Bioethics, Drugs

Bioethics, Drugs, The Frankfort School

The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt
By Timothy Matthews
Issue: March 2009


Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests ... Civilization is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organisation which is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory.

Christopher Dawson. Enquiries into Religion and Culture, p. 259.

Most of Satan’s work in the world he takes care to keep hidden. But two small shafts of light have been thrown onto his work for me just recently. The first, a short article in the Association of Catholic Women’s ACW Review; the second, a remark (which at first surprised me) from a priest in Russia who claimed that we now, in the West, live in a Communist society. These shafts of light help, especially, to explain the onslaught of officialdom which in many countries worldwide has so successfully been removing the rights of parents to be the primary educators and protectors of their children.

The ACW Review examined the corrosive work of the ‘Frankfurt School’ - a group of German-American scholars who developed highly provocative and original perspectives on contemporary society and culture, drawing on Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber. Not that their idea of a ‘cultural revolution’ was particularly new. ‘Until now’, wrote Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) who for fifteen years was a Freemason, ‘nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is.'

What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician he developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ - sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’) ‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.'

http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml

from catholic insight
~

Acts 18
9 And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, 10 for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” 11 And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

he never believed in God PR.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

Are they? or have the "hearers" had help?



"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

David Rockefeller's Memoirs(Random House, New York, 2002)

1909.
Lord Milner's secretive Round Table Group was established. Professor Quigley exposed some of the evolving ties between the global banking fraternity and these evolving "semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups," which helped foment World War I as a means to raise public support for a League of Nations. ​

"By 1915, Round Table Groups existed in seven countries, including England...(and) the United States.... Since 1925, there have been substantial contributions from wealthy individuals, and from foundations and firms associated with the international banking fraternity, especially... organizations associated with J. P. Morgan, the Rockefeller and Whitney families...." Quigley, 950-951. ​

​

​

​

1917. In its report published in 1954, the Reece Committee (the Special House Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations) explained and quoted the official minutes of the Board of Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
[See also:Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution]​

"These trustees in a meeting about 1917 had the brashness to congratulate themselves on the wisdom of their original decision because already the impact of war had indicated it... could alter life in this country. ... they even had the brashness to ... dispatch a telegram to Mr. Wilson, cautioning him to see that the war did not end too quickly....​

"The concern became, as expressed by the trustees, seeing to it that there was no reversion to life in this country as it existed prior to 1914. And they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, they must control education. and then they approached the Rockefeller Foundation and they said, 'Will you take on the acquisition of control of education as it involves subjects that re domestic in their significance? We'll take on the basis of subjects that have an international significance..' And it was agreed.... They decided the key to is the teaching of American history, and they must change that." [The Tax-Exempt Foundations, p. 60-61] ​

​

​

​

1919. With funding from the Commonwealth Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation, Clifford Beers "formed the predecessor of WFMH [World Federation for Mental Health], the International Committee for Mental Hygiene (ICMH). Other supporters were Clarence Hincks, M.D., of the Canadian Medical Association, Adolph Meyer, M.D. of Johns Hopkins Hospital; and psychologist William James of Harvard. William James, John Dewey and other socialist visionaries spread the philosophy of pragmatism, which denies Biblical truth, sees truth as relative, and tests its validity by its practical and measurable effects.

Note: Remember, almost every public step in this social revolution won public sympathy and acceptance by focusing on a real crisis. But in the hands of socialist change agents, the nice-sounding "solution" became a stepping stone to an ever expanding web of control.​

William James (father of American Psychology) founded the National Committee for Mental Hygiene, and according to B. K. Eakman in CLONING OF THE AMERICAN MIND: ERADICATING MORALITY THROUGH EDUCATION, he 'persuaded Rockefeller to contribute millions to the National Committee for Mental Hygiene....The goal of the Committee was specifically to prevent mental illness, and its focus was elementary and secondary schools. The thrust of the Committee's philosophy was that mental illness hinged on faulty personality development in childhood and that, therefore, personality development should supersede all other educational objectives. Stress was seen as the chief culprit, and parents and other authority figures as the second." Cuddy, Mental Health, Education and Social Control, Part 8 ​

1921. ​

​

​

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was founded -- mainly through Col. House's influence. To build the needed network of globalist support groups, it would disperse tens of millions of dollars annually from the major tax-exempt foundations such as the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations. Global Tyranny, page 54​

The CFR would be the U.S. equivalent of the British RIIA, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. As Professor Quigley wrote, "...the original plans for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations were drawn up at Paris." Quigley, 952.​

[SIZE=-1]1925. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry in Munick, directed by Dr. Ernst Rudin. Additional funding was provided by the Harrimans, Warburg and the British Crown. It continued​

to sponsor the Institute and its Nazi leader throughout the devastating holocaust of World Ward II. ​

​

​

​

​

​

​

4?​

​

​

​

1925. A Rockefeller Foundation's grant gives birth to the International Bureau of Education.2 Cuddy 15​

​

​

​

1932. Rockefeller Foundation president Max Mason tells trustees that "The Social Sciences will concern themselves with the rationalization of social control... the control of human behavior."​

​

2 Cuddy 18​

[SIZE=-1]1932. Dr. Ernst Rudin, the Nazi director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry (funded by the Rockefellers) was appointed president of the global Eugenics Federation.​

​

​

1934 (February). A Rockefeller "progress report" (by one of the division heads) asks, "Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men?"2 Cuddy, 18.​

​

​

1930-33[SIZE=-1]. Hitler came to power and delegated Rudin to direct the Racial Hygiene Society, which called for sterilization or death of people considered "racially impure." ​

​

The Rockefeller Foundation funded an anthropological survey of the eugenically correct population by Nazi eugenicists Rudin and others. ​

​

​

​

1939. Rockefeller Foundation helps launch the School-Health Coordinating Service.2 Cuddy 22​

1940s. "Otmar Verschuer and his assistant Dr. Joseph Mengele together wrote reports for special courts, which enforced Rudin's racial purity law against the illegal cohabitation of Aryans and non-Aryans. In the early 1940s, a large factory was built "at Auschwitz... to utilize the Standard Oil IG Farbin patents with concentration camp slave labor to make gasoline from coal. The SS guarded the Jewish and other inmates and selected for killing those who were unfit for IG Farbin slave labor.... Standard Oil and German President Emil Heilfeck testified after the war at the Nuremberg Trial that Standard Oil funds [Rockefeller]helped pay for the SS guards at Auschwitz. The Rockefeller Foundation defends its record by claiming that its funding of Nazi Germany programs during World War II was limited to psychiatric research." 4​

​

​

​

​

​

[/SIZE][/SIZE]​

​

​

Rockefeller & Global Mind Control

1.) Evolution is evident today

where?

show me a missing link - anywhere. show me a creature that is not one species or another yet, but is becoming one. a creature that used to be one thing but no longer is.

if this were true, i should be able to look outside and see creatures in every stage of mutation or "evolution". unimaginable lengths of time are NO EXCUSE. i should be able to see every imaginable form of mutation NOW.

where's the frog in top hat and cane on his way to wall street? that's ridiculous of course, but where is a creature that used to be a horse that is becoming something other than a horse?

where's the evidence?

2.) Numerous plot holes in the Bible.

such as?

3.) I take preference over science than faith.

that's okay.
but what is science? how much of science is THEORY?

don't you have to have faith in the scientists' theories?

an awful lot of science is not the old fashioned kind: observation and testing. its THEORETICAL. and lots of it is based on philosophy.

that takes FAITH...in them.

HYPOTHETICAL:

i belong to the ruling classes, the very wealthy.

we believe we must remain wealthy and in positions of power.

we believe we are wealthy and in positions of power because we are superior.

because we are superior, others are inferior.

we believe that if the inferior begin to mix with us, we will DEVOLVE.

the very fact that they remain poor and uneducated PROVES they are inferior - if they were superior (like us) they would EVOLVE.

we believe this, EVEN THOUGH since we control the wealth and knowledge, we make sure they stay poor and uneducated - they must not mix with us or we will DEVOLVE because they are inferior.

we decide the best way is to breed amongst ourselves only.

we teach our children the secrets of wealth and power, and tell them they are superior while the others are not quite human: their condition proves it. we tell our children it's always been that way.

because we are insane from inbreeding amongst ourselves only, and because we have developed this theory so much it is now truth to us, we have no empathy for the inferior. we have been taught they are not human.

because they are not human, they are a threat to our gene pool. we must not let them mix with us.

we have studied them like animals, for that is what they are.

BUT WE NEED A THEORY THAT PROVES THEY ARE ANIMALS AND WE ARE SUPERIOR, because they must also believe they are animals and we are superior.

we have a son, one of our own, many in fact, who we send out to INVENT theories that prove the ideas we believe.

since we control everything, including academia and science, we can make this theory look real.

we must maintain our position at any cost. since our familes are so old, we also use majik, and we can mix it with real science to achieve our goals.

the end justifies the means.

~ more on this later.

the end justifies the means
Consequentialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Human-centered?
Many consequentialist theories may seem primarily concerned with human beings and their relationships with other human beings. However, some philosophers argue that we should not limit our ethical consideration to the interests of human beings alone. Jeremy Bentham, who is regarded as the founder of Utilitarianism, argues that animals can experience pleasure and pain, thus demanding that 'non-human animals' should be a serious object of moral concern.[3] More recently, Peter Singer has argued that it is unreasonable that we do not give equal consideration to the interests of animals as to those of human beings when we choose the way we are to treat them.[4]

Such equal consideration does not necessarily imply identical treatment of humans and non-humans, any more than it necessarily implies identical treatment of all humans.

equal consideration to the interests of animals as to those of human beings

of course, who doesn't agree with loving and treating animals with kindness?
but that's not really what this is about.

it is not about elevating all creatures to safety and peace (if that were so they would concern themseleves with it for HUMAN BEINGS FIRST),

this is about slowly teaching man he is an accident, an animal, equal to the animals.

consequently, he will be treated as an animal.

NOW THAT WE HAVE OUR THEORY THAT SAYS MAN IS AN ANIMAL, we can now proceed to convince him that the animals and planet are suffering because MAN is a BAD animal.

~ more to come.

In Six Days

Why 50 Scientists Choose
to Believe in Creation
Edited by Dr John Ashton
First published in In Six Days
James S. Allan, genetics

Dr. Allan is a former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. He holds a B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal, an M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch and a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He currently serves as an international consultant in the field of dairy cattle breeding.
As a biologist in the field of population and quantitative genetics, I had believed in the theory of evolution for nearly 40 years. During that period of my life, the long-time requirements of the theory did not really concern me. Chance (genetic drift) and natural selection in response to gene mutation and/or environmental change seemed to be logically acceptable mechanisms for the assumed extent of adaptive radiation.
My research involved using biometrical methods of analysis. I was concerned to predict rates of genetic change as a result of applying artificial selection procedures of varying intensities, based on different kinds and amounts of information. The accuracy of prediction of the rate of genetic change can be assessed theoretically and the results can, in many cases and in the short-term, be checked empirically. The change in genetic merit (and associated phenotypic merit) from one generation to the next is due to changes in the relative frequencies of the underlying genes.
Over all those years, because I accepted the “fact” of evolution, I saw no reason to differentiate in principle between changes in relative gene frequency as a consequence of either short-term or long-term natural selection. To me, these forms of selection resulted in just the one simple principle of change in relative gene frequency, and the essence of the theory of evolution is change in relative gene frequency as a result of genetic drift and of natural selection in response to gene mutation and/or environmental change.
When, at a fairly advanced stage of my career, I became a Christian I began to read the Bible reverently and as intelligently as I was able. At that time most of my reading was focused in the New Testament and, as my main concern was to know more of Christ as my Savior, my opinion concerning the theory of evolution remained unchallenged. I did not, in fact, give it much thought.
One day, after I had been expounding on the universality of DNA as evidence for the theory of evolution, my wife, who had been a Christian much longer than I, asked me whether there was any reason for God to have used other genetic systems. Just one simple question, but it stimulated me to ask myself many more.
Was there any reason for God to have created life-forms on the basis of ABC … PQR … and XYZ as well as DNA? Were that so, would it have influenced my belief in the theory of evolution, or would I have interpreted it as a number of independent origins of life?
Was there any reason why God should not have created all forms of life as “variations on themes” and so have provided the observed orderly degrees of genetic and phenotypic resemblance as evidenced in taxonomic classification? Relatives tend to resemble one another in physical, functional and behavioral characteristics. This is a phenomenon which is basic to the science of genetics. The resemblance is due to the fact that relatives, sharing in the common gene pool of a reproducing population, have genes in common. The closer the relationship, the greater is the proportion of genes in common and, therefore, the greater is the degree of resemblance. The theory of evolution assumes a common origin for all forms of life and, therefore, infers that species, genera, families, orders, etc. are genetically related. They all do carry some genes with similar structure and function, yes, but did this imply genetic relationship in the normal, within-species sense, and was one at liberty to assume a common origin for all forms of life? Was there any reason why God should have created different species, genera, etc. in completely different ways and with completely different genes?
I then felt a need to ask questions of a more scientific nature about the validity of evolutionary assumptions. I present here two aspects arising out of such questions concerning the claimed evolution of man.
1. Cytochrome-c is a protein and is a gene product. It functions as a key enzyme in oxidation reactions and seems to occur in practically every living organism. There are 20 different amino acids. Cytochrome-c consists of a chain of 112 amino acids, 19 of which occur in exactly the same sequential order positions in all organisms tested. Differences in the identity and positions of the remaining 93 amino acids are considered to be the result of mutational substitution during the course of evolution. The amino-acid constitution of human cytochrome-c differs from that of many but not all other species. There are no differences in the cytochrome-c taken from humans and from chimpanzees, and only one difference between human cytochrome-c (the amino acid isoleucine in position 66) and that from the Rhesus monkey (threonine in that position). The numbers of differences in the cytochrome-c of various species compared with that of humans are: cow, pig and sheep (10), horse (12), hen and turkey (13), rattlesnake (14), dogfish (23), fly (25), wheat (35), yeast (44), etc.1 Information of this nature is used to construct phylogenetic trees of assumed genetic relationship. This is presented as evidence for evolution on a molecular level and, among other things, it is concluded that man and the chimpanzee have a relatively recent common ancestor. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is correct, does the constitution of cytochrome-c provide valid evidence for evolution?
The fact that cytochrome-c has a fixed number of 112 amino acids is an indication of the importance of the three-dimensional structure of the molecule, i.e., there is a structural constraint on the total number of amino acids. On the other hand, only 19 of the 112 are identical in all organisms tested. Since the identity and positions of the remaining 93 amino acids differ among organisms except, for example, in the case of man and chimpanzee, it is reasonable to conclude that there are no functional constraints on the substitution of these remaining amino acids.
Apart from the single gene controlling the constitution of cytochrome-c, humans and chimpanzees differ in many thousands of other genes. As a conservative estimate, let us say 5,000. What the theory of evolution is saying is that while humans and chimpanzees have evolved independently from a common ancestor so as to now differ in these 5,000 genes, there has been no change in the 93 amino acids specified by the cytochrome-c gene, and this in spite of there being no functional constraint on change in any of the latter. I find this to be an unacceptable claim.
According to Weaver and Hedrick,2 however, the lack of differentiation in the constitution of cytochrome-c between humans and chimpanzees is due to the very slow (0.3 x 10–9) estimated rate of amino acid substitution in cytochrome-c. How is this rate determined? It is estimated on the basis of the assumed time since the species diverged, i.e., the claