiscation laws and the Covid vaccinations—which he continues to do to this very day—and Trump’s supporters would continue to look the other way, just as they did in his first term.
If Trump is eliminated from competition for any reason, Florida’s Ron DeSantis would probably emerge as the strongest candidate for the White House. His main asset is his strong anti-Covid mandates position. And that is no small matter.
But DeSantis has done nothing to repeal or, at the least, refuse to enforce the State of Florida’s Red Flag gun confiscation law, which is extremely troubling. And he is another bought-and-paid-for Zionist who signed a draconian anti-First Amendment State law prohibiting the criticism of Israel in Florida’s schools and colleges.
So, DeSantis is a mixed bag.
But even if somehow DeSantis should win the presidency and the GOP should take control of both houses of Congress (very uncertain), America’s collapse will not be stopped. The pace might be slowed, but that’s a big might.
The Covid tyranny and War tyranny already have done their worst. America’s hyperinflation and economic recession will worsen in 2023 no matter who wins in November. Western Europe is likely to experience World War II-style electrical blackouts, food rationing and a serious lack of running water and heat this winter. Governments in Western Europe could topple like dominoes.
The U.S. will fare a little better—but not much.
Our economy will continue to shrink; the job market will not rebound and could get worse; inflation will worsen, as will shortages; crime will escalate, and the government will use all of the above as an excuse to continue to grow itself into an even uglier monster than it already is.
At some point, separation within the United States is unavoidable.
Many American freedomists have been preaching secession for decades, but I’m not sure if that is now an option. Texas is the only State where a somewhat serious secession movement exists—and that movement is nowhere near large enough to sway State leaders to actually attempt it. And no other State is even seriously discussing the subject.
But that doesn’t mean that separation will not take place. I am more convinced than ever that it WILL take place, and that there is NOTHING that can stop it, because this separation will be Natural, not political.
Governments can only exercise authority as long as the People consent. When the People (meaning the Body Politic) refuse to consent, governments are powerless. Brute force at the local level is precarious at best. Remember that during a time of upheaval, one will discover that many government law enforcers (military and civilian) are also freedomists at heart and will only follow unconstitutional and illegitimate leadership for so long.
America shows all the decadent signs of the great fallen empires of history. America will not be an exception to the Laws of God and Nature. The Natural laws of common decency, strong nuclear families, a national commitment to the Christian faith, commitment to common social values, respect for a common heritage and commitment to a common language essential to the survival of an independent nation are ALL passé in our country.
There is literally NOTHING holding America together today; and the foundations and walls are already crumbling. Russia and China are not blind; they see America’s deepening demise. They know that time is NOT on the side of the United States.
As someone with a scriptural and spiritual perspective, I believe that as with any nation, America’s fate—whatever it might be—is all of God. And that means it is ultimately for the good.
The forces of evil may be allowed by divine sovereignty to collapse earthly powers (because those earthly powers have taken positions against God and His Natural and revealed laws), but God always gets the last laugh.
As Joseph said to the brothers who betrayed and sold him as a slave to Egypt:
Ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. (Genesis 50:20)
The power-mad elitists who are orchestrating America’s upheaval (we all know their names) will NOT prevail over Almighty God. Whatever evil they have planned for America and whatever evil they will be allowed to inflict upon America, God will use it for GOOD—and will eventually grind these antichrists and their Tower of Babel to dust.
And a better day will come.
By Chuck Baldwin
September 1, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
It is no hyperbole to say that the elitists behind the Covid ... View MoreElitists Are Turning America Into The Tower Of Babel
By Chuck Baldwin
September 1, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
It is no hyperbole to say that the elitists behind the Covid and War tyrannies are attempting to turn America into a modern-day Tower of Babel.
When I talk about America, I’m not talking about the great independent, Liberty-loving, God-fearing American people that cover this land; I’m talking about the vast majority of America’s governmental leaders—especially in Washington, D.C.
These beasts, resembling the ravenous beasts of Revelation, are drunk with wealth and power. In their hearts, their great ambition is to turn the United States into a giant feudal system where they are the owners and rulers and we are nothing but their serfs and slaves.
Over the past few months, I have seen a significant increase in the number of constitutionalist/freedomist writers (Christian and non-Christian) beginning to warn us of an impending collapse into a period tantamount to the Dark Ages of history. I do not know if these individuals read my columns and listen to my messages or not, but I have been issuing that same warning for several years—even before the Covid tyranny.
When national collapses occur, the fall is always lightning fast, i.e., Ancient Egypt, Medo-Persia, Greco-Macedonian, Assyria, Babylon, Israel and Judah, Rome (West and East), the Ottomans, the Soviet Union, etc. Doubtless, the seeds of the fall of those empires were long in the making, but when the end came, it came almost overnight.
The seeds of America’s collapse have been long in the making. I would put the starting gun of our demise at the presidential administration of Abraham Lincoln (1861 - 1865) and then point to President Woodrow Wilson’s (1913 - 1921) acceleration of Lincoln’s war against American constitutionalism. But the fall began in earnest following World War II with the presidential administration of Harry Truman (1945 - 1953).
Truman was America’s first Zionist president, and every president since—Republican and Democrat—has carried the torch for Zionist treachery. But it was G.W. Bush who introduced America to the Surveillance/Police State. And every president since Bush has only expanded this Orwellian nightmare. The latest expansion of federal police powers is Biden’s introduction of a de facto “standing army” of armed IRS agents.
But each president only builds on the blocks cemented in place by the administration before him. Biden’s IRS army is built on Trump’s Red Flag gun confiscation precedent. Biden’s Covid dictates were authorized under the signature and seal of Donald J. Trump. And every president from G.W. Bush and forward is guilty of mass murder and has committed international crimes against humanity. And as far as mass killings go, Trump trumps (pun intended) Biden, Obama and Bush.
America’s decline has been steepening ever since the dawn of the 20th century and accelerating exponentially since the dawn of the 21st century. But the Covid tyranny and subsequent war in Ukraine is likely the final one-two punch that puts America on the canvas for good.
We all know that if Biden should be reelected and the Democrats maintain control of the House and Senate America’s collapse is inevitable—and imminent.
Trump is a Trojan Horse and always has been.
The FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago could indeed be a political Gestapo-esque attack on Trump. If it is, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Everyone in the GOP knew Merrick Garland’s tyrannical character, and after stopping his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, 20 Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted to approve Garland’s appointment as U.S. Attorney General—a position that is far more dangerous to Liberty than one justice on the bench.
On the other hand, since the raid, Trump’s approval numbers have skyrocketed. If this is all smoke and mirrors, and no charges are brought, there would be no one within the GOP who could challenge Trump for the 2024 nomination. If Trump survives the raid, he is certain to be the Republican nominee in 2024—and the Prophetic Futurists will be associating Trump with all kinds of outlandish and bazaar Biblical prophecies.
But back on point: If Trump should regain the presidency, he would continue selling out America’s liberties just as he did in his first term when he championed both the Red Flag gun confiscation laws and the Covid vaccinations—which he continues to do to this very day—and Trump’s supporters would continue to look the other way, just as they did in his first term.
If Trump is eliminated from competition for any reason, Florida’s Ron DeSantis would probably emerge as the strongest candidate for the White House. His main asset is his strong anti-Covid mandates position. And that is no small matter.
But DeSantis has done nothing to repeal or, at the least, refuse to enforce the State of Florida’s Red Flag gun confiscation law, which is extremely troubling. And he is another bought-and-paid-for Zionist who signed a draconian anti-First Amendment State law prohibiting the criticism of Israel in Florida’s schools and colleges.
So, DeSantis is a mixed bag.
But even if somehow DeSantis should win the presidency and the GOP should take control of both houses of Congress (very uncertain), America’s collapse will not be stopped. The pace might be slowed, but that’s a big might.
The Covid tyranny and War tyranny already have done their worst. America’s hyperinflation and economic recession will worsen in 2023 no matter who wins in November. Western Europe is likely to experience World War II-style electrical blackouts, food rationing and a serious lack of running water and heat this winter. Governments in Western Europe could topple like dominoes.
The U.S. will fare a little better—but not much.
Our economy will continue to shrink; the job market will not rebound and could get worse; inflation will worsen, as will shortages; crime will escalate, and the government will use all of the above as an excuse to continue to grow itself into an even uglier monster than it already is.
At some point, separation within the United States is unavoidable.
Many American freedomists have been preaching secession for decades, but I’m not sure if that is now an option. Texas is the only State where a somewhat serious secession movement exists—and that movement is nowhere near large enough to sway State leaders to actually attempt it. And no other State is even seriously discussing the subject.
But that doesn’t mean that separation will not take place. I am more convinced than ever that it WILL take place, and that there is NOTHING that can stop it, because this separation will be Natural, not political.
Governments can only exercise authority as long as the People consent. When the People (meaning the Body Politic) refuse to consent, governments are powerless. Brute force at the local level is precarious at best. Remember that during a time of upheaval, one will discover that many government law enforcers (military and civilian) are also freedomists at heart and will only follow unconstitutional and illegitimate leadership for so long.
America shows all the decadent signs of the great fallen empires of history. America will not be an exception to the Laws of God and Nature. The Natural laws of common decency, strong nuclear families, a national commitment to the Christian faith, commitment to common social values, respect for a common heritage and commitment to a common language essential to the survival of an independent nation are ALL passé in our country.
There is literally NOTHING holding America together today; and the foundations and walls are already crumbling. Russia and China are not blind; they see America’s deepening demise. They know that time is NOT on the side of the United States.
As someone with a scriptural and spiritual perspective, I believe that as with any nation, America’s fate—whatever it might be—is all of God. And that means it is ultimately for the good.
The forces of evil may be allowed by divine sovereignty to collapse earthly powers (because those earthly powers have taken positions against God and His Natural and revealed laws), but God always gets the last laugh.
As Joseph said to the brothers who betrayed and sold him as a slave to Egypt:
Ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. (Genesis 50:20)
The power-mad elitists who are orchestrating America’s upheaval (we all know their names) will NOT prevail over Almighty God. Whatever evil they have planned for America and whatever evil they will be allowed to inflict upon America, God will use it for GOOD—and will eventually grind these antichrists and their Tower of Babel to dust.
And a better day will come.
Addressing “King James Only” Christians (Click here for a 1611 King James Version facsimile)
Recently, during our visit to some Christian Identity brethren in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, I was introduced... View MoreAddressing “King James Only” Christians (Click here for a 1611 King James Version facsimile)
Recently, during our visit to some Christian Identity brethren in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, I was introduced to a man from Missouri who considers himself an Identity Christian and a pastor. He and some others actually sat in the room with me and listened to one of my presentations of Bertrand Comparet's sermons.
We had a long discussion after that program was completed. But I quickly found out that this man, who I do esteem to be a sincere Identity Christian, did not like anything of what I had said about the King James Version translation of the Bible. In fact, he refused to acknowledge that the King James Version could be amended or improved upon in any way. He insisted that talking about the Scripture, “we need a sold foundation”, as he called it, and that the King James Version was the only solid foundation inspired by God.
Is it really true, that the King James Version is the only Scripture inspired by God, and is it true that it was inspired by God? In Psalm 147:19 we read that God “... sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.” Therefore there must have been Holy Scriptures before 1611, that Israelites could understand. In Acts chapter 17 we see the account of the men of Berea, who hearing Paul and Silas had “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Therefore there must have been Holy Scriptures before 1611, that the Greek and Judaean men of Berea could understand.
Paul of Tarsus had wrote asking Timothy to come to him in Rome, and when he did he also asked him that “when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments” (2 Timothy 4:13). Since the King James Bible was not published until 1611, there were books and parchments that Paul of Tarsus considered to be Holy Scripture long before the King James Version. So we must ask this: which books have the greater authority, the King James Version, or those which Paul had considered to be Holy Scriptures, whether they were in his own possession, or in the possession of the men of Berea? The phrase “word of God” appears many times in Scripture, but the King James Version did not exist until nearly 1600 years after the Crucifixion. So what was the “Word of God” until then?
One thing I learned from my sometimes heated conversation with this pastor from Missouri, is that if a man has no background understanding of manuscripts and of the history of Bible translation before the King James Version, then he does not have the tools necessary to understand why the King James Version is not what he claims it to be. I spoke for a half hour about early manuscripts, the Geneva Bible, other early translations, and how the King James Version was created to supplant other translations in order to support the authority of the Anglican church, all to no avail. His steadfast position in support of the King James Version combined with a lack of historical knowledge concerning translations and manuscripts has blinded him from ever seeing the truth.
Almost 900 years before the King James Version, the Anglo-Saxon church historian Bede had written proudly about the many churchmen who had been translating the ancient Scriptures into vernacular tongues for common people to understand. These were eventually outlawed by the popes, because very often they challenged church authority.
The Protestant Reformation produced a lot of excellent and brave men willing to stand for the truth against the popes, but there is a huge difference between inspiration and motivation. There were many men who were motivated, and perhaps inspired, to translate the Scriptures into their common tongues during this period, and the King James Version is a relative late-comer. Over 200 years before, John Wycliffe and his followers, the Lollards, made the first complete Bible translation into English. Martin Luther translated the Scriptures into German roughly 90 years before the King James Version was published. The Geneva Bible was created by a group of respected English scholars in Switzerland who were fortunate enough to have escaped the persecution of the Catholic queen who is famously known as Bloody Mary.
But in nearly every way, the Anglican Church was no better than the Roman Catholic Church. King Henry VIII never reformed the church in England. Rather, he only denounced the pope in Rome as the head of the church in England, and appointed himself as the head of the Church of England. When the Geneva Bible was published, 60 years before the King James Version, it was immensely popular, and especially among English dissenters to the Church of England. These dissenters understood that the king had no ecclesiastical authority, and neither did the pope. They used better translations of certain Greek words to convey the idea of the Christian assembly as it was described in the original Scripture. So in the Geneva Bible we read congregation instead of church. That reading certainly is better, because then we see that the people of God cannot be replaced by some imperial organization. The Geneva Bible was also the world's first study Bible, with many marginal notes. Some of those notes indicated that Godliness was a resistance to tyranny, and both the kings and the popes despised that idea.
While there were other earlier English Bibles, such as the government-sanctioned Bibles known as the Great Bible and Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible was the Bible of Shakespeare, Cromwell, all of the English Puritans, the Puritans of the Mayflower who came to America in 1620, the Presbyterian Church founder John Knox, the famous English poet John Donne, the persecuted author of Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan, and the famous author of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, John Foxe. William Whittingham supervised the translation in collaboration with the famous Puritan Miles Coverdale and a group of other English scholars. These men were associated with John Calvin and his succesor, Theodore Beza. Some of these men, such as Coverdale, had worked on the previously-sanctioned English Bible, the Great Bible. The manuscripts of Stephanus and Beza were employed in the Geneva Bible translation, and also like the King James Version, much of the language – at least 80% - was patterned after the great linguist Tyndale. The fault of Tyndale's earlier Bible was that he had no Greek or Hebrew manuscripts available to him, so he was forced to use the faulty Latin Vulgate. The Geneva Bible was the first to be made from Hebrew and Greek, free of the Vulgate.
But King James found the Geneva Bible to be seditious, and especially its marginal notes. The Geneva Bible editors challenged any religious authority of kings over the congregations of Christ, and they also challenged much of the formal church structure which the Anglican church had carried over from the Roman. So King James ordered his own English Bible, and had it employ language which would uphold the official church structure, without all of the marginal notes. The King James Version marginal notes forsook the commentary, but continued to supply many of the cross-references and alternate meaning of words. Once the King James Version was published, the Geneva Bible remained far more popular. However after a short time King James banned printing of the Geneva Bible, which forced his own Bible to become the standard. Therefore modern Christians must understand that the King James Bible is popular today only because it was the government-mandated Bible of the time, and competition was eliminated by force.
This situation also prevented English Biblical studies and translation from developing any further. That is what we may fairly protest. But before further discussing the need for better translations, let's take a look at the Greek manuscripts from which the King James New Testament was translated. To do that, we will simply quote from a rather accurate and straightforward article on the Textus Receptus found at a website called Theopedia:
Textus Receptus
The term Textus Receptus is Latin meaning "Received Text". It comes from the preface to the second edition of a Greek New Testament published by the brothers Elzevir in 1633. In this preface the Elzevirs wrote, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus -- “What you have here, is the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” [The Elzevirs printed seven editions of the Greek NT between 1624 and 1678. Unlike the editions of Erasmus, Estienne, and Beza before them, the Elzevirs were not editors of the editions attributed to them, only the printers. Ref. J. Harold Greenlee, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 2nd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), p. 65.] From this statement comes the term Textus Receptus or TR, which today is commonly applied to all editions of the printed Greek NT before the Elzevir’s, beginning with Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1496-1536) and his first published edition in 1516.
BACK APPLIED
Background
Erasmus was the author of five published editions from 1516 to 1535. His consolidated Greek text was based on only seven minuscule manuscripts of the Byzantine text type that he had access to in Basel at the time, and he relied mainly on two of these - both dating from the twelfth century. [William W. Combs, Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996): 35–53.]
Although many point to obvious limitations and certain short-comings in Erasmus' first Greek text, later editors used it as their starting point, making minor revisions as needed based on additional Greek manuscript evidence.
Robert Estienne (known as Stephanus) (1503-1559) edited and printed four editions from 1546 to 1551. His third edition of 1550 was the first to have a critical apparatus, with references to the Complutensian Polyglot and fifteen additional Greek manuscripts. The fourth edition of 1551 had the same Greek text as the third, but is especially noteworthy for its division of the NT books into chapters and verses, a system still in use today. [The first Bible in English to use both chapters and verses was the Geneva Bible published in 1560. These verse divisions soon gained acceptance as a standard way to notate verses, and have since been used in virtually all English Bibles.]
Theodore Beza (1519-1605) published four independent editions from 1565 to 1604. His text was essentially a reprinting of Stephanus’ third edition (1550) with minor changes.
The third edition of Stephanus (1550) became the standard form of the Greek NT text in England and that of the Elzevirs (1633) on the continent. [William W. Combs, op. cit.] The Stephanus 1550 text as given in Beza’s edition of 1598 was the main source for translators of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible.
Now Erasmus was a humanist, and while he was a very respected scholar of his time, he was virtually idolized by humanists, and he is to this day. I could make a fair criticism of his motivations in other areas. However, in Scripture, let us assume that Erasmus had worked with the best tools available to him. There are thousands of miniscule manuscripts in existence today, the oldest of which date back to the 9th century. Those available to Erasmus did not predate the 10th century. These manuscripts, the work of medieval copyists, frequently disagree with one another. Many of them also contain late interpolations or substitute words when compared with the earliest known manuscripts of Scripture, which are the Great Uncials and the papyri, many copies of which date to earlier than the 6th century.
So Erasmus only had 7 miniscules available to him, and he did the best he could with these. But the manuscripts he had were missing certain verses that were found in the Latin Vulgate. So Erasmus simply back-translated these, meaning that he basically guessed at what the Greek should say from what the Latin of the Vulgate said. Then Stephanus, and later Elzevir, worked with the product of Erasmus to create their own editions. While Stephanus was also a great scholar, and added 15 miniscules to the 7 of Erasmus, neither did he have the best source material. But he did well in one area, to make a critical apparatus comparing the variant readings in the manuscripts which he did have, and that practice is still useful to scholars today.
But the King James translators did not follow Erasmus exclusively, and neither did they follow Stephanus or Beza exclusively. So what manuscripts did they employ? The truth is that the King James Version of 1611 was not based on any single known manuscript. Rather, the translators basically cherry-picked a host of secondary versions in addition to these few scholarly editions in order to arrive at its English text. This can be proven by comparing the King James translation with its sources. It employed the 1527 manuscript of Erasmus, the 1550 manuscript of Stephanus, the 1598 manuscript of Beza, and to some extent the 1522 Complutensian Polyglot, and the 1592 Clementine Vulgate. While these later two manuscripts may not have made a large impact on the translation of the King James Version, when the italicized words are inspected it seems that these manuscripts were indeed an influence on the final text. We will discuss the italicized words shortly.
Now that we have discussed why the King James Version was authorized, and we have seen from what manuscripts it was created, we must ask this: Which King James Version is the absolute authority on the Word of God? That is because the King James Version which we have today is not the Bible that King James had authorized.
In 1769, the original King James Version began to be replaced with another version, and to explain that we will summarize an article entitled Changes in the King James Version found at a website called Bible Research, and also offer some of our own comments. This article concerns only the New Testament:
Changes in the King James Version
In 1769 the Oxford University Press published an edition of the King James version in which many small changes were made. These changes were of five kinds: 1. Greater and more regular use of italics; 2. minor changes in the text; 3. the adoption of modern spelling; 4. changes in the marginal notes and references; and, 5. correction of printers' errors. This edition soon came to be known as "The Oxford Standard" edition, because it was widely accepted as a standard text by commentators and other publishers. The editions of the King James version published in our century generally reproduce this Oxford edition of 1769, with or without the marginal notes. The following information is given so that the reader may gain an accurate impression of how far the modern editions differ from the original King James version of 1611.
Now while this article does mention changes finalized in 1769 regarding the removal of the books of the Apocrypha, it does not really concern itself with the Apocrypha. The original 1611 King James Version of the Bible included the Apocryphal books. However it was not until the Westminster Confession of 1647 that the Anglican Church officially excluded the Apocrypha from its canon. The Puritans were the first to print Bibles excluding the Apocryphal books, but evidently not until after 1666.
It must be born in mind, however, that if the authorization of King James or the original translators are required in order to uphold the exclusive authority of the King James Version, then that would have to include all of the books of the Apocrypha, since originally they were authorized as part of the English Bible just as much as the other books. Today, “King James Only” advocates give reasons for the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the 1611 King James Version which the original King James translators did not give, so they are only making or repeating excuses.
§ 1. ITALICIZED WORDS OR PHRASES
The King James version was originally printed in the type style known as "black letter," which [appear like traditional Medieval English lettering] Words of the translation which were supplied to make the sense clear, but which were not represented in the Greek text used by the translators, were often set in small "roman" type… In later editions, the ordinary text was set in roman type, with the supplied words in italics…
The important things to note here is that there are many words in the King James Version which appear in italics, which are admittedly not a part of the Greek manuscripts that the King James Version was translated from. It is the translators assertion that this is necessary to make the sense clear, but that is a highly contestable position.
This typographical feature was not employed very consistently in the 1611 edition; in many places the supplied words are not indicated as one might expect. This inconsistency was probably the fault of the printer's compositors, who very often modified even the spelling of words in order to lengthen or shorten a line of type.
We will note later, that if it is supposed that God inspired the translators to be perfect, as many KJV-only Christians claim, then why did God not inspire the printers to be perfect as well? This is especially important, because it is another little-known fact that the original copies of the translators were destroyed in the great fire in London in 1666. From that time, all that was left are the copies of the printers, which contained acknowledged errors.
The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found…
Estienne is the surname of Stephanus, or Stephens. If the original 1611 translation had marked 69 words in Matthew as being added to the Scripture, but the 1769 edition marked 384 such words, that is a sizable error to merely attribute to the printers. But it is equally important to note that there were 384 words added to Matthew by the translators, which are not in the original Greek of the manuscripts which they employed.
Our article then says:
§ 2. MINOR ALTERATIONS OF THE TEXT
The following list includes all changes to the text of 1611 which do not involve the correction of obvious errors of the press (examples of which are given in § 5 below), or changes of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Most of these changes were made with reference to the text of Estienne 1550, and with a view to greater clarity or accuracy. The changes marked with an asterix "*" are all those which are considered improper or unnecessary by F.H.A. Scrivener, an eminent authority on the text of the KJV, in his book, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. (Cambridge: University Press, 1884).
The article then provides a list of 111 verses in the New Testament which had been changed in 1769 from the 1611 edition of the King James Version. Most of them are relatively minor, but these are not printer's errors. Rather they were deemed to be corrections of the original translation from the Greek. If the King James Version is the inspired Word of God in English, we must ask this: which King James Version does that include? Or does God change His mind because He allowed, or even made, mistakes?
Section 3 of our source article concerns the modernization of spelling, and the altering of words to make the spellings, punctuations or capitalization consistent. This raises another issue in relation to the claims of the divine inspiration of the translation.
§ 4. MARGINAL CHANGES IN THE OXFORD EDITION OF 1769
In the first edition of the King James version, marginal notes indicating various renderings or readings appeared in 775 places in the New Testament. Of these notes, 34 evidently referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts. They appear in the following places: Mat 1:11, 7:14, 24:31, 26:26; Mark 7:3, 9:16; Luke 2:38, 10:22, 17:36; John 18:13; Acts 13:18, 25:6; Rom. 5:17, 7:6, 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:31; Gal. 4:15, 4:17; Eph. 6:9; 1 Tim. 6:5; Heb. 4:2, 9:2; James 2:18; 1 Pet. 1:4, 2:21; 2 Pet. 2:2, 2:11, 2:18; 2 John 1:8; Rev. 3:14, 6:8, 13:1, 13:5, 17:5.
The editors of the 1769 edition left all of the original marginal readings and renderings unchanged, but added 87 more notes, of which 17 referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts.
The article then gives a sample by listing the marginal notes added to Matthew, and then gives a separate list of translation alternatives added to the marginal notes of the entire New Testament. These lists of alternate readings also betray the influences of the Vulgate on the King James translation.
Section 5 of our source article gives 5 printing errors from Matthew as an example of the printer errors which were corrected in the 1769 edition of the King James Version.
By some sources, there were revisions of the King James Version which, in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, also included many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words. So is the “inspired word of God in English” represented by the “verbally inerrant” King James Version in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
Now all of the changes made to the King James Version may be dismissed by those who claim that the King James Bible is the perfect word of God. But the fact that there are acknowledged errors and necessary changes by itself reveals that God is not responsible for the translation, but that it was executed by fallible men. Anyone who claims otherwise, does so to support an agenda.
I am going to quote from an article which defends the King James Version, but which also has a more realistic attitude towards the translation. This is from Changes to the KJV since 1611: An Illustration, at Bible.org:
There are approximately 25,000 changes made in the KJV of the New Testament from the original version of 1611. But in the underlying Greek text, the numbers are significantly smaller: there are approximately 5000 changes between the Textus Receptus (the Greek text used by the KJV translators) and the modern critical texts (used as the base for modern translations). That’s one-fifth the amount of changes that have occurred within the KJV NT itself. To be sure, many of these are fairly significant. But none of them affects any major doctrine and most of them are—like the internal changes within the KJV tradition—spelling changes. In the least, this puts the matter in a bit of a different light. Again, the reason I don’t think the KJV is the best translation today is basically threefold: (1) its underlying text is farther from the original than is the text used in modern translations; (2) its translation is archaic, with now over 300 words that no longer mean what they did in 1611; (3) four hundred years of increased knowledge of the biblical world and languages have rendered many of the KJV renderings obsolete. All this is not to say that the KJV is a bad translation; I still think it stands as the greatest literary monument in the English language. And one can come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ reading the KJV just as one can get saved reading the NIV. But if one is seeking clarity and accuracy, a modern translation is much preferred.
Now we do not agree with everything that he said concerning the Greek texts: we believe that many of the differences are much more significant. However we also understand that modern churchmen often defend bad translations because the translations are so important to many church doctrines. The point is, however, that even a defender of the King James Version can face realities concerning the text and the translations.
There was another part of the original 1611 King James Version of the Bible which was removed from all modern editions, but not until the 19th century, and that is the Preface. The original Preface to the 1611 edition explained a lot of the attitudes and methods of the translators. No opinion should be promoted over their own as to the importance of the original languages, or as to what they themselves considered to be the Holy Scriptures.
In the Preface to the 1611 version, the translators spend much time extolling King James himself, they admit respect for the translators of Scripture which had come before them, and after admiring early Christians who had studied the Scripture in its original languages, they give a lengthy defense concerning the necessity of a translation. For centuries, the prevailing attitude of the Roman Church was that the Scriptures be available only in Latin. Then the Preface gives a brief history of the early translations of Scripture into both Latin and Greek, referring to the Septuagint, along with a brief survey of other translations into Dutch, French and English, evidently using them as an authority of precedent to support the cause for their own into English. In regard to these translations, the King James translators attested that “we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea”. They had this attitude because, as they make clear in their Preface, they considered the Scriptures in the original Greek and Hebrew to be the authoritative “Holy Scriptures”.
Concerning the translation itself, the original King James Preface says: “Therefore let no mans eye be evill, because his Majesties is good; neither let any be grieved, that wee have a Prince that seeketh the increase of the spirituall wealth of Israel ... but let us rather blesse God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie ... the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place.” So in their own Preface, the King James translators leave open the possibility for error and correction.
Then in the next paragraph, in response to the Puritan's complaints that earlier Bibles suffered bad translation, they wrote: “Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where.” So in their own Preface, the King James translators admit that other translations of the Scriptures are every bit as much the Word of God as their own, even if they are not the most eloquent.
In this same light, the King James translators recognized the authority of the Septuagint, even though they thought it was defective from the Hebrew. It is apparent that they thought this only because they accepted the claim of the Jews that their Masoretic Hebrew was authoritative, and they did not have the tools we have today, that allow us to know better.
Then, answering the criticism of the Catholics, because the translation of the King James Version had already been amended before the Preface was published, the translators say that “Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?” This admission alone betrays the fact that the King James Version is the work of fallible men, and the translators themselves humbly admitted their fallibility. They then add: “If we will be sonnes of the Trueth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our owne credit, yea, and upon other mens too, if either be any way an hinderance to it. This to the cause: then to the persons we say, that of all men they ought to bee most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not onely of their Service bookes, Portesses and Breviaries, but also of their Latine Translation?” So the King James translators admit that sons of truth should study their own works, recognize possible errors, and seek to correct even themselves.
Then concerning the work of the earliest Christian writers and translators, the Preface says: “If you aske what they had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Greeke of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches emptie themselves into the golde. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or originall tongues; Saint Jerome, fountaines. The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.” So the original languages bear the authority of the Word of God. Then after discussing other translations they affirm that “neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.” And with all this they do not assert that their work is the final English authority, rather, they assert that it can be reconsidered and improved.
The original 1611 King James Version also included hundreds of words in the margins, which represented what they considered to be alternate renderings of Greek or Hebrew words. Here in part, is what they wrote about this: “Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgmet not to be so be so sound in this point…. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.... Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?… Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded. ” So here the King James translators admit that they are not the final authority of the Greek or Hebrew words of Scripture, and that many things require further study on the part of the individual. Their entire attitude is quite contrary to those of today who somehow claim that the King James Version is the final word on Scripture. In this aspect, they themselves conclude: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”
There is no doubt that the King James Bible was a very eloquent work of art. But today we have an additional 400 years of Greek scholarship, the archaeological discovery of hundreds of more ancient manuscripts, and many other excellent tools available to us which the King James Version translators did not have. We deceive ourselves if we limit our understanding of our Christian faith to their work, and in their own Preface, they certainly would agree.
Now, we can sympathize with many of our Christian Identity brethren, that being raised on the King James Version of the Bible, they have come to trust it, and it is all they have ever known. But that does not in itself make the King James Version of Scripture the only acceptable version of the inspired Word of God in English, and we have seen that the King James translators themselves would never have believed that. What about the generations of Greek and Latin readers who knew no other version of the Old Testament outside of the Septuagint or Vulgate, and those of the West who knew no other New Testament but what they were told from the Latin translations? And when the Geneva Bible or the King James Version was published, those Latin copies which so many churchmen and lay people knew were under attack, because the knew English versions were based on “original languages”? Now today, we have many better manuscripts of the original languages than the scant manuscripts which the King James translators had, and we would be hypocrites if we refused to use them to improve on their work.
We can also sympathize, that these people who know nothing but the King James Version cling to it because for almost a hundred years now they have been assaulted with modern versions, and often those modern versions have had nefarious agendas. There is no doubt that some have arisen having one agenda or another, and have attempted to recreate the Bible and form their god in their own image. From this, quite fraudulent translations have been made, such as the Living Bible, or one more recent edition purposely mistranslated to be “gender inclusive”, which we can consider as feminist. Of course we must forever guard against such people. But that is where inspiration and motivation must come into consideration: there are honest men, and there are dishonest men, and each are known by their fruits. The dishonest, however, are no excuse for refusing the work of the honest students of Scripture.
This Missouri pastor simply refused to accept that I, being an Identity Christian, have a perspective of Scripture from a purely historical viewpoint that the King James translators did not have, but which is more agreeable to the context of the Bible. That perspective allows for a much more honest Biblical translation, and the King James has many faults which his own ideology will never allow him to admit no matter how well I can explain and prove them. He also could not understand that today we are blessed with resources that were out of reach to the King James translators, which provide us with much better original manuscripts and a much better understanding of the original Greek language in which they were written. I may never get him to realize these things, but here I hope to begin an ongoing effort to answer and correct these so-called “King James Only” Christians.
Recently, during our visit to some Christian Identity brethren in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, I was introduced... View MoreAddressing “King James Only” Christians (Click here for a 1611 King James Version facsimile)
Recently, during our visit to some Christian Identity brethren in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, I was introduced to a man from Missouri who considers himself an Identity Christian and a pastor. He and some others actually sat in the room with me and listened to one of my presentations of Bertrand Comparet's sermons.
We had a long discussion after that program was completed. But I quickly found out that this man, who I do esteem to be a sincere Identity Christian, did not like anything of what I had said about the King James Version translation of the Bible. In fact, he refused to acknowledge that the King James Version could be amended or improved upon in any way. He insisted that talking about the Scripture, “we need a sold foundation”, as he called it, and that the King James Version was the only solid foundation inspired by God.
Is it really true, that the King James Version is the only Scripture inspired by God, and is it true that it was inspired by God? In Psalm 147:19 we read that God “... sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.” Therefore there must have been Holy Scriptures before 1611, that Israelites could understand. In Acts chapter 17 we see the account of the men of Berea, who hearing Paul and Silas had “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Therefore there must have been Holy Scriptures before 1611, that the Greek and Judaean men of Berea could understand.
Paul of Tarsus had wrote asking Timothy to come to him in Rome, and when he did he also asked him that “when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments” (2 Timothy 4:13). Since the King James Bible was not published until 1611, there were books and parchments that Paul of Tarsus considered to be Holy Scripture long before the King James Version. So we must ask this: which books have the greater authority, the King James Version, or those which Paul had considered to be Holy Scriptures, whether they were in his own possession, or in the possession of the men of Berea? The phrase “word of God” appears many times in Scripture, but the King James Version did not exist until nearly 1600 years after the Crucifixion. So what was the “Word of God” until then?
One thing I learned from my sometimes heated conversation with this pastor from Missouri, is that if a man has no background understanding of manuscripts and of the history of Bible translation before the King James Version, then he does not have the tools necessary to understand why the King James Version is not what he claims it to be. I spoke for a half hour about early manuscripts, the Geneva Bible, other early translations, and how the King James Version was created to supplant other translations in order to support the authority of the Anglican church, all to no avail. His steadfast position in support of the King James Version combined with a lack of historical knowledge concerning translations and manuscripts has blinded him from ever seeing the truth.
Almost 900 years before the King James Version, the Anglo-Saxon church historian Bede had written proudly about the many churchmen who had been translating the ancient Scriptures into vernacular tongues for common people to understand. These were eventually outlawed by the popes, because very often they challenged church authority.
The Protestant Reformation produced a lot of excellent and brave men willing to stand for the truth against the popes, but there is a huge difference between inspiration and motivation. There were many men who were motivated, and perhaps inspired, to translate the Scriptures into their common tongues during this period, and the King James Version is a relative late-comer. Over 200 years before, John Wycliffe and his followers, the Lollards, made the first complete Bible translation into English. Martin Luther translated the Scriptures into German roughly 90 years before the King James Version was published. The Geneva Bible was created by a group of respected English scholars in Switzerland who were fortunate enough to have escaped the persecution of the Catholic queen who is famously known as Bloody Mary.
But in nearly every way, the Anglican Church was no better than the Roman Catholic Church. King Henry VIII never reformed the church in England. Rather, he only denounced the pope in Rome as the head of the church in England, and appointed himself as the head of the Church of England. When the Geneva Bible was published, 60 years before the King James Version, it was immensely popular, and especially among English dissenters to the Church of England. These dissenters understood that the king had no ecclesiastical authority, and neither did the pope. They used better translations of certain Greek words to convey the idea of the Christian assembly as it was described in the original Scripture. So in the Geneva Bible we read congregation instead of church. That reading certainly is better, because then we see that the people of God cannot be replaced by some imperial organization. The Geneva Bible was also the world's first study Bible, with many marginal notes. Some of those notes indicated that Godliness was a resistance to tyranny, and both the kings and the popes despised that idea.
While there were other earlier English Bibles, such as the government-sanctioned Bibles known as the Great Bible and Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible was the Bible of Shakespeare, Cromwell, all of the English Puritans, the Puritans of the Mayflower who came to America in 1620, the Presbyterian Church founder John Knox, the famous English poet John Donne, the persecuted author of Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan, and the famous author of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, John Foxe. William Whittingham supervised the translation in collaboration with the famous Puritan Miles Coverdale and a group of other English scholars. These men were associated with John Calvin and his succesor, Theodore Beza. Some of these men, such as Coverdale, had worked on the previously-sanctioned English Bible, the Great Bible. The manuscripts of Stephanus and Beza were employed in the Geneva Bible translation, and also like the King James Version, much of the language – at least 80% - was patterned after the great linguist Tyndale. The fault of Tyndale's earlier Bible was that he had no Greek or Hebrew manuscripts available to him, so he was forced to use the faulty Latin Vulgate. The Geneva Bible was the first to be made from Hebrew and Greek, free of the Vulgate.
But King James found the Geneva Bible to be seditious, and especially its marginal notes. The Geneva Bible editors challenged any religious authority of kings over the congregations of Christ, and they also challenged much of the formal church structure which the Anglican church had carried over from the Roman. So King James ordered his own English Bible, and had it employ language which would uphold the official church structure, without all of the marginal notes. The King James Version marginal notes forsook the commentary, but continued to supply many of the cross-references and alternate meaning of words. Once the King James Version was published, the Geneva Bible remained far more popular. However after a short time King James banned printing of the Geneva Bible, which forced his own Bible to become the standard. Therefore modern Christians must understand that the King James Bible is popular today only because it was the government-mandated Bible of the time, and competition was eliminated by force.
This situation also prevented English Biblical studies and translation from developing any further. That is what we may fairly protest. But before further discussing the need for better translations, let's take a look at the Greek manuscripts from which the King James New Testament was translated. To do that, we will simply quote from a rather accurate and straightforward article on the Textus Receptus found at a website called Theopedia:
Textus Receptus
The term Textus Receptus is Latin meaning "Received Text". It comes from the preface to the second edition of a Greek New Testament published by the brothers Elzevir in 1633. In this preface the Elzevirs wrote, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus -- “What you have here, is the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” [The Elzevirs printed seven editions of the Greek NT between 1624 and 1678. Unlike the editions of Erasmus, Estienne, and Beza before them, the Elzevirs were not editors of the editions attributed to them, only the printers. Ref. J. Harold Greenlee, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 2nd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), p. 65.] From this statement comes the term Textus Receptus or TR, which today is commonly applied to all editions of the printed Greek NT before the Elzevir’s, beginning with Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1496-1536) and his first published edition in 1516.
BACK APPLIED
Background
Erasmus was the author of five published editions from 1516 to 1535. His consolidated Greek text was based on only seven minuscule manuscripts of the Byzantine text type that he had access to in Basel at the time, and he relied mainly on two of these - both dating from the twelfth century. [William W. Combs, Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996): 35–53.]
Although many point to obvious limitations and certain short-comings in Erasmus' first Greek text, later editors used it as their starting point, making minor revisions as needed based on additional Greek manuscript evidence.
Robert Estienne (known as Stephanus) (1503-1559) edited and printed four editions from 1546 to 1551. His third edition of 1550 was the first to have a critical apparatus, with references to the Complutensian Polyglot and fifteen additional Greek manuscripts. The fourth edition of 1551 had the same Greek text as the third, but is especially noteworthy for its division of the NT books into chapters and verses, a system still in use today. [The first Bible in English to use both chapters and verses was the Geneva Bible published in 1560. These verse divisions soon gained acceptance as a standard way to notate verses, and have since been used in virtually all English Bibles.]
Theodore Beza (1519-1605) published four independent editions from 1565 to 1604. His text was essentially a reprinting of Stephanus’ third edition (1550) with minor changes.
The third edition of Stephanus (1550) became the standard form of the Greek NT text in England and that of the Elzevirs (1633) on the continent. [William W. Combs, op. cit.] The Stephanus 1550 text as given in Beza’s edition of 1598 was the main source for translators of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible.
Now Erasmus was a humanist, and while he was a very respected scholar of his time, he was virtually idolized by humanists, and he is to this day. I could make a fair criticism of his motivations in other areas. However, in Scripture, let us assume that Erasmus had worked with the best tools available to him. There are thousands of miniscule manuscripts in existence today, the oldest of which date back to the 9th century. Those available to Erasmus did not predate the 10th century. These manuscripts, the work of medieval copyists, frequently disagree with one another. Many of them also contain late interpolations or substitute words when compared with the earliest known manuscripts of Scripture, which are the Great Uncials and the papyri, many copies of which date to earlier than the 6th century.
So Erasmus only had 7 miniscules available to him, and he did the best he could with these. But the manuscripts he had were missing certain verses that were found in the Latin Vulgate. So Erasmus simply back-translated these, meaning that he basically guessed at what the Greek should say from what the Latin of the Vulgate said. Then Stephanus, and later Elzevir, worked with the product of Erasmus to create their own editions. While Stephanus was also a great scholar, and added 15 miniscules to the 7 of Erasmus, neither did he have the best source material. But he did well in one area, to make a critical apparatus comparing the variant readings in the manuscripts which he did have, and that practice is still useful to scholars today.
But the King James translators did not follow Erasmus exclusively, and neither did they follow Stephanus or Beza exclusively. So what manuscripts did they employ? The truth is that the King James Version of 1611 was not based on any single known manuscript. Rather, the translators basically cherry-picked a host of secondary versions in addition to these few scholarly editions in order to arrive at its English text. This can be proven by comparing the King James translation with its sources. It employed the 1527 manuscript of Erasmus, the 1550 manuscript of Stephanus, the 1598 manuscript of Beza, and to some extent the 1522 Complutensian Polyglot, and the 1592 Clementine Vulgate. While these later two manuscripts may not have made a large impact on the translation of the King James Version, when the italicized words are inspected it seems that these manuscripts were indeed an influence on the final text. We will discuss the italicized words shortly.
Now that we have discussed why the King James Version was authorized, and we have seen from what manuscripts it was created, we must ask this: Which King James Version is the absolute authority on the Word of God? That is because the King James Version which we have today is not the Bible that King James had authorized.
In 1769, the original King James Version began to be replaced with another version, and to explain that we will summarize an article entitled Changes in the King James Version found at a website called Bible Research, and also offer some of our own comments. This article concerns only the New Testament:
Changes in the King James Version
In 1769 the Oxford University Press published an edition of the King James version in which many small changes were made. These changes were of five kinds: 1. Greater and more regular use of italics; 2. minor changes in the text; 3. the adoption of modern spelling; 4. changes in the marginal notes and references; and, 5. correction of printers' errors. This edition soon came to be known as "The Oxford Standard" edition, because it was widely accepted as a standard text by commentators and other publishers. The editions of the King James version published in our century generally reproduce this Oxford edition of 1769, with or without the marginal notes. The following information is given so that the reader may gain an accurate impression of how far the modern editions differ from the original King James version of 1611.
Now while this article does mention changes finalized in 1769 regarding the removal of the books of the Apocrypha, it does not really concern itself with the Apocrypha. The original 1611 King James Version of the Bible included the Apocryphal books. However it was not until the Westminster Confession of 1647 that the Anglican Church officially excluded the Apocrypha from its canon. The Puritans were the first to print Bibles excluding the Apocryphal books, but evidently not until after 1666.
It must be born in mind, however, that if the authorization of King James or the original translators are required in order to uphold the exclusive authority of the King James Version, then that would have to include all of the books of the Apocrypha, since originally they were authorized as part of the English Bible just as much as the other books. Today, “King James Only” advocates give reasons for the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the 1611 King James Version which the original King James translators did not give, so they are only making or repeating excuses.
§ 1. ITALICIZED WORDS OR PHRASES
The King James version was originally printed in the type style known as "black letter," which [appear like traditional Medieval English lettering] Words of the translation which were supplied to make the sense clear, but which were not represented in the Greek text used by the translators, were often set in small "roman" type… In later editions, the ordinary text was set in roman type, with the supplied words in italics…
The important things to note here is that there are many words in the King James Version which appear in italics, which are admittedly not a part of the Greek manuscripts that the King James Version was translated from. It is the translators assertion that this is necessary to make the sense clear, but that is a highly contestable position.
This typographical feature was not employed very consistently in the 1611 edition; in many places the supplied words are not indicated as one might expect. This inconsistency was probably the fault of the printer's compositors, who very often modified even the spelling of words in order to lengthen or shorten a line of type.
We will note later, that if it is supposed that God inspired the translators to be perfect, as many KJV-only Christians claim, then why did God not inspire the printers to be perfect as well? This is especially important, because it is another little-known fact that the original copies of the translators were destroyed in the great fire in London in 1666. From that time, all that was left are the copies of the printers, which contained acknowledged errors.
The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found…
Estienne is the surname of Stephanus, or Stephens. If the original 1611 translation had marked 69 words in Matthew as being added to the Scripture, but the 1769 edition marked 384 such words, that is a sizable error to merely attribute to the printers. But it is equally important to note that there were 384 words added to Matthew by the translators, which are not in the original Greek of the manuscripts which they employed.
Our article then says:
§ 2. MINOR ALTERATIONS OF THE TEXT
The following list includes all changes to the text of 1611 which do not involve the correction of obvious errors of the press (examples of which are given in § 5 below), or changes of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Most of these changes were made with reference to the text of Estienne 1550, and with a view to greater clarity or accuracy. The changes marked with an asterix "*" are all those which are considered improper or unnecessary by F.H.A. Scrivener, an eminent authority on the text of the KJV, in his book, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. (Cambridge: University Press, 1884).
The article then provides a list of 111 verses in the New Testament which had been changed in 1769 from the 1611 edition of the King James Version. Most of them are relatively minor, but these are not printer's errors. Rather they were deemed to be corrections of the original translation from the Greek. If the King James Version is the inspired Word of God in English, we must ask this: which King James Version does that include? Or does God change His mind because He allowed, or even made, mistakes?
Section 3 of our source article concerns the modernization of spelling, and the altering of words to make the spellings, punctuations or capitalization consistent. This raises another issue in relation to the claims of the divine inspiration of the translation.
§ 4. MARGINAL CHANGES IN THE OXFORD EDITION OF 1769
In the first edition of the King James version, marginal notes indicating various renderings or readings appeared in 775 places in the New Testament. Of these notes, 34 evidently referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts. They appear in the following places: Mat 1:11, 7:14, 24:31, 26:26; Mark 7:3, 9:16; Luke 2:38, 10:22, 17:36; John 18:13; Acts 13:18, 25:6; Rom. 5:17, 7:6, 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:31; Gal. 4:15, 4:17; Eph. 6:9; 1 Tim. 6:5; Heb. 4:2, 9:2; James 2:18; 1 Pet. 1:4, 2:21; 2 Pet. 2:2, 2:11, 2:18; 2 John 1:8; Rev. 3:14, 6:8, 13:1, 13:5, 17:5.
The editors of the 1769 edition left all of the original marginal readings and renderings unchanged, but added 87 more notes, of which 17 referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts.
The article then gives a sample by listing the marginal notes added to Matthew, and then gives a separate list of translation alternatives added to the marginal notes of the entire New Testament. These lists of alternate readings also betray the influences of the Vulgate on the King James translation.
Section 5 of our source article gives 5 printing errors from Matthew as an example of the printer errors which were corrected in the 1769 edition of the King James Version.
By some sources, there were revisions of the King James Version which, in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, also included many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words. So is the “inspired word of God in English” represented by the “verbally inerrant” King James Version in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
Now all of the changes made to the King James Version may be dismissed by those who claim that the King James Bible is the perfect word of God. But the fact that there are acknowledged errors and necessary changes by itself reveals that God is not responsible for the translation, but that it was executed by fallible men. Anyone who claims otherwise, does so to support an agenda.
I am going to quote from an article which defends the King James Version, but which also has a more realistic attitude towards the translation. This is from Changes to the KJV since 1611: An Illustration, at Bible.org:
There are approximately 25,000 changes made in the KJV of the New Testament from the original version of 1611. But in the underlying Greek text, the numbers are significantly smaller: there are approximately 5000 changes between the Textus Receptus (the Greek text used by the KJV translators) and the modern critical texts (used as the base for modern translations). That’s one-fifth the amount of changes that have occurred within the KJV NT itself. To be sure, many of these are fairly significant. But none of them affects any major doctrine and most of them are—like the internal changes within the KJV tradition—spelling changes. In the least, this puts the matter in a bit of a different light. Again, the reason I don’t think the KJV is the best translation today is basically threefold: (1) its underlying text is farther from the original than is the text used in modern translations; (2) its translation is archaic, with now over 300 words that no longer mean what they did in 1611; (3) four hundred years of increased knowledge of the biblical world and languages have rendered many of the KJV renderings obsolete. All this is not to say that the KJV is a bad translation; I still think it stands as the greatest literary monument in the English language. And one can come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ reading the KJV just as one can get saved reading the NIV. But if one is seeking clarity and accuracy, a modern translation is much preferred.
Now we do not agree with everything that he said concerning the Greek texts: we believe that many of the differences are much more significant. However we also understand that modern churchmen often defend bad translations because the translations are so important to many church doctrines. The point is, however, that even a defender of the King James Version can face realities concerning the text and the translations.
There was another part of the original 1611 King James Version of the Bible which was removed from all modern editions, but not until the 19th century, and that is the Preface. The original Preface to the 1611 edition explained a lot of the attitudes and methods of the translators. No opinion should be promoted over their own as to the importance of the original languages, or as to what they themselves considered to be the Holy Scriptures.
In the Preface to the 1611 version, the translators spend much time extolling King James himself, they admit respect for the translators of Scripture which had come before them, and after admiring early Christians who had studied the Scripture in its original languages, they give a lengthy defense concerning the necessity of a translation. For centuries, the prevailing attitude of the Roman Church was that the Scriptures be available only in Latin. Then the Preface gives a brief history of the early translations of Scripture into both Latin and Greek, referring to the Septuagint, along with a brief survey of other translations into Dutch, French and English, evidently using them as an authority of precedent to support the cause for their own into English. In regard to these translations, the King James translators attested that “we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea”. They had this attitude because, as they make clear in their Preface, they considered the Scriptures in the original Greek and Hebrew to be the authoritative “Holy Scriptures”.
Concerning the translation itself, the original King James Preface says: “Therefore let no mans eye be evill, because his Majesties is good; neither let any be grieved, that wee have a Prince that seeketh the increase of the spirituall wealth of Israel ... but let us rather blesse God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie ... the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place.” So in their own Preface, the King James translators leave open the possibility for error and correction.
Then in the next paragraph, in response to the Puritan's complaints that earlier Bibles suffered bad translation, they wrote: “Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where.” So in their own Preface, the King James translators admit that other translations of the Scriptures are every bit as much the Word of God as their own, even if they are not the most eloquent.
In this same light, the King James translators recognized the authority of the Septuagint, even though they thought it was defective from the Hebrew. It is apparent that they thought this only because they accepted the claim of the Jews that their Masoretic Hebrew was authoritative, and they did not have the tools we have today, that allow us to know better.
Then, answering the criticism of the Catholics, because the translation of the King James Version had already been amended before the Preface was published, the translators say that “Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?” This admission alone betrays the fact that the King James Version is the work of fallible men, and the translators themselves humbly admitted their fallibility. They then add: “If we will be sonnes of the Trueth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our owne credit, yea, and upon other mens too, if either be any way an hinderance to it. This to the cause: then to the persons we say, that of all men they ought to bee most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not onely of their Service bookes, Portesses and Breviaries, but also of their Latine Translation?” So the King James translators admit that sons of truth should study their own works, recognize possible errors, and seek to correct even themselves.
Then concerning the work of the earliest Christian writers and translators, the Preface says: “If you aske what they had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Greeke of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches emptie themselves into the golde. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or originall tongues; Saint Jerome, fountaines. The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.” So the original languages bear the authority of the Word of God. Then after discussing other translations they affirm that “neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.” And with all this they do not assert that their work is the final English authority, rather, they assert that it can be reconsidered and improved.
The original 1611 King James Version also included hundreds of words in the margins, which represented what they considered to be alternate renderings of Greek or Hebrew words. Here in part, is what they wrote about this: “Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgmet not to be so be so sound in this point…. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.... Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?… Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded. ” So here the King James translators admit that they are not the final authority of the Greek or Hebrew words of Scripture, and that many things require further study on the part of the individual. Their entire attitude is quite contrary to those of today who somehow claim that the King James Version is the final word on Scripture. In this aspect, they themselves conclude: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”
There is no doubt that the King James Bible was a very eloquent work of art. But today we have an additional 400 years of Greek scholarship, the archaeological discovery of hundreds of more ancient manuscripts, and many other excellent tools available to us which the King James Version translators did not have. We deceive ourselves if we limit our understanding of our Christian faith to their work, and in their own Preface, they certainly would agree.
Now, we can sympathize with many of our Christian Identity brethren, that being raised on the King James Version of the Bible, they have come to trust it, and it is all they have ever known. But that does not in itself make the King James Version of Scripture the only acceptable version of the inspired Word of God in English, and we have seen that the King James translators themselves would never have believed that. What about the generations of Greek and Latin readers who knew no other version of the Old Testament outside of the Septuagint or Vulgate, and those of the West who knew no other New Testament but what they were told from the Latin translations? And when the Geneva Bible or the King James Version was published, those Latin copies which so many churchmen and lay people knew were under attack, because the knew English versions were based on “original languages”? Now today, we have many better manuscripts of the original languages than the scant manuscripts which the King James translators had, and we would be hypocrites if we refused to use them to improve on their work.
We can also sympathize, that these people who know nothing but the King James Version cling to it because for almost a hundred years now they have been assaulted with modern versions, and often those modern versions have had nefarious agendas. There is no doubt that some have arisen having one agenda or another, and have attempted to recreate the Bible and form their god in their own image. From this, quite fraudulent translations have been made, such as the Living Bible, or one more recent edition purposely mistranslated to be “gender inclusive”, which we can consider as feminist. Of course we must forever guard against such people. But that is where inspiration and motivation must come into consideration: there are honest men, and there are dishonest men, and each are known by their fruits. The dishonest, however, are no excuse for refusing the work of the honest students of Scripture.
This Missouri pastor simply refused to accept that I, being an Identity Christian, have a perspective of Scripture from a purely historical viewpoint that the King James translators did not have, but which is more agreeable to the context of the Bible. That perspective allows for a much more honest Biblical translation, and the King James has many faults which his own ideology will never allow him to admit no matter how well I can explain and prove them. He also could not understand that today we are blessed with resources that were out of reach to the King James translators, which provide us with much better original manuscripts and a much better understanding of the original Greek language in which they were written. I may never get him to realize these things, but here I hope to begin an ongoing effort to answer and correct these so-called “King James Only” Christians.
Sturmgeist
Not gonna be a popular opinion is some circles: We never abolished slavery; we just put it behind a curtain.
- August 23, 2022
- ·
- Like Unlike
- ·
- React
- ·
- Give Award
- ·
- 1 person
Site logo image unshackledminds.com
The healthcare system is a giant SCAM (that you pay for)
Auto
Aug 22
Sorelle Amore Finance - Aug 5, 2022
OUR NEWSLETTER: https://www.abundantia.co/
OUR COURSE/MEMBERSHIP... View MoreSite logo image unshackledminds.com
The healthcare system is a giant SCAM (that you pay for)
Auto
Aug 22
Sorelle Amore Finance - Aug 5, 2022
OUR NEWSLETTER: https://www.abundantia.co/
OUR COURSE/MEMBERSHIP: http://jointheorder.co/
The US healthcare system is a financial scam, designed for profit, not care. Unlike the rest of the world, the entire medical and healthcare system in the United States is for profit. And when there's money to be made, you can almost be sure that someone will abuse the system.
Health insurers implement secretive practices that stop people from accurately knowing what they're being charged. Companies like TeamHealth (owned by Blackstone) have such an influence over the business of the medical industry, that chances are your doctor or nurse is employed by them. And investment firms like Vanguard and Blackrock own at least a part in almost every single major publicly-traded hospital or healthcare system in the entire nation.
And of course, as you might expect, it's the poorest people in the nation who always suffer as a result of this. People who can't afford insurance, and even beg people not to take them to hospital when injured, because they likely won't be able to afford treatment.
The healthcare system is a giant SCAM (that you pay for)
Auto
Aug 22
Sorelle Amore Finance - Aug 5, 2022
OUR NEWSLETTER: https://www.abundantia.co/
OUR COURSE/MEMBERSHIP... View MoreSite logo image unshackledminds.com
The healthcare system is a giant SCAM (that you pay for)
Auto
Aug 22
Sorelle Amore Finance - Aug 5, 2022
OUR NEWSLETTER: https://www.abundantia.co/
OUR COURSE/MEMBERSHIP: http://jointheorder.co/
The US healthcare system is a financial scam, designed for profit, not care. Unlike the rest of the world, the entire medical and healthcare system in the United States is for profit. And when there's money to be made, you can almost be sure that someone will abuse the system.
Health insurers implement secretive practices that stop people from accurately knowing what they're being charged. Companies like TeamHealth (owned by Blackstone) have such an influence over the business of the medical industry, that chances are your doctor or nurse is employed by them. And investment firms like Vanguard and Blackrock own at least a part in almost every single major publicly-traded hospital or healthcare system in the entire nation.
And of course, as you might expect, it's the poorest people in the nation who always suffer as a result of this. People who can't afford insurance, and even beg people not to take them to hospital when injured, because they likely won't be able to afford treatment.
Russell James likes this.
Bill Gates, Climate Change Tyranny, IRS Brown Shirts, A Lemonade Stand And Civil War
By Chuck Baldwin
August 18, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
In today’s column, I want to po... View MoreBill Gates, Climate Change Tyranny, IRS Brown Shirts, A Lemonade Stand And Civil War
By Chuck Baldwin
August 18, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
In today’s column, I want to point out several noteworthy news items. As I wrote last week, America and Western Europe are in a steep freefall that mirrors the collapse of the old Roman Empire. And the pace of that descent is increasing exponentially every day.
The following items help to illustrate the utter disregard for Life and Liberty displayed by Big Government lackeys and their super-rich (and super-evil) handlers that are facilitating America’s decline and fall.
Public Enemy Number One: Bill Gates
Bill Gates continues to earn his reputation as the most evil man on planet earth. This diabolical mass murderer never seems to run out of ideas on how to inflict the most damage possible on innocent people while enriching himself at the same time. Gates is truly a genius—an EVIL genius.
Livestock industry leaders have urged Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthrophist [sic] Bill Gates to undertake more research into livestock production after he called for policies requiring people in rich countries to eat “100 percent synthetic beef”.
Mr. Gates, who has invested in range [sic] of ‘synthetic meat’ startups including Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, Memphis Meats and Hampton Creek Foods, made the comments in an interview promoting his new book ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster’.
“I do think all rich countries should move to 100 percent synthetic beef,” he said.
“You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time.
“Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”
Mr. Gates said in the MIT interview he wasn’t sure if ‘lab grown’ meat like Memphis Meats will ever be economical.
In his new book Mr. Gates says using regulation to force a shift to synthetic meat is only one of a wide range of government policies that will ultimately be needed to avoid a climate disaster. (Source)
Now you know why Gates is buying up so much farm land.
The Real War on Climate Change is War on Freedom
Tyler Durden quotes Barbara Baarsma. Barbara is the CEO of Rabo Carbon Bank.
“Let’s ensure that every household or every citizen of the Netherlands receives a certain amount of carbon emission rights. This way we can ensure that we do not emit more than our yearly limit. Your emission rights will be stored in a carbon wallet. So if I wanted to fly, I would buy some carbon emission rights from someone who can’t afford to fly. For example this way this poor person can earn some extra money.
Or if someone lives in a small house, he can sell his emission rights to someone who lives in a big house, this way poor people can benefit from the green economy.”
Wow. Quite something, isn’t it. Let’s pick it apart and then look at how they are probably going to implement it.
You could argue that it’s just another level of taxation which the globalists will take. I think it runs far deeper. When Bankers start using expressions like rights, poor people and green economy you can be sure that they are envisaging a world for the elite. They don’t give a fig about anyone else.
So in its most basic form, you'll have no fun and won’t be allowed to travel anywhere. But don’t worry the elites will have the fun for you.
This is nothing more than Totalitarianism.
Did I forget to mention that Rabobank and Baarsma are both in the World Economic Forum.
When most people think of carbon emissions and carbon footprints they think it only refers to travel, fuel, gas and electricity all under the guise of emissions. I hate to break it to you but it runs far deeper than that.
Let me now introduce you to Doc Ono, a company you may never have heard of.
Doconomy is a “credit card” endorsed by Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum.
In May 2019 an article appeared on the WEF site called
“This credit card has a carbon-emission spending limit”
In the article it says
“Swedish fintech company Doconomy has launched a new credit card that monitors the carbon footprint of its customers - and cuts off their spending when they hit their carbon max.”
Yikes, cuts off their spending.
It continues
“The DO card tracks the CO2 emissions linked to purchases to calculate the carbon impact of every transaction. The aim is to encourage people to actively reduce their carbon footprint and demonstrate the impact that small changes can have on the environment.
The card uses the Aland Index as the basis on which it calculates the carbon footprint of each product purchased. Users can set a maximum value for their carbon spend and learn how to compensate for their carbon footprint by contributing towards schemes to reduce or remove greenhouse gas emissions.”
Now we are getting closer to the truth of how this is going to operate. It isn’t just travel, it will be for everything.
Biden Creating IRS Brown Shirts
A former IRS whistleblower sets the record straight about the doubling of the size of the Internal Revenue Service.
William Henck, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lawyer who was forced out after making allegations of internal malfeasance, said the government will target middle-income Americans with new audits under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Henck added that he thought it was "insane" to double the agency's budget. He said the IRS will target businesses who don't have enough money to hire Washington lobbyists.
Americans with an annual income of less than $75,000 would be subject to nearly 711,000 new IRS audits under the legislation, according to a House GOP analysis that used historic audit rates. By comparison, individuals making more than $500,000 will receive about 95,000 additional audits as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Matt Agorist adds:
In response to the record inflation facing Americans currently — thanks to massive and irresponsible printing of money by the Federal Reserve — the US government has come up with a "plan." This new plan involves doubling down on the same irresponsible fiscal behavior which brought us to this nightmare scenario in the first place, which is hundreds of billions in new spending.
This time, however, there will be a literal army of enforcers to take your money to pay back some of this interest to the Fed.
The Schumer-Manchin tax bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed the Senate on Sunday, raises taxes and allocates a whopping $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service so they can increase enforcement. Just how big is "whopping"? The proposed increase is more than six times the current annual budget of the IRS which sits at $12.6 billion.
With this insane increase in spending, the IRS will be doubling their total workforce by hiring an additional 80,000 to 87,000 additional employees who will be trained to separate you from the product of your labor.
The plan is being lauded by Democrats who claim that this $80 billion and 87,000 more agents are necessary and will be used to "crack down on wealthy tax evaders." But this is simply not true.
According to an analysis from Credit Suisse, there are roughly 788 billionaires in the United States and roughly 89,510 people worth more than $50 million. If the establishment was truly concerned about going after the "wealthy," they would only have about 90,000 folks to monitor. And, if they doubled their ranks, it would mean nearly two IRS agents per extremely wealthy individual.
In reality, this new army of wage thieves will be enforcing a system of slavery on the 99 percent of Americans below the "wealthy" range.
Sadly, this bill is receiving support in Washington and widespread praise in corporate media. This is in spite of the fact that it will do nothing to reduce inflation and had loopholes built in for the super rich before it even went to the Senate floor.
Plus, the IRS will use part of its new found wealth to open a Sniper School for agents. You can bet your last dollar that the 1% will not be in those crosshairs. In addition, part of the IRS-published job descriptions is that applicants "Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary" and "Be willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments." (Source)
Remember how Rome would send its military troops to take taxes from the peasants at the force of arms with death being the penalty for non-compliance? It appears that Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats in Congress want to bring that day to America.
The Police State in Ohio Shuts Down a “Criminal” Lemonade Stand
Asa Baker is an 8-year-old girl from Ohio with an overwhelming entrepreneurial spirit. Over the hot summer, rather than spend the days inside watching TV, Asa would set up a lemonade stand in her front yard to make some cash.
“It’s fun and you get lots of people,” Asa told FOX 8 news in an interview, adding that lots of truckers stop by and pay more than the $1 per cup that she charges.
“Especially on a country road, I get a lot of people,” she said.
Unfortunately for Asa, however, her summer of entrepreneurial spirit would come to a grinding halt when police shut down her stand for the crime of selling lemonade without a permit.
Earlier this month, Asa had her first experience with the state's iron fist when she set up her stand at her father's business downtown. Everything was cleared with the property owner and she had permission to be there during the town's annual Rib and Food Festival.
Asa was in an alleyway about a half block from the festival and business was good — until police showed up.
Asa says when she saw a police officer walking up to her stand she thought he was going to buy a cup of lemonade. But that was not his mission. Instead of encouraging the little girl's business acumen in the lemonade realm, he was there to shut her down.
“We looked it up and it was pretty much anywhere in Ohio. You have to have a license and I’ve never heard of that,” said Kyle Clark, Asa’s Dad.
FOX 8 reached out to the city who stated that the police department is obligated to enforce the city's ordinances — apparently, even if it means quashing an 8-year-old girl's spirit.
The good news is that Asa was unphased and a week later, she was back out on the street, selling lemonade. After the negative press on social media, this time, police said they were going to leave her alone — a win for civil disobedience. (Source)
I think John Whitehead’s quote of Harry Truman (one of my least favorite presidents, by the way) summarizes our current state of affairs very well:
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
Civil War
The increasing tyrannical nature of our federal government has a lot of people talking about civil war. The truth is, our Founding Fathers fought a revolutionary war over infractions FAR LESS egregious than those the American people have been willing to tolerate for decades now.
But then again, I don’t see very many people today with the courage and character of our Founding Fathers. The only modern American in national politics that reaches to the sublime heights of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry is Dr. Ron Paul—and he is now retired.
Plus, the glaring difference between Colonial America and modern America is the absence of Colonial America’s patriot pastors. Instead of the spiritual giants Jonas Clark, John Peter Muhlenburg, James Caldwell and John Witherspoon, we are stuck with the spiritual pygmies Robert Jeffress, John Hagee, Franklin Graham and Kenneth Copeland.
At this moment, our society is too comfortable, too complacent, too ignorant of history, too spiritually unfit, too self-absorbed, too pleasure-mad and too in love with dependency on government to even think about civil war.
However, if the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban passes the U.S. Senate and becomes law, the NEXT gun control law will be the mandatory confiscation of all semi-automatic rifles. If that should happen, all bets are off.
© Chuck Baldwin
By Chuck Baldwin
August 18, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
In today’s column, I want to po... View MoreBill Gates, Climate Change Tyranny, IRS Brown Shirts, A Lemonade Stand And Civil War
By Chuck Baldwin
August 18, 2022
(To subscribe to my columns at no cost, click here.)
In today’s column, I want to point out several noteworthy news items. As I wrote last week, America and Western Europe are in a steep freefall that mirrors the collapse of the old Roman Empire. And the pace of that descent is increasing exponentially every day.
The following items help to illustrate the utter disregard for Life and Liberty displayed by Big Government lackeys and their super-rich (and super-evil) handlers that are facilitating America’s decline and fall.
Public Enemy Number One: Bill Gates
Bill Gates continues to earn his reputation as the most evil man on planet earth. This diabolical mass murderer never seems to run out of ideas on how to inflict the most damage possible on innocent people while enriching himself at the same time. Gates is truly a genius—an EVIL genius.
Livestock industry leaders have urged Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthrophist [sic] Bill Gates to undertake more research into livestock production after he called for policies requiring people in rich countries to eat “100 percent synthetic beef”.
Mr. Gates, who has invested in range [sic] of ‘synthetic meat’ startups including Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, Memphis Meats and Hampton Creek Foods, made the comments in an interview promoting his new book ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster’.
“I do think all rich countries should move to 100 percent synthetic beef,” he said.
“You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time.
“Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”
Mr. Gates said in the MIT interview he wasn’t sure if ‘lab grown’ meat like Memphis Meats will ever be economical.
In his new book Mr. Gates says using regulation to force a shift to synthetic meat is only one of a wide range of government policies that will ultimately be needed to avoid a climate disaster. (Source)
Now you know why Gates is buying up so much farm land.
The Real War on Climate Change is War on Freedom
Tyler Durden quotes Barbara Baarsma. Barbara is the CEO of Rabo Carbon Bank.
“Let’s ensure that every household or every citizen of the Netherlands receives a certain amount of carbon emission rights. This way we can ensure that we do not emit more than our yearly limit. Your emission rights will be stored in a carbon wallet. So if I wanted to fly, I would buy some carbon emission rights from someone who can’t afford to fly. For example this way this poor person can earn some extra money.
Or if someone lives in a small house, he can sell his emission rights to someone who lives in a big house, this way poor people can benefit from the green economy.”
Wow. Quite something, isn’t it. Let’s pick it apart and then look at how they are probably going to implement it.
You could argue that it’s just another level of taxation which the globalists will take. I think it runs far deeper. When Bankers start using expressions like rights, poor people and green economy you can be sure that they are envisaging a world for the elite. They don’t give a fig about anyone else.
So in its most basic form, you'll have no fun and won’t be allowed to travel anywhere. But don’t worry the elites will have the fun for you.
This is nothing more than Totalitarianism.
Did I forget to mention that Rabobank and Baarsma are both in the World Economic Forum.
When most people think of carbon emissions and carbon footprints they think it only refers to travel, fuel, gas and electricity all under the guise of emissions. I hate to break it to you but it runs far deeper than that.
Let me now introduce you to Doc Ono, a company you may never have heard of.
Doconomy is a “credit card” endorsed by Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum.
In May 2019 an article appeared on the WEF site called
“This credit card has a carbon-emission spending limit”
In the article it says
“Swedish fintech company Doconomy has launched a new credit card that monitors the carbon footprint of its customers - and cuts off their spending when they hit their carbon max.”
Yikes, cuts off their spending.
It continues
“The DO card tracks the CO2 emissions linked to purchases to calculate the carbon impact of every transaction. The aim is to encourage people to actively reduce their carbon footprint and demonstrate the impact that small changes can have on the environment.
The card uses the Aland Index as the basis on which it calculates the carbon footprint of each product purchased. Users can set a maximum value for their carbon spend and learn how to compensate for their carbon footprint by contributing towards schemes to reduce or remove greenhouse gas emissions.”
Now we are getting closer to the truth of how this is going to operate. It isn’t just travel, it will be for everything.
Biden Creating IRS Brown Shirts
A former IRS whistleblower sets the record straight about the doubling of the size of the Internal Revenue Service.
William Henck, a former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lawyer who was forced out after making allegations of internal malfeasance, said the government will target middle-income Americans with new audits under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Henck added that he thought it was "insane" to double the agency's budget. He said the IRS will target businesses who don't have enough money to hire Washington lobbyists.
Americans with an annual income of less than $75,000 would be subject to nearly 711,000 new IRS audits under the legislation, according to a House GOP analysis that used historic audit rates. By comparison, individuals making more than $500,000 will receive about 95,000 additional audits as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act.
Matt Agorist adds:
In response to the record inflation facing Americans currently — thanks to massive and irresponsible printing of money by the Federal Reserve — the US government has come up with a "plan." This new plan involves doubling down on the same irresponsible fiscal behavior which brought us to this nightmare scenario in the first place, which is hundreds of billions in new spending.
This time, however, there will be a literal army of enforcers to take your money to pay back some of this interest to the Fed.
The Schumer-Manchin tax bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed the Senate on Sunday, raises taxes and allocates a whopping $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service so they can increase enforcement. Just how big is "whopping"? The proposed increase is more than six times the current annual budget of the IRS which sits at $12.6 billion.
With this insane increase in spending, the IRS will be doubling their total workforce by hiring an additional 80,000 to 87,000 additional employees who will be trained to separate you from the product of your labor.
The plan is being lauded by Democrats who claim that this $80 billion and 87,000 more agents are necessary and will be used to "crack down on wealthy tax evaders." But this is simply not true.
According to an analysis from Credit Suisse, there are roughly 788 billionaires in the United States and roughly 89,510 people worth more than $50 million. If the establishment was truly concerned about going after the "wealthy," they would only have about 90,000 folks to monitor. And, if they doubled their ranks, it would mean nearly two IRS agents per extremely wealthy individual.
In reality, this new army of wage thieves will be enforcing a system of slavery on the 99 percent of Americans below the "wealthy" range.
Sadly, this bill is receiving support in Washington and widespread praise in corporate media. This is in spite of the fact that it will do nothing to reduce inflation and had loopholes built in for the super rich before it even went to the Senate floor.
Plus, the IRS will use part of its new found wealth to open a Sniper School for agents. You can bet your last dollar that the 1% will not be in those crosshairs. In addition, part of the IRS-published job descriptions is that applicants "Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary" and "Be willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments." (Source)
Remember how Rome would send its military troops to take taxes from the peasants at the force of arms with death being the penalty for non-compliance? It appears that Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats in Congress want to bring that day to America.
The Police State in Ohio Shuts Down a “Criminal” Lemonade Stand
Asa Baker is an 8-year-old girl from Ohio with an overwhelming entrepreneurial spirit. Over the hot summer, rather than spend the days inside watching TV, Asa would set up a lemonade stand in her front yard to make some cash.
“It’s fun and you get lots of people,” Asa told FOX 8 news in an interview, adding that lots of truckers stop by and pay more than the $1 per cup that she charges.
“Especially on a country road, I get a lot of people,” she said.
Unfortunately for Asa, however, her summer of entrepreneurial spirit would come to a grinding halt when police shut down her stand for the crime of selling lemonade without a permit.
Earlier this month, Asa had her first experience with the state's iron fist when she set up her stand at her father's business downtown. Everything was cleared with the property owner and she had permission to be there during the town's annual Rib and Food Festival.
Asa was in an alleyway about a half block from the festival and business was good — until police showed up.
Asa says when she saw a police officer walking up to her stand she thought he was going to buy a cup of lemonade. But that was not his mission. Instead of encouraging the little girl's business acumen in the lemonade realm, he was there to shut her down.
“We looked it up and it was pretty much anywhere in Ohio. You have to have a license and I’ve never heard of that,” said Kyle Clark, Asa’s Dad.
FOX 8 reached out to the city who stated that the police department is obligated to enforce the city's ordinances — apparently, even if it means quashing an 8-year-old girl's spirit.
The good news is that Asa was unphased and a week later, she was back out on the street, selling lemonade. After the negative press on social media, this time, police said they were going to leave her alone — a win for civil disobedience. (Source)
I think John Whitehead’s quote of Harry Truman (one of my least favorite presidents, by the way) summarizes our current state of affairs very well:
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
Civil War
The increasing tyrannical nature of our federal government has a lot of people talking about civil war. The truth is, our Founding Fathers fought a revolutionary war over infractions FAR LESS egregious than those the American people have been willing to tolerate for decades now.
But then again, I don’t see very many people today with the courage and character of our Founding Fathers. The only modern American in national politics that reaches to the sublime heights of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry is Dr. Ron Paul—and he is now retired.
Plus, the glaring difference between Colonial America and modern America is the absence of Colonial America’s patriot pastors. Instead of the spiritual giants Jonas Clark, John Peter Muhlenburg, James Caldwell and John Witherspoon, we are stuck with the spiritual pygmies Robert Jeffress, John Hagee, Franklin Graham and Kenneth Copeland.
At this moment, our society is too comfortable, too complacent, too ignorant of history, too spiritually unfit, too self-absorbed, too pleasure-mad and too in love with dependency on government to even think about civil war.
However, if the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban passes the U.S. Senate and becomes law, the NEXT gun control law will be the mandatory confiscation of all semi-automatic rifles. If that should happen, all bets are off.
© Chuck Baldwin
Destiny Blue likes this.
Developed in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program and the UN’s World Meteorological Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just published its Fifth Assessment Rep... View MoreDeveloped in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program and the UN’s World Meteorological Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just published its Fifth Assessment Report [1] and maintains its silence on military weather modification applications which continue to skew the data.
"Extreme weather and climate events" are linked to climate change while no mention is made of government programs deliberately aimed at modifying the weather and inducing earthquakes, drought, rain, and tsunamis.
The modern weather modification program, at least in the US, is over 70 years old. Public service announcements printed in newspapers back in the 1960s (image right) warned of government intention to modify the weather.
Life Magazine, back in the 50s and 60s, continually covered US weather modification programs, including Project Stormfury which redirected and reduced hurricane intensity from 1962 to 1983. The IPCC’s continuing and absolute silence on such programs is deafening.
With insider knowledge, a chapter in the 1968 book, Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, predicts the development of technologies that will use the planet itself as a weapon.
The chapter, "How to Wreck the Environment," [2] was penned by geophysicist and member of President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee, Dr. Gordon J.F. MacDonald, wherein he states:
"The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of the environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy."
The chapter envisions four planetary weapons which MacDonald predicted would be fully developed by the 21st century, based on the then-current state of research:
Climate modification
Earthquake generation
Tsunami generation and direction
Mass behavior control via electromagnetic manipulation of the ionosphere
The idea is carried forward in several geoengineering schemes detailed in Eli Kintisch’s Hack the Planet, in a chapter entitled "The Pursuit of Levers," explained as,
"small changes in Earth’s system that can have profound global effects." [3]
As LBJ’s Science Advisor, MacDonald surely knew of the military’s weather modification program known as Operation Popeye, which ran from 1967 thru 1972 in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
By seeding clouds, the US military caused torrential downpours that inhibited enemy truck and troop movements. Initially exposed by investigative journalist Jack Anderson, the existence of the project was later corroborated in The Pentagon Papers.
In 1996, world renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who served on the Bhopal and the Chernobyl Medical Commissions, and was a recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, published "Background on HAARP," [4] describing Dr. Bernard Eastlund’s brainchild, the US High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP), as follows:
"It would be rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment which would not be expanded.
It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States.
HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature."
In 2000, reports Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Dr Bertell told The Times of London,
"US military scientists… are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods." [5]
HAARP’s use of the ionosphere through radio frequencies, explains Dr. Nick Begich, co-author of Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, also triggers earthquakes and volcanoes. [6]
Begich quotes Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who said in 1997 at a conference on terrorism:
"Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." [7]
Pragmatically, the US wouldn’t be worried about such weapons unless they knew with certainty that they were feasible and had, in all likelihood, already developed them itself.
In "Atmospheric Geoengineering - Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails," which was named the 9th most censored story in 2012 by Project Censored, a brief history of known geoengineering events was published. [8]
From that report, the IPCC’s co-founder, the World Meteorological Organization, complained six years ago, in 2007, that:
"In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects." [9]
But the IPCC remains mum on these projects, except to deny they exist, while at the same time urging in its Summary that they must continue or global warming will spike.
The 2013 IPCC report states:
"Theory, model studies and observations suggest that some Solar Radiation Management (SRM) methods, if practicable, could substantially offset a global temperature rise and partially offset some other impacts of global warming, but the compensation for the climate change caused by greenhouse gases would be imprecise (high confidence)."
To claim that solar radiation management methods (which include chemtrails and HAARP-induced changes) are "unimplemented and untested" is patently absurd, and contradicts a library of evidence.
Geoengineering Patents
On March 26, 2013, the US Patent and Trademark Office granted a patent to Rolls-Royce PLC to prevent contrails from forming. [10]
By using an electromagnetic wave generator, contrails would not be visible, nor would artificial clouds develop. It’s not the first such patent. Back in 1962 the US Air Force wanted to add caustic chemicals to hide contrails and prevent unintentional cirrus cloud formation.
Patent No. 3,517,505 was granted eight years later, in 1970. Patent, No. 5,005,355, granted in 1988 to Scipar, Inc., used various species of alcohol, which effectively lowered the freezing point of water to avoid contrail formation. The 2013 patent characterized both of these earlier patents as environmentally inappropriate for commercial purposes.
For a partial list of patents for stratospheric aerial spraying programs from 1917 thru mid-2003, see Lori Kramer’s "Patently Obvious - A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies." [11]
"Weather Warfare - The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature" by Jerry Smith also includes an appendix of HAARP-related patents. [12]
A Note on Persistent Contrails
What some see as chemtrails, the IPCC and others recognize as persistent contrails that are a normal effect of today’s jet exhaust.
In the 2006 book, Weather Warfare, Jerry Smith explains that persistent contrails are not necessarily chemtrails. From the 1990s on, he explains, all jet engines were modified with a "high bypass turbofan" which increased fuel efficiency and, as a side effect, left persistent contrails that hazed into cirrus clouds after several hours.
This is the timeframe when chemtrail sightings begin.
The reason today’s jets now form persistent contrails, explains Marshall Smith, a former NASA-Ames aeronautical engineer, is that the sooty particulates in older jet exhaust provided a nucleus around which ice crystals would form (giving us a contrail).
But because of its dark color, the sooty particulate absorbed solar energy which melted the ice crystals, dissipating the contrail. Today’s cleaner and thus clearer jet exhaust allows solar energy to pass right through it, and so contrails persist and spread into high cirrus clouds lasting 24-36 hours.
Smith admits that this development does not disprove chemical, biological or metallic dispersants from jets, and he also states that such dispersants can be sprayed without leaving a chemtrail, depending on the particulate, and on the humidity and atmospheric temperature.
But, later, in 2009, he published the following:
"‘Chemtrails’ theory then, is that ‘normal’ jet aircraft contrails disappear in a few minutes, whereas ‘chemtrails’ persist for hours, and therefore are not ‘normal’ and must contain some covert element to make them persist…
Persistent jet contrails can be entirely explained by science without having to resort to a ‘conspiracy theory’ scenario. They appear to be no more than the natural result of the introduction of the hi-bypass turbo fan, improved jet fuel (JP-8) and ‘global warming.’" [13]
The transition to more efficient jet fuel and cold-flow additives supports this explanation, but none of that can explain the following image, taken earlier this year in Raglan, New Zealand:
The dot-dash effects seen in the sky, Smith explains, are the result of the jet exhaust passing thru sections in the atmosphere that are warmer, creating a broken line or dotted contrail.
The following image makes that explanation implausible. Instead, it illustrates that as the plane passed, an on-off switch was thrown several times.
It’s hardly likely the ambient temperature and humidity uniformly varied where the plane traveled.
The IPCC specifically addressed the impact of global aviation on the atmosphere in a 2000 report, noting that aircraft were then responsible for up to a half a percent of all of Earth’s cirrus cloud coverage, and that cirrus clouds tend to warm the surface of the planet. [14]
Global distribution of net instantaneous radiative forcing at the top of atmosphere in daily and annual average for present (1992) climatic conditions, analyzed contrail cover, and 0.55-µm optical depth of 0.3 (Minnis et al., 1999).
However, the high-bypass turbo fan and better grade fuel do not explain the grid pattern often seen which is clearly not normal air traffic lanes. Below are two images showing the grid pattern.
The first, a generic one found on the web , is one of many such images uploaded by concerned citizens who reasonably fail to recognize a normal set of flight lanes.
This next image is a satellite view looking down at the Celebes Sea, showing chemtrails and their shadows. (NASA)
Satellite view of Celebes Sea
showing chemtrails and their shadows.
(NASA)
Finally, the fine dusting of web-like filaments referred to as chemwebs can be explained by a natural arachnid phenomenon known as Gossamer Showers or Gossamer Filaments.
Spiders are known to balloon, spreading their webs over the land for miles. Referred to throughout history, naturalist Henry Christopher McCook wrote about them in his 1890 book, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork. [15]
Unless lab results prove otherwise, these webs are natural and should remain outside the chemtrails discussion.
Impossible to Regulate?
Weather Warfare also spends a good deal of time covering the international agreements against environmental modification (ENMOD).
The first major one came in 1978, after the US was exposed for weaponizing weather during the Vietnam War. Smith points out that none of these agreements cover "national defense" which is how governments are able to avoid the ban.
That 1978 agreement specifically objected to hostile use of ENMOD. In 2010, the UN banned friendly ENMOD. [16] The 193-member Convention on Biodiversity agreed by consensus to a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments, which governments promptly ignored. With no teeth to that moratorium, it’s not too surprising that such programs continue unabated.
Not two months later, in Cancun, Mexico, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the IPCC opened the 2010 conference by promoting geoengineering options. [17]
On a practical level, notes the International Risk Governance Council:
"Countries and firms routinely fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space. These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases.
A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are directed at learning about SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because judging intent is often impossible." [18]
In Hack the Planet, Kintisch opposes an outright global ban on geoengineering, fearing that governments will simply go underground with it.
This is bad, he stresses, because it will,
"worsen perceptions that [geoengineering is] a quasi-military strategy or a technocratic means of control."
Going further, he states:
"A vibrant community of conspiracy theorists is under the belief that geoengineering is already being deployed by governments by releasing so-called chemtrails in the sky."
But de facto moratoria already exist for such projects, as mentioned above, and Kintisch lists some others, including the London Protocol, the London Convention and a German restriction limiting iron-seeding to coastal waters only.
The only element missing in Kintisch’s reasoning is his refusal to believe that governments have already gone underground with it and that geoengineering is already underway.
Kintisch, like all government propagandists, wields the "conspiracy theorist" label like a club, without once offering any logical counter-argument to explain what thousands of sky watchers have observed and documented with photographs, videos, and soil and water tests.
Conspiracies are argued and decided by the thousands in courts all over the world, every day. Most crimes are not committed by lone actors, yet condemning those who recognize a conspiracy pattern has become a simple and lazy way to crush investigation into inconsistencies in government position statements.
Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Wikileaks, along with Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Hudes and W. Mark Felt, certainly prove that governments are the most dangerous conspirators facing humanity today.
Though he offers dozens of reasons why geoengineering the planet would be a bad idea, Kintisch comes out in support of the notion, likening it to a terrarium, "an enclosed controlled garden," leaving the reader with a sense that planet hacking is a necessary evil that should be regulated.
Modifying the Weather for Profit
In related news, the ecocidal giant, Monsanto, just dropped nearly a billion dollars to get into the weather insurance game, buying Climate Corporation.
Forbes reports,
"The idea is to sell more data and services to the farmers who already buy Monsanto’s seed and chemicals." [19]
Already closely tied to the military, how easy would it be for Monsanto to know in advance of a geoengineered drought or deluge?
Monsanto expects its climate insurance business to generate $20 billion in revenue beyond its seed and chemical business.
Likewise, how easy would it be for a nation with decades of experience in modifying the weather and in triggering geophysical events to create the problem of climate change (or exaggerate its significance) to induce the world into approving, even demanding, geoengineering?
With decades of patents providing a history of capabilities, could this entire drama, including "extreme weather events" be orchestrated for the simple pursuit of profit?
Isn’t this precisely how the Hegelian Dialect works?
Problem→ Reaction→ Solution (Thesis→ Antithesis→ Synthesis).
In other words, those in a position of power invent a problem, anticipating the public’s reaction to it, and use that reaction to generate demand for the "solution" which was the intended program power-holders wanted to implement in the first place.
At the very least, while the veil may be lifting on geoengineering practices, there is still an apparent effort to conceal the extent to which the planet is already being engineered.
Notes
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis," Sept. 2013 at http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/. The following link is to the Summary, downloaded Nov. 2, 2013 (in case the original Summary is modified in the future): http://abact.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ipcc-policy-summary-2013.pdf
[2] Nigel Calder, Ed. Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, Allen Lane Publishers, London, 1968. Cited chapter by Gordon J. F. MacDonald, ‘How to Wreck the Environment,’ available at http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1968-macdonald-how-to-wreck-the-planet.pdf
[3] Eli Kintisch, Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope or Worst Nightmare for Averting Climate Catastrophe. John Wiley & Sons. 2010.
[4] Sister Dr. Rosalie Bertell, "Background on HAARP," 1996. Available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45492.html
[5] Michel Chossudovsky, "Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change," 4 Jan. 2002. Available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
[6] Nick Begich. Interview by Russell Scott, The West Coast Truth. "Angels Don’t Play This HAARP & Tesla Technology w/ Dr. Nick Begich ," 22 Sept. 2012. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33XGrXK6jnI
[7] William S. Cohen, "Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy," Sam Nunn Policy Forum, Conference on Terrorism. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 28 April 1997. Speech. Available at http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm
[8] Rady Ananda, "Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails," Global Research, 30 July 2010.
[9] World Meteorological Organization, "Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather Modification," WMO Documents on Weather Modification Approved by the Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, Second Session, Oslo, Norway, 24-26 September 2007. CAS-MG2/Doc 4.4.1, Appendix C. Available at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf
[10] Frank G Noppel, et al., (assigned to Rolls-Royce PLC). "Method and apparatus for suppressing aeroengine contrails." Patent No. 8,402,736. 26 March 2013. Available at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8402736.PN.&OS=PN%2F8402736&RS=PN%2F8402736
[11] Lori Kramer, "Patently Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies, n.d. Available at http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm
[12] Jerry Smith, "Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature", Adventures Unlimited Press: 2006.
[13] Jerry Smith, "The Painful Truth About ‘Chemtrails," Sovereign Mind Magazine: May/June 2009. Available at http://www.jerryesmith.com/index.php/156
[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Aviation and the Global Atmosphere," November 2000. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/
[15] Henry Christopher McCook, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork, Vol. II. Self-published, 1890. Available at Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=mccook+spiders%23%2Ftitles
[16] ETC Group, "BREAKING: UN Bans Chemtrails," 28 Oct. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/un-votes-to-ban-chemtrails/
[17] Rady Ananda, "UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club," 6 Dec. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/un-climate-concern-morphs-into-chemtrail-glee-club/
[18] M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, "Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for research and an approach to its governance," International Risk Governance Council, 2010. Available at http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdf
[19] Bruce Upbin, "Monsanto Buys Climate Corp for $930 Million," 2 Oct. 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/10/02/monsanto-buys-climate-corp-for-930-million/
Return to Weather Warfare
Return to Chemtrails and Geoengineering
Return to Monsanto - A Multinational Factory of Death
"Extreme weather and climate events" are linked to climate change while no mention is made of government programs deliberately aimed at modifying the weather and inducing earthquakes, drought, rain, and tsunamis.
The modern weather modification program, at least in the US, is over 70 years old. Public service announcements printed in newspapers back in the 1960s (image right) warned of government intention to modify the weather.
Life Magazine, back in the 50s and 60s, continually covered US weather modification programs, including Project Stormfury which redirected and reduced hurricane intensity from 1962 to 1983. The IPCC’s continuing and absolute silence on such programs is deafening.
With insider knowledge, a chapter in the 1968 book, Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, predicts the development of technologies that will use the planet itself as a weapon.
The chapter, "How to Wreck the Environment," [2] was penned by geophysicist and member of President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee, Dr. Gordon J.F. MacDonald, wherein he states:
"The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of the environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy."
The chapter envisions four planetary weapons which MacDonald predicted would be fully developed by the 21st century, based on the then-current state of research:
Climate modification
Earthquake generation
Tsunami generation and direction
Mass behavior control via electromagnetic manipulation of the ionosphere
The idea is carried forward in several geoengineering schemes detailed in Eli Kintisch’s Hack the Planet, in a chapter entitled "The Pursuit of Levers," explained as,
"small changes in Earth’s system that can have profound global effects." [3]
As LBJ’s Science Advisor, MacDonald surely knew of the military’s weather modification program known as Operation Popeye, which ran from 1967 thru 1972 in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
By seeding clouds, the US military caused torrential downpours that inhibited enemy truck and troop movements. Initially exposed by investigative journalist Jack Anderson, the existence of the project was later corroborated in The Pentagon Papers.
In 1996, world renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who served on the Bhopal and the Chernobyl Medical Commissions, and was a recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, published "Background on HAARP," [4] describing Dr. Bernard Eastlund’s brainchild, the US High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP), as follows:
"It would be rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment which would not be expanded.
It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States.
HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature."
In 2000, reports Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Dr Bertell told The Times of London,
"US military scientists… are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods." [5]
HAARP’s use of the ionosphere through radio frequencies, explains Dr. Nick Begich, co-author of Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, also triggers earthquakes and volcanoes. [6]
Begich quotes Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who said in 1997 at a conference on terrorism:
"Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves." [7]
Pragmatically, the US wouldn’t be worried about such weapons unless they knew with certainty that they were feasible and had, in all likelihood, already developed them itself.
In "Atmospheric Geoengineering - Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails," which was named the 9th most censored story in 2012 by Project Censored, a brief history of known geoengineering events was published. [8]
From that report, the IPCC’s co-founder, the World Meteorological Organization, complained six years ago, in 2007, that:
"In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects." [9]
But the IPCC remains mum on these projects, except to deny they exist, while at the same time urging in its Summary that they must continue or global warming will spike.
The 2013 IPCC report states:
"Theory, model studies and observations suggest that some Solar Radiation Management (SRM) methods, if practicable, could substantially offset a global temperature rise and partially offset some other impacts of global warming, but the compensation for the climate change caused by greenhouse gases would be imprecise (high confidence)."
To claim that solar radiation management methods (which include chemtrails and HAARP-induced changes) are "unimplemented and untested" is patently absurd, and contradicts a library of evidence.
Geoengineering Patents
On March 26, 2013, the US Patent and Trademark Office granted a patent to Rolls-Royce PLC to prevent contrails from forming. [10]
By using an electromagnetic wave generator, contrails would not be visible, nor would artificial clouds develop. It’s not the first such patent. Back in 1962 the US Air Force wanted to add caustic chemicals to hide contrails and prevent unintentional cirrus cloud formation.
Patent No. 3,517,505 was granted eight years later, in 1970. Patent, No. 5,005,355, granted in 1988 to Scipar, Inc., used various species of alcohol, which effectively lowered the freezing point of water to avoid contrail formation. The 2013 patent characterized both of these earlier patents as environmentally inappropriate for commercial purposes.
For a partial list of patents for stratospheric aerial spraying programs from 1917 thru mid-2003, see Lori Kramer’s "Patently Obvious - A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies." [11]
"Weather Warfare - The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature" by Jerry Smith also includes an appendix of HAARP-related patents. [12]
A Note on Persistent Contrails
What some see as chemtrails, the IPCC and others recognize as persistent contrails that are a normal effect of today’s jet exhaust.
In the 2006 book, Weather Warfare, Jerry Smith explains that persistent contrails are not necessarily chemtrails. From the 1990s on, he explains, all jet engines were modified with a "high bypass turbofan" which increased fuel efficiency and, as a side effect, left persistent contrails that hazed into cirrus clouds after several hours.
This is the timeframe when chemtrail sightings begin.
The reason today’s jets now form persistent contrails, explains Marshall Smith, a former NASA-Ames aeronautical engineer, is that the sooty particulates in older jet exhaust provided a nucleus around which ice crystals would form (giving us a contrail).
But because of its dark color, the sooty particulate absorbed solar energy which melted the ice crystals, dissipating the contrail. Today’s cleaner and thus clearer jet exhaust allows solar energy to pass right through it, and so contrails persist and spread into high cirrus clouds lasting 24-36 hours.
Smith admits that this development does not disprove chemical, biological or metallic dispersants from jets, and he also states that such dispersants can be sprayed without leaving a chemtrail, depending on the particulate, and on the humidity and atmospheric temperature.
But, later, in 2009, he published the following:
"‘Chemtrails’ theory then, is that ‘normal’ jet aircraft contrails disappear in a few minutes, whereas ‘chemtrails’ persist for hours, and therefore are not ‘normal’ and must contain some covert element to make them persist…
Persistent jet contrails can be entirely explained by science without having to resort to a ‘conspiracy theory’ scenario. They appear to be no more than the natural result of the introduction of the hi-bypass turbo fan, improved jet fuel (JP-8) and ‘global warming.’" [13]
The transition to more efficient jet fuel and cold-flow additives supports this explanation, but none of that can explain the following image, taken earlier this year in Raglan, New Zealand:
The dot-dash effects seen in the sky, Smith explains, are the result of the jet exhaust passing thru sections in the atmosphere that are warmer, creating a broken line or dotted contrail.
The following image makes that explanation implausible. Instead, it illustrates that as the plane passed, an on-off switch was thrown several times.
It’s hardly likely the ambient temperature and humidity uniformly varied where the plane traveled.
The IPCC specifically addressed the impact of global aviation on the atmosphere in a 2000 report, noting that aircraft were then responsible for up to a half a percent of all of Earth’s cirrus cloud coverage, and that cirrus clouds tend to warm the surface of the planet. [14]
Global distribution of net instantaneous radiative forcing at the top of atmosphere in daily and annual average for present (1992) climatic conditions, analyzed contrail cover, and 0.55-µm optical depth of 0.3 (Minnis et al., 1999).
However, the high-bypass turbo fan and better grade fuel do not explain the grid pattern often seen which is clearly not normal air traffic lanes. Below are two images showing the grid pattern.
The first, a generic one found on the web , is one of many such images uploaded by concerned citizens who reasonably fail to recognize a normal set of flight lanes.
This next image is a satellite view looking down at the Celebes Sea, showing chemtrails and their shadows. (NASA)
Satellite view of Celebes Sea
showing chemtrails and their shadows.
(NASA)
Finally, the fine dusting of web-like filaments referred to as chemwebs can be explained by a natural arachnid phenomenon known as Gossamer Showers or Gossamer Filaments.
Spiders are known to balloon, spreading their webs over the land for miles. Referred to throughout history, naturalist Henry Christopher McCook wrote about them in his 1890 book, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork. [15]
Unless lab results prove otherwise, these webs are natural and should remain outside the chemtrails discussion.
Impossible to Regulate?
Weather Warfare also spends a good deal of time covering the international agreements against environmental modification (ENMOD).
The first major one came in 1978, after the US was exposed for weaponizing weather during the Vietnam War. Smith points out that none of these agreements cover "national defense" which is how governments are able to avoid the ban.
That 1978 agreement specifically objected to hostile use of ENMOD. In 2010, the UN banned friendly ENMOD. [16] The 193-member Convention on Biodiversity agreed by consensus to a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments, which governments promptly ignored. With no teeth to that moratorium, it’s not too surprising that such programs continue unabated.
Not two months later, in Cancun, Mexico, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the IPCC opened the 2010 conference by promoting geoengineering options. [17]
On a practical level, notes the International Risk Governance Council:
"Countries and firms routinely fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space. These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases.
A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are directed at learning about SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because judging intent is often impossible." [18]
In Hack the Planet, Kintisch opposes an outright global ban on geoengineering, fearing that governments will simply go underground with it.
This is bad, he stresses, because it will,
"worsen perceptions that [geoengineering is] a quasi-military strategy or a technocratic means of control."
Going further, he states:
"A vibrant community of conspiracy theorists is under the belief that geoengineering is already being deployed by governments by releasing so-called chemtrails in the sky."
But de facto moratoria already exist for such projects, as mentioned above, and Kintisch lists some others, including the London Protocol, the London Convention and a German restriction limiting iron-seeding to coastal waters only.
The only element missing in Kintisch’s reasoning is his refusal to believe that governments have already gone underground with it and that geoengineering is already underway.
Kintisch, like all government propagandists, wields the "conspiracy theorist" label like a club, without once offering any logical counter-argument to explain what thousands of sky watchers have observed and documented with photographs, videos, and soil and water tests.
Conspiracies are argued and decided by the thousands in courts all over the world, every day. Most crimes are not committed by lone actors, yet condemning those who recognize a conspiracy pattern has become a simple and lazy way to crush investigation into inconsistencies in government position statements.
Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Wikileaks, along with Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Hudes and W. Mark Felt, certainly prove that governments are the most dangerous conspirators facing humanity today.
Though he offers dozens of reasons why geoengineering the planet would be a bad idea, Kintisch comes out in support of the notion, likening it to a terrarium, "an enclosed controlled garden," leaving the reader with a sense that planet hacking is a necessary evil that should be regulated.
Modifying the Weather for Profit
In related news, the ecocidal giant, Monsanto, just dropped nearly a billion dollars to get into the weather insurance game, buying Climate Corporation.
Forbes reports,
"The idea is to sell more data and services to the farmers who already buy Monsanto’s seed and chemicals." [19]
Already closely tied to the military, how easy would it be for Monsanto to know in advance of a geoengineered drought or deluge?
Monsanto expects its climate insurance business to generate $20 billion in revenue beyond its seed and chemical business.
Likewise, how easy would it be for a nation with decades of experience in modifying the weather and in triggering geophysical events to create the problem of climate change (or exaggerate its significance) to induce the world into approving, even demanding, geoengineering?
With decades of patents providing a history of capabilities, could this entire drama, including "extreme weather events" be orchestrated for the simple pursuit of profit?
Isn’t this precisely how the Hegelian Dialect works?
Problem→ Reaction→ Solution (Thesis→ Antithesis→ Synthesis).
In other words, those in a position of power invent a problem, anticipating the public’s reaction to it, and use that reaction to generate demand for the "solution" which was the intended program power-holders wanted to implement in the first place.
At the very least, while the veil may be lifting on geoengineering practices, there is still an apparent effort to conceal the extent to which the planet is already being engineered.
Notes
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis," Sept. 2013 at http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/. The following link is to the Summary, downloaded Nov. 2, 2013 (in case the original Summary is modified in the future): http://abact.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ipcc-policy-summary-2013.pdf
[2] Nigel Calder, Ed. Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, Allen Lane Publishers, London, 1968. Cited chapter by Gordon J. F. MacDonald, ‘How to Wreck the Environment,’ available at http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1968-macdonald-how-to-wreck-the-planet.pdf
[3] Eli Kintisch, Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope or Worst Nightmare for Averting Climate Catastrophe. John Wiley & Sons. 2010.
[4] Sister Dr. Rosalie Bertell, "Background on HAARP," 1996. Available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45492.html
[5] Michel Chossudovsky, "Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change," 4 Jan. 2002. Available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
[6] Nick Begich. Interview by Russell Scott, The West Coast Truth. "Angels Don’t Play This HAARP & Tesla Technology w/ Dr. Nick Begich ," 22 Sept. 2012. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33XGrXK6jnI
[7] William S. Cohen, "Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy," Sam Nunn Policy Forum, Conference on Terrorism. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 28 April 1997. Speech. Available at http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm
[8] Rady Ananda, "Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails," Global Research, 30 July 2010.
[9] World Meteorological Organization, "Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather Modification," WMO Documents on Weather Modification Approved by the Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, Second Session, Oslo, Norway, 24-26 September 2007. CAS-MG2/Doc 4.4.1, Appendix C. Available at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf
[10] Frank G Noppel, et al., (assigned to Rolls-Royce PLC). "Method and apparatus for suppressing aeroengine contrails." Patent No. 8,402,736. 26 March 2013. Available at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8402736.PN.&OS=PN%2F8402736&RS=PN%2F8402736
[11] Lori Kramer, "Patently Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies, n.d. Available at http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm
[12] Jerry Smith, "Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature", Adventures Unlimited Press: 2006.
[13] Jerry Smith, "The Painful Truth About ‘Chemtrails," Sovereign Mind Magazine: May/June 2009. Available at http://www.jerryesmith.com/index.php/156
[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Aviation and the Global Atmosphere," November 2000. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/
[15] Henry Christopher McCook, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork, Vol. II. Self-published, 1890. Available at Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=mccook+spiders%23%2Ftitles
[16] ETC Group, "BREAKING: UN Bans Chemtrails," 28 Oct. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/un-votes-to-ban-chemtrails/
[17] Rady Ananda, "UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club," 6 Dec. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/un-climate-concern-morphs-into-chemtrail-glee-club/
[18] M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, "Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for research and an approach to its governance," International Risk Governance Council, 2010. Available at http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdf
[19] Bruce Upbin, "Monsanto Buys Climate Corp for $930 Million," 2 Oct. 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/10/02/monsanto-buys-climate-corp-for-930-million/
Return to Weather Warfare
Return to Chemtrails and Geoengineering
Return to Monsanto - A Multinational Factory of Death
Russell James likes this. 
-
IronsightFounder