The Two Variants of the Antichrist: A Contemporary Expose of Islam and Socialism

Present Weakness and Resurrection

Caption from 2 Corinthians 4:1-12. “Present Weakness and Resurrection Life”

“Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I’ve been with the have-nots. Over here, if you’re a have-not, you’re short of dough. If you’re a have-not in hell, you’re short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I’ll start organizing the have-nots over there.”
— Saul Alinsky,”Playboy Interview: Saul Alinsky”. Playboy Magazine. March 1972.

Of all forms of pride and prejudice, the crime of hubris is the most egregious of all. The Greeks defined hubris as “defiance in the face of the gods”, which leads to manifesting temporal opposition and social discord leading to “nemesis”, or each man’s final destruction. Such crimes are to be correlated to the consumption by Eve of the Forbidden Fruit. The Hanging Gardens of Eden were God’s one proviso for mankind to live amid a state of Utopia. But as imperfection led to temptation of defying The Will of God, that opposition to His Goodness was the result of an amoral degenerate of a serpent, the archangel who fell from grace through rebelling against God. Through the temptation of Lucifer in the form of the serpent are we now a degenerate race from that of God’s perfection. Through the vulgarity that is Lucifer’s etymology may we gather that the most evil singular figure in human history will arrive in the form of a vile woman, or “the morning star, the planet Venus”. The Book of Revelation describes her as “the whore of Babylon”. For more than 1,400 years, the rise of this “god on Earth” has metastasized the cancer of the global cultural ethos until today, the world appears to be on the brink of the Apocalypse. And none better epitomize their beliefs than the godless Left, such as Democrats and European socialists. No left-wing political giant has ever espoused a society constructed on the grounds of virtue, in echoing Alinsky’s own rhetoric.

Who is “Lucifer” and how might we ascertain this “Whore of Babylon”? Revelations 17 provides an explanation.

Revelations (1)

Selection from Revelation 17:1-18, “Babylon, the Prostitute on the Beast”

The reference of “seven hills” would appear to be the city of Rome, that upon the rise of political Christendom rose a pontificate who employed God as the measure for his ill-conceived designs. This would imply the Vatican City today, established by the Apostle Peter as the bishop of Rome, who was the first pontiff. 

Verse Revealing the Source of the Muslim Antichrist or the Mahdi

Verse from the Islamic eschatological text “Bihar al-Anwar” detailing what to Christians is the Antichrist – a Jesus from Mary, who Islam refers to as “Isa bin Maryam”, who they believe was neither the son of God nor died on the Cross.

The Bihar al-Anwar commits blasphemy against Jesus and Mary claiming the Madhi will be the twelfth in the genealogical line of Muhammad and ninth from the children Husain bin Ali, the son of Ali Abi ibn Talib. Talib was the fourth Rashidun caliph of Sunni Islam and the first Imam of among the Shi’ites. His mother was none other than Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, and he was the younger brother of Hasan ibn Ali. Husain is critical in Islamic lore. He was a member of the Ahl al-Bayt (or the House of Muhammad) and Ahl al-Kisa. He was, too, the third Shi’ite Imam.

Islam Declaring Jesus as the Dajjal or Satan

Opinion of Ahle Sunnat scholars about Dajjal comparing Jesus Christ, the son of God in the Bible.

The Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) was reportedly told the  was a “soothsayer”, that “he tested him and found he was a soothsayer or a sorcerer, that he controlled a jinn or a devil”. Jesus was tested in the Wilderness by Satan (a.k.a. “Lucifer”) in Matthew 4:1-1

Jesus is Tested in the Wilderness

Matthew 4:1-12 in the Bible, the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.

Satan demanded Jesus to bow before him to worship or die of starvation. The Qur’an emphatically proclaims Jesus (“Isa”) to be “Allah’s slave”.

Jesus as a Slave to Allah

Qur’an declaring Jesus (Isa bin Maryam) claiming from the cradle to be “Allah’s slave”.

Quran on Jesus Christ

The Qur’an committing blasphemy, declaring Christ only one of many Messengers, only a mortal.

Characteristics of the Mahdi and Dajjal strike similarities to Barack Obama, referencing “blind in the right eye… the left would be on the forehead like a bloody piece, which would be glinting like the morning star”. On his forehead would be inscribed: “kafir” (disbeliever) which would readable to the literate as well as the illiterate, the sign of the beast. He shall jump into the seas. The Sun will follow him. A mountain of smoke will precede him and a white mountain will follow him, which in times of famine will be mistaken to be a mountain of food (bread).” A reference to the same mountain as comprised of bread is the direct inference to Satan’s temptation of Christ is not only mentioned, but conspicuously “white smoke”, which is the sign for the new appointment of a new pope by the Holy See.

Characteristics of the Mahdi and Dajjal akin to Barack Obama

Characteristics of the Mahdi from the Bihar al-Anwar texts bearing similarities to Barack Obama.

The prior declaration by the Imam (a.s.) infers “terror… from the sky”, akin to the hijacking of planes linked to jihadists.

Question of the Sign of the Mahdi in Bihar al Anwar #8 Invocation of Sanction Terrorism

Declaration of state-sanctioned terrorism in jihadists mimmicking Allah.

As aircraft did not exist when the Bihar al-Anwar was authored, today this would be accomplished through airline hijackings. One might consider this to be the religion’s final sanctioning of war and its tactics against Western Christendom September 11, 2001.

Question of the Sign of the Mahdi in Bihar al Anwar

Question in Bihar al-Anwar of when what was considered “good” will become” bad, and bad to become the new “good”.

In reading from the Bihar al-Anwar’s texts, much seems to translate to the sign of the present times.

The Two Variants of the Antichrist – A Contemporary Expose of Islam and Socialism

Islam prides itself as “the religion of peace”, but at what price must a Muslim pay in order to experience this, and by whose definition?

The subjectivity of such proclamations as an arbiter of any peace can be nothing but defamatory to the rights of man and the quadriary hierarchy of needs we know to be the sovereignty of the individual, or the dialogue between one’s head and his or her heart. Western Christendom once was a precondition, a social contract between the Roman Catholic Church and that of the papacy’s subjects west of the Byzantine divide. The matter of consensus as a singular nation under a central authority was predestined to falter, for no two people much less clergy interpreted Scripture the same. The Church was the source for a dictatorial pathos amid the necessity that a corrupt logical proposition was as mired amid the corruption of the temporal fallacies amid those with absolute power. The Bishop of Rome (now known simply as the pope or “pontificate”) usurped his mandate as the messenger between the Christ of God and that of an inherently ignorant, illiterate population of yeomen. Only last year did Pope Francis declare “God is not Divine”, marking him both as a heretic and an antichrist.

Discrepancies amid the theological discourse can be traced to Emperor Constantine’s epiphany during the Battle of the Milivian Bridge in 313 AD. Prior to such, Christians were the most persecuted peoples of faith in Western Civilization. To understand how Christianity manifested itself is to possess the knowledge of the Last Supper prior to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot. No better resource than again, The Bible, will ever expound so adequately or as perfect as the Gospels recorded by the Apostles.

First, a detailing of Last Supper per the Apostle Luke.

Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus

Selection from Luke 22, “Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus”

A popular cliche is good guys finish last. Among the Twelve Apostles was one Judas Iscariot, who guided not by the conviction instilled in the righteous by Christ, but that of a consensual blinding light by the sea of Satan. The number twelve is significant amid the Abrahamic traditions of Christianity and Islam, for the fork diverged and along one path was Isaac and the other, Ishmael. As stated earlier in the paragraph, “twelve” is linked to each Apostle.

Among this cabal, Scripture states the following in the Books of Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:14-19, and Luke 6:13-16.

And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas [also called Thaddeus or Jude] the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

The legitimacy of the papacy laid claim to that of Peter, the first pope then known as “The Bishop of Rome”. As he was a witness of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, he was also well-acquainted with Judas, the rogue Apostle clandestinely cloaked amid the darkened cloth of Lucifer the archangel. Evil emanates from excess Pride, which begets Prejudice, Avarice, Envy and at their most extreme, Hubris. Prostitution is the end which malintent provides as the means, for while the Whore of Babylon may represent Eve, Original Sin is the evil that through the Judaic traditions is conceived through a matrilineal lineage. And while all God’s children have ample opportunities to atone for past misdeeds, there still is the scourge of Original Sin, which as Jesus died upon the Cross at Calvary, He bore the weight of all the world to liberate as his penance through the pain of an agonizing death. With so many souls to die for their salvation, such a burden immeasurable by conventional measures is impossible to qualitate as well temporally.

Judas Iscariot embodied all the preconditions that served him as the second Antichrist after Eve. Engrossed in this is the concept of fear, a fear all too common of those who guide by their convictions, not by popular consent. Through fear, we have mistrust, and through mistrust may we ascertain eternal winters of discontent. This is particularly true for today’s world in how all peoples not of a secular nature distrust the Muslim nations and militants of the world, for Muhammad taught the followers he cultivated through promises of a peace through his fickle subjectivity of their means that to lie was a virtue in waging jihad in the name of Allah and himself as the prophet.

Doctrine of Abrogation

Islam’s Doctrine of Abrogation.

The juxtaposition of lies and truth corroborate the Mohammedan theme that “war is deceit”. So too it must be for the Left to achieve its goals under the Fabian Society in Britain. Islam, however, authored the method first, the longest such standard known to humanity today. 

First, the misnomers from earlier in the teachings of Muhammad Islam as the religion of peace.

The Lie of the Religion of Peace

But the following verses, having been recorded later in Muhammad’s life, were greatly altered from his prior mental state of transcendence. First is the “Verse of the Sword”.

Verse of the Sword

Islam’s “Verse of the Sword”.

The Lie of the Religion of Peace #2

Select verses from the Qur’an of Muhammad commanding through his “vision” to kill in the name of jihad and Allah.

The God of Abraham need never lower His omnipotence to that of man ostensibly afflicted with a psychosis such as schizophrenia. To lie is to reflect not God’s perfect virtue, but that of Lucifer, the fallen archangel who rebelled to liberate himself from the vagaries of his narcissism. Lucifer as the archangel was like any other among his angelic taxonomy: below God and the caste of mankind. The prophecy was realized in the parables of the Book of Isaiah. As Lucifer (Satan) is translated from Latin as “the shining one, son of the morning star” (Hebrew: Behar ben Shahar), the Arabic term for Behar is “halal” or its alternative spelling “hallal”, or the familiar “Alleluia”, each meaning “praise” (Arabic “Allahu Akbar”, or “God is the greatest”; The Islamic text Bihar al-Anwar is translated  as “Seas of Lights”), of which Western traditions acknowledge there being “seven seas”. A fuller English translation of the Bihar al-Anwar is “Oceans of Light, an encyclopedia for Pearls of traditions of the Pure Aimmah”, where “Aimmah” is understood in Arab to mean the twelfth imam, or the Mahdi, the messianic figure of Sunni Islam or the revelation of the Antichrist of the Rapture.

Isaiah 14:13

Excerpt from Isaiah 14:13, the condemnation of Lucifer.

Mount Zaphon (today, Mount Aqraa) is at the apex of Syria and Turkey. Below is the map of where it is located.

Map of Mount Aqraa, Syrian/Turkish border.

Map of Mount Aqraa, Syrian/Turkish border.

Communism and other variations of socialism declare self-exaltation of the dictatorship of the proletariat by way of declaration that such a democratic approach arises from the corruption of mankind and the deadly solicitation of bribing the populace in exchange for their liberty, or that begat by God as his greatest legacy: the soul of the individual. Through Pride may Envy conceive Hubris, and through Hubris may one prostitute the Body of Christ, to sully His gift of the primogeniture of divinity and virtue, in exchange for the vagaries of all the wealth one can indulge. I refer to this as the Midas Effect, for one can own all the gold bullion in the world, but never for a moment will it sustain a soul if it cannot buy the individual the love that is unconditionally provided by Christ.

The full verse from Isaiah prophesies the second coming of Christ and for Israel (“Zion”) to forever be the home of His afflicted children.

Isaiah 9 Darkness of the Light

Excerpt from Isaiah 9, prophecy of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

A Prophecy Against the Philistines

Excerpt from Isaiah 14:28-32, “A Prophecy Against the Philistines”

SOCIALISM’S CORRELATION TO ISLAM: A POLITICAL PLATFORM WITHOUT VIRTUE

Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin made direct reference to the difference between the God on his and the amorality of a man possessed by an evil rebel of His Sovereignty:

“God is on your side? Is He a Conservative? The Devil’s on my side, he’s a good Communist.”
— Said to Winston Churchill in Tehran, November 1943, as quoted in Fallen Eagle: The Last Days of the Third Reich (1995) by Robin Cross, p. 21

The good will always be opposed by the innate evil of a corrupt man or oligarchy; consequently, evil is far more pervasive through the deceitful machinations of Lucifer’s malevolence as the advocate of lying. In politics, socialism and Islam will eternally oppose the cultural ties which bind a society of common cultural principles and godly virtue contradictory to their own, and that is again described by the founder of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong.

“We shall support whatever our enemies oppose and oppose whatever our enemies support.”
— Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book, 1964), Chapter 2

Lucifer is the consummate representation of a narcissist; so too are the blackened hearts of the atheist that hates all which exists. No man is born into the void of amoral entropy that is atheism; it is a platform about nothing, much ado about nothing at all nor with any particular direction for a life unconstrained by any individualized moral infrastructure. Ergo, if it is right to rebel, a popular revolution through anarchy can only succeed if the plebiscite is intentionally kept illiterate and therefore, ignorant and in general, morbidly impoverished. The vacant of mind will always be the sheep that are herded not by a man of conviction and integrity, but an individual or cabal of elitists in pursuit of Utopia which he or she alone can legally define. Hubris through Avarice breeds discontent among the mobs of substantially deprived and the morally-depraved. Desperation will lead to desperate measures resulting in the rise of a philosopher king self-absorbed and insecure. who instills such values in those who slates have intentionally be kept blank.

The dictatorial nature of any third party declaring a measure of universal peace is not merely one of the conundrum describing the enigma wrapped within an impossible riddle. Mankind cannot legitimately declare what is “peace” and how it will be enforce. Rules of law are universal only within the social construct as defined for many generations through history, tradition and the cultural idiosyncrasies not provided them by any man, but our God. A society of virtue is one where the individual has the right to the free exercise of his or her family’s faith and family traditions through the values their choice of a faith provides. One can never impose their own religions dogma on those who are not willing; likewise, neither can the state if it truly legitimizes that all men are created equal beneath the rule of law. What cultural dynamics diffuse is wholly dependent upon the independent variable of the rights of free people to adhere to them.

The cardinal mistake Americans make is to claim that there is a legal “separation of church and state”. This, in fact, is not at all true. The state is charged with assuring it will never issue a national religion, nor will it deny people the right to practice their religion anywhere, at anytime. The massive atheist push of the past half century has succeeded so well, it now is religion in the form of a cult of the amoral state of nothing is forced, like any other form of rape, into the rule of law to now private churches and property are no longer precluded from their wrath. And while state and federal courts continually face challenges to the old traditions of the Ten Commandments being present in government buildings as some violation of their civil right since the plurality of Americans identify as Christians, the First Church of Atheism was established. When one atheist said to me that their movement had to establish a church to receive tax exemptions and benefits, the idea that bribery will manipulate the amorally depraved is not only a fundamental truth, but also a matter their hypocrisy as been redirected into applying their faith into science, the most arrogantly flawed academic base in the world. To people with a true relationship with Christ, they understand money will never buy us the love of Jesus in reciprocation. He already loves us,  unconditionally. Martin Luther addressed the fallacies of the early church in 1515 upon nailing to the door of his Wittenberg monestary his Ninety-Five Theses that forever changed the world. As a result, socialism, a platform grounded not on faith but godlessness, will willingly sell its soul to the highest bidder so long as it can attain absolute power. Islam, not coincidentally, has historically, including today in America, Europe and with ISIS.

Protestantism has never succeeded as the centralized source for a monarchy’s power, nor has it been mutually-exclusive in its ritualistic or ecunumenical. Those that are as with the Church of England have failed to address why it is they are separate from the papacy. The answer, quite simply, resides in the Tudor King Henry VIII and his inability to conceive a son with his first two wives Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. And like so many times in human history, the sins of the flesh begat the bloodshed sanctioned by a narcissist.

America’s foundation is attributed in its greatest purpose for the sake of religions freedom to worship God as they saw it fit as puritan separatists. The beauty in Christianity is in Jesus’ preaching how it is okay to be an individual, that everyone’s relationship with Christ is one based on the individual’s right to choice. We each make choices that often are morally reprehensible; it is the reason why the flaw of mankind is we are never born endowed with knowledge. All men and women must learn from their environs, from what they are taught at home and how their cultures are trending. At the sametime, the most just cultures are those providing the means to be human and to rebuild where once mankind failed. A conservative will avoid at all costs revisionism as a means to strike from the records all that is not appealing to their agenda in exchange for such narcissists more absolutism being the opaquity which blinds a collective mass people into learning what never occurred. As the prime policy within any left-wing platform is to oppose the historical construct of any society’s traditional cultures, the matter of such radicals believing in liberty is false, as today’s Democrats claim they are “liberals”.

But what is free or “liberal” about what the left-wing lunatic fringe is, which is a mass of proletarians organized to make revolution? To be free entails that force is only applied if the greater good of all God’s children is threatened with eradication and genocide. We otherwise turn the other cheek when slapped as a matter of preventing individual confrontations that may end in bloodshed.

The left-wing lunatic fringe took flight in America under two very different names: Progressivism and Populism. The trouble with both platforms is a matter of copious studies in semantics added to the policies based upon a demographical preference. The Progressive push employed tactical militancy over the excesses of obscenely wealthy entrepreneurs such as the robber barons like Andrew Carnegie, John C. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt and the banking and financial mogul J.P. Morgan. While each man’s wealth expanded exponentially to levels that challenge the House of Rothschild and the Romanov-Holstein rulers of Russia’s royal family, their employees in the factories worked beneath the squalor of inhumane conditions that today can only be seen in Latin American, Asian and African states initiating the process of economic liberalization. Capitalism had not taken into account during the two industrial revolutions the human conditions to which workers were subjected nor how these factories were virtual communes owned and fully-regulated the owners.

The danger behind absolute capitalism is in the indifference that leads to social alienation and winters of discontent among workers. During the early years of the American republic, the agrarian sector dominated national economic growth. Most Americans lived in rural areas or small towns and those who were farmers were the breadwinners for consumers in need of this vital food stuff. Such men and women living under these conditions owned property and could easily subsist off tilling the land.

It was Thomas Jefferson who in writing to James Madison while serving as the U.S. Minister to France at the court of Versailles the following.

“I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”
— Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, 20 December 1787

While America has never been perfect, neither has France. Our forefathers did not leave England for a “three hour tour”. America was meant to serve as a source for boundless opportunities for all as the talents of each individual were encouraged to contribute and expand for the greater good of mankind.  Furthermore, Jefferson had these to say regarding his affection for American farmer’s yeoman ethos.

To John Jay, Paris, 23 August 1785: “… cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. they are the most vigorous, the most independant, the most virtuous, & they are tied to their country & wedded to it’s liberty & interests by the most lasting bands.”

To James Madison, 28 October 1785, Fontenbleu (France): “… the earth is given as a common stock for man to labour & live on.”

And perhaps his most profound statement about the ethos of the American farmer, to James Currie from 4 August 1787 in Paris:

“I know no condition happier than that of a Virginia farmer might be, conducting himself as he did during the war. his estate supplies a good table, clothes itself & his family with their ordinary apparel, furnishes a small surplus to buy salt, sugar, coffee, & a little finery for his wife & daughter, enables him to receive & to visit his friends, and furnishes him pleasing & healthy occupation … my habits are formed to those of my own country. I am past the time of changing them & am therefore less happy any where else than there.”

The great American experiment in liberty and human freedom is most permeated within the construct of Jeffersonianism. From the architectural diversification of his returning home to Monticello in 1789 with books on the designs of the Italian designer Andrea Palladio to his very American interpretation of John Locke in the Declaration of Independence, a philosopher if we so dare to reference him as such, he was; he is oft called “The Sage of Monticello”. Historical revisionists recall Jefferson as a slaveholder, a tyrant epitomizing all that was horrific and inhumane about the planter class, yet they fail to acknowledge the 38 year love affair between Jefferson and his slave concubine, Sally Hemings, much less that it was Jefferson who took the first concrete step towards ending slavery by outlawing the slave trade. Like all men and women, Jefferson was flawed. His affair with Hemings stunted his judgment on how he would approach the issue of the “peculiar institution”. But he understood that slavery was an issue which had to be reconciled, else he never would have inscribed amid his horror that the Missouri question was as “… a firebell in the night.” And like all men, he was created equal in many respects to the times in which he lived, albeit he changed the status quo greatly.

In opposition to Jefferson’s abhorrence of a large, overly bureaucratic federal government was his chief political rival, Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury under Washington and the co-founder alongside Jefferson of the First Political Party System. Where Jefferson declared himself a “Republican”, Hamilton was a Federalist. Where Jefferson championed the plight of the farmers, Hamilton advocated deemphasis on agriculture and property ownership in favor of the rise in industrialization resulting it rapid national migrations to cities. Likewise, the yin that Jeffersonianism would be renounced by the Hamiltonians’ yang. A small limited government which Jefferson favored through greater state autonomy was opposed by Hamilton’s desire to consolidate population growth in large cities as people went to work in the first factories. Such a divergence in polity led to the rise of the controversial nullification issues over slavery. And today, the idea that conservative states are strongly considering secession is at its strongest point in over 150 years.

Initially with respect to the public knowledge, the nullification crisis did not trend from abolitionist opposition to slavery versus those in the South opposing the Northern prerogative to abolish it. The trouble lied in the nation’s first instance of federal subversion of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights with the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by John Adams in an effort to curtail anti-Jacobin sentiment stateside with respect to the recent Quasi War with revolutionary France. A key issue in the controversial law was very much engrossed in the political conflict of interest over pro-British and pro-French sentiments. Federalists led by Hamilton were vocally pro-Britain, believe that aligning America with the world’s most  powerful nation economically and militarily would sufficiently ensure economic stability and encourage maritime trade with His Majesty’s empire. For the Republicans under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the trend for geopolitical shift favored France which by 1798 was soon to end with the rise of the obscure Corsican general by way of a coups d’etat in Napoleon Bonaparte that reestablished a stable order. But even under the rising French empire post-revolution, Jefferson and Madison’s support for France had nearly waned in full as what they had support in terms of the purpose behind the revolution was not achieved by way of a democratically-agreed upon republican construct of colonial representatives as was the American archetype that influenced her French allies who aided the successful victory and independence from Britain. Jefferson was horrified at the anarchical displays of mob rule, having witnessed the storming of the Bastille in Paris on July 14, 1789 prior to returning to Monticello. Yet the purpose for supporting France, what little of that remained, was more in tribute to their aid by the Marquis de Lafayette and General Jean-Baptiste Donatian de Vimeur, le comte de Rochambeau than the devolution into what many historians have proclaimed to be the world’s first instance of left-wing radicalism ruling by way of the Guillotine as a totalitarian government under the  Committee for Public Safety led by Maximilien de Robespierre. The awkwardness of this position by the Jeffersonian political contingent of the Republican Party placed them in the eyes of Hamilton and President John Adams in a virtual no-win situation, and one where the rule of law would be tested to see if she should hold the fort.

For Jefferson and Madison, the die were cast; the Acts were obscenely unconstitutional, providing the legal imprisonment of political opponents on charges of seditious support, while the Alien Act placed a legal microscope upon French immigrant nations which Jefferson and Madison abhorred as an imminent threat to republicanism’s existence. In response in 1798, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were penned, supporting the position that according to the spirit of the Tenth Amendment, states had the right to reject federal authority that was unconstitutional. Madison penned the Virginia document, and Jefferson the far more incendiary and radical Kentucky excoriations of the Adams administration.

Madison penned the following in his Virginia manifesto which can be established as crucial tenets for today’s nullification controversy.

“That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.”

So it is with the left-wing fringe. As stated prior to, socialism thrives upon class warfare even the class such political factions champion might diametrically contradict their baseless principles. The socialist fringe adheres to no form of logic other than what intimidation through a rising police state and corrupt bargains between major urban area civic leaders and organized can provide. The socialist fringe engages in strong-arming its own civilian population through funds confiscated from those it subjugates. To proclaim socialism prevents war is not only a popular misconception, but the greatest lied perpetuated in human history.

Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky (1909-1972), American community organizer often described as its modern founder. Author of Rules for Radical: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (1971).

Two months prior to Saul Alinsky’s sudden death from a heart attack in 1972, he was interview by Playboy. The topic was how Mr. Alinsky would express his life post-mortem. The modern Left expressedly supports such a platform given its commitment publicly to atheism and now, Islam.

ALINSKY: … if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.
PLAYBOY: Why?
ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I’ve been with the have-nots. Over here, if you’re a have-not, you’re short of dough. If you’re a have-not in hell, you’re short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I’ll start organizing the have-nots over there.
PLAYBOY: Why them?
ALINSKY: They’re my kind of people.

In referencing the Chicago community organizer Saul Alinsky, his points from Rules for Radicals are declarative of the dangerous trends today in America.

Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear the most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. p. xix

Men don’t like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives—agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate. p. xxi-xxii

No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough. p. xxiv

The democratic ideal springs from the ideas of liberty, equality, majority rule through free elections, protection of the rights of minorities, and freedom to subscribe to multiple loyalties in matters of religion, economics, and politics rather than to a total loyalty to the state. The spirit of democracy is the idea of importance and worth in the individual, and faith in the kind of world where the individual can achieve as much of his potential as possible. p. xxiv

The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life. p. 3

In this world laws are written for the lofty aim of “the common good” and then acted out in life on the basis of the common greed. In this world irrationality clings to man like his shadow so that the right things get done for the wrong reasons—afterwards, we dredge up the right reasons for justification. It is a world not of angels but of angles, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral; a world where “reconciliation” means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation.
p. 13

The cry of the Have-Nots has never been “give us our hearts,” but always “get off our backs”; they ask not for love but for breathing space. p. 19

Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict. p. 21

The end is what you want and the means is how you get it. p. 24

To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life. p. 24–25

The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means. p. 26

The seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. p. 34

The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical. p. 35

It does not matter what you know about anything if you cannot communicate to your people. In that event you are not even a failure. You’re just not there. p. 81

Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together. p. 113

For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people’s organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place. p. 126

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, it results in confusion, fear, and retreat. […] The third rule is: Whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. p. 126–127

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. p. 128

Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. p. 128

The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. p. 130

By nature, socialism under the Neo Marxist formula of Alinsky must oppose everything the conservative platform supports. It must do so through the advocacy of antichristian, anti-Semitic principles and tactics, which include the support for Islamic genocide of peoples of both faiths. No better is this asserted than through the rhetoric of the father of modern-day left-wing political factions, Jean Jacques Rousseau, who in The Social Contract (1762) laid down the foundations with what would result in the most destructive collective of political revolutions and the platforms upon which they were based in human history.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1779)

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

The strongest is never strong enough always to be master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty (Book I, Chapter 3)

To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with man’s nature; to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts. Finally, it is an empty and contradictory convention that sets up, on the one side, absolute authority, and, on the other, unlimited obedience. (Book I, Chapter 4)

From whatever aspect we regard the question, the right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive. (Book I, Chapter 4)

The mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to the law we prescribe to ourselves is liberty. (Book I, Chapter 8)

The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is nothing. In the brief moment of its freedom, the English people makes such a use of that freedom that it deserves to lose it. (Book III, Chapter 15)

But the most indicting charges by Rousseau were against the presence of Christianity in Book VII, Chapter 8.

Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a régime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.

Furthermore, his position on the average mindset of the layperson, who in Europe were vastly Christian, opposed each plank of subsequent vestiges of atheist socialism. His admission those today considered to be right-wing as more intelligent contradicts contemporary proclamations.

Peace, unity and equality are the enemies of political subtleties. Men who are upright and simple are difficult to deceive because of their simplicity; lures and ingenious pretexts fail to impose upon them, and they are not even subtle enough to be dupes. When, among the happiest people in the world, bands of peasants are seen regulating affairs of State under an oak, and always acting wisely, can we help scorning the ingenious methods of other nations, which make themselves illustrious and wretched with so much art and mystery?

In declaring that the onus for any successful left-wing wing state is to ensure that the standards for education remain and grow ever lower in decadence, Rousseau stated these below:

But when the social bond begins to be relaxed and the State to grow weak, when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and the smaller societies to exercise an influence over the larger, the common interest changes and finds opponents: opinion is no longer unanimous; the general will ceases to be the will of all; contradictory views and debates arise; and the best advice is not taken without question.

The more concert reigns in the assemblies, that is, the nearer opinion approaches unanimity, the greater is the dominance of the general will. On the other hand, long debates, dissensions and tumult proclaim the ascendancy of particular interests and the decline of the State.

To achieve this, Rousseau cleverly declared that tolerance for civil religion entails it is intertwined into obedience to the state, for akin to the old order of the papacy prior to the Reformation, Rome wielded the power of the sword in tithing the peasantry during mass and, in doing so, cleverly proclaiming that to purchase indulgences would lead to eternal salvation.

  • All that destroys social unity is worthless; all institutions that set man in contradiction to himself are worthless.

  • The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary. The existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws: these are its positive dogmas.

And while the majority of Western Christendom remained ingrained in the Roman Catholic Church’s dogmatic order of political structure (France, for example, operated on the Estate system under the anciens regime, whereby the First Estate was the Church, which placed the papacy in authority over the Bourbon Dynasty), the rise of Protestant denominations as with the American colonies who in part, settled as enemies to His Majesty King James I entailed that the liberty movement of flight begat a communal emphasis on democratic practices such as town halls or councils at local churches and community-based education to the standards of parents and clergy who were well-versed in the sciences as with theology. Rousseau understood that so long as Europe remained primarily Catholic, such a statist model based on absolute authoritarianism ensure that the rule under God could still be manipulated as what the Old Testament taught with respect to slaveholding.

For example, Rousseau penned more specifically the following regarding his fear of the Protestant movement still growing rapidly as it continually expanded into the New World, while comparing his fear with his delight in the European issue in Book IV, Chapter 8.

“It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions.”

To Rousseau, slavery amounted to shackles one placed upon his or herself with respect to self-reliance. As a result, he considered Christianity weak as they were willing in the early days under Roman imperial governance to amalgamate, to assimilate into their cultures, to become good citizens who observed their civic duties, and yet refused to acknowledge the pagan gods sanctioned within the Roman Empire in declaring their legitimacy as a people rest ultimately with God, and did so peacefully and without militant protestations. A good life for a Christian is to be saved by the Grace of Christ in accordance to the Gospels and to perform good works and charitable acts like good Samaritans in the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. In Rome, charitable works were often mandatory, not a matter of the right to choose to volunteer.

Moreover, Rousseau’s disgust for the faith grew less constained and ever more vociferous.

What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms.

However, as there have always been a prince and civil laws, this double power and conflict of jurisdiction have made all good polity impossible in Christian States; and men have never succeeded in finding out whether they were bound to obey the master or the priest.

And now, the contention for the present socialist support of Islam over Christianity is laden with the admission that Allah never existed, but rather was a manifestation of a brilliant political mind intent upon engaging in constant conquests for power in name of a religious holy war, or what we know to be jihad in Arabic.

What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms.

However, as there have always been a prince and civil laws, this double power and conflict of jurisdiction have made all good polity impossible in Christian States; and men have never succeeded in finding out whether they were bound to obey the master or the priest.

Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very sane views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good. But the Arabs, having grown prosperous, lettered, civilised, slack and cowardly, were conquered by barbarians: the division between the two powers began again; and, although it is less apparent among the Mahometans than among the Christians, it none the less exists, especially in the sect of Ali, and there are States, such as Persia, where it is continually making itself felt.

Among the most devout warriors in human history, the multitude of Islamic caliphates which competed for total hegemony in order to consolidate all power under the absolutism of a singular god crumbled, and as with the pagan religions in pre-Constantine Rome, Christianity subverted through primarily peaceful measures in Iberia to topple their Moorish masters and their Jewish allies during the Inquisition, albeit the ending of hostilities in 1492 after more than 700 years of subjugation had been completed through violent struggle and the expulsions of all non-Christians as well as executions.

As he elaborated his disdain for Christianity, Rousseau continues.

There remains therefore the religion of man or Christianity — not the Christianity of to-day, but that of the Gospel, which is entirely different.

By means of this holy, sublime, and real religion all men, being children of one God, recognise one another as brothers, and the society that unites them is not dissolved even at death.

But this religion, having no particular relation to the body politic, leaves the laws in possession of the force they have in themselves without making any addition to it; and thus one of the great bonds that unite society considered in severally fails to operate. Nay, more, so far from binding the hearts of the citizens to the State, it has the effect of taking them away from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.

We are told that a people of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see in this supposition only one great difficulty: that a society of true Christians would not be a society of men.

I say further that such a society, with all its perfection, would be neither the strongest nor the most lasting: the very fact that it was perfect would rob it of its bond of union; the flaw that would destroy it would lie in its very perfection.

Every one would do his duty; the people would be law-abiding, the rulers just and temperate; the magistrates upright and incorruptible; the soldiers would scorn death; there would be neither vanity nor luxury. So far, so good; but let us hear more.

Christianity as a religion is entirely spiritual, occupied solely with heavenly things; the country of the Christian is not of this world. He does his duty, indeed, but does it with profound indifference to the good or ill success of his cares. Provided he has nothing to reproach himself with, it matters little to him whether things go well or ill here on earth. If the State is prosperous, he hardly dares to share in the public happiness, for fear he may grow proud of his country’s glory; if the State is languishing, he blesses the hand of God that is hard upon His people.

For the State to be peaceable and for harmony to be maintained, all the citizens without exception would have to be good Christians; if by ill hap there should be a single self-seeker or hypocrite, a Catiline or a Cromwell, for instance, he would certainly get the better of his pious compatriots. Christian charity does not readily allow a man to think hardly of his neighbours. As soon as, by some trick, he has discovered the art of imposing on them and getting hold of a share in the public authority, you have a man established in dignity; it is the will of God that he be respected: very soon you have a power; it is God’s will that it be obeyed: and if the power is abused by him who wields it, it is the scourge wherewith God punishes His children. There would be scruples about driving out the usurper: public tranquillity would have to be disturbed, violence would have to be employed, and blood spilt; all this accords ill with Christian meekness; and after all, in this vale of sorrows, what does it matter whether we are free men or serfs? The essential thing is to get to heaven, and resignation is only an additional means of doing so.

If war breaks out with another State, the citizens march readily out to battle; not one of them thinks of flight; they do their duty, but they have no passion for victory; they know better how to die than how to conquer. What does it matter whether they win or lose? Does not Providence know better than they what is meet for them? Only think to what account a proud, impetuous and passionate enemy could turn their stoicism! Set over against them those generous peoples who were devoured by ardent love of glory and of their country, imagine your Christian republic face to face with Sparta or Rome: the pious Christians will be beaten, crushed and destroyed, before they know where they are, or will owe their safety only to the contempt their enemy will conceive for them. It was to my mind a fine oath that was taken by the soldiers of Fabius, who swore, not to conquer or die, but to come back victorious — and kept their oath. Christians would never have taken such an oath; they would have looked on it as tempting God.

But I am mistaken in speaking of a Christian republic; the terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a régime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.

I shall be told that Christian troops are excellent. I deny it. Show me an instance. For my part, I know of no Christian troops. I shall be told of the Crusades. Without disputing the valour of the Crusaders, I answer that, so far from being Christians, they were the priests’ soldiery, citizens of the Church. They fought for their spiritual country, which the Church had, somehow or other, made temporal. Well understood, this goes back to paganism: as the Gospel sets up no national religion, a holy war is impossible among Christians.

Under the pagan emperors, the Christian soldiers were brave; every Christian writer affirms it, and I believe it: it was a case of honourable emulation of the pagan troops. As soon as the emperors were Christian, this emulation no longer existed, and, when the Cross had driven out the eagle, Roman valour wholly disappeared.

To survive, socialism consolidate its absolute power. If its ideological giants achieve this, it will thrive like madness during the spring. It must unify all people under one standard, under one mindset and under one central authority. To deviate through the right to choice entails the danger competition will metastasize and provide an alternative perspective that a mode of egalitarianisms is not conducive to actual social equity except for under a central authority. Such men and women who rule with an iron fist will disavow the right to the free exercise of religion on the ground they are atheist, that God has been invoked as the perverted pervasion of the social stream of consciousness to pray rather than consider the state as the intellectual source for a classified reason. In ancient times, Christianity toppled the most powerful empire the world had ever known through quiet resistance and an unyielding commitment to uphold the rule of God’s laws as Christ had done. Unfortunately, the papacy, the Bishop of Rome in the era launched by Constantine the Great, defiled the legacy of Christ by invoking its divine right to papal authority to serve as judge, jury and executioner, often serving as an intolerant apparatus through its satellite monarchies to unify or be tried and excommunicated for heresy. And as history teaches when one reads an unrevised account on the intriguing behind the Church, pernicious edicts through papal bulls led first to the split of the Roman Empire in the West and the East (which became known as the Byzantine Empire, its capital at Constantinople in what today is called Istanbul) in 1054 over differences in ecunumenical interpretations for the Eucharist, and later the near-crippling Balkanization of the papal prerogative when a monk named Martin Luther at a monastery in Wittenberg in what was known in 1515 as the Holy Roman Empire. Thus under an epic catalyst in Luther, the phenomenon of the Protestant Reformation would forever change Western civilization and the world, and serve as the cornerstone for why America was settled by the English peoples within the puritan separatists persecuted by the Church of England after 1607. Rather than splintering and crippling the Christian faith, it redefined the dogmatic purpose best exemplified in the Gospels: that through Grace alone may one be saved by Christ, not through the purchase of indulgences.

Ergo the rise of the original paradox of Christianity, that it is a faith if applied correctly, that cannot be diffused by use of violent force or enforced under threat of papal persecution and parishioner entail. Under the Lutheran model, no international centralized pontiff had the authority under God to consolidate political power under the guise of shaming a largely illiterate caste of peasants into blind obedience, not faith. And model of the French Huguenot John Calvin which best epitomizes the slew of American Protestant churches led to the concept that education encouraged a people to question the injustices of what once were the vassals and their forefathers, serfs. And serfdom within a matter of 250 years would disappear from the face of a map after Russian Tsar Alexander II abolished the institution in the issuance of the Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861.

As for left-wing political machines and Islam? They have no virtue nor honor, for both have fielded the two great collectives evil empires in world history. For the Left, the cost for war was offset in human lives by bribing them with greater social welfare benefits to ease their troubles. For Islam, welfare is still called the zakat. 

Comments are closed.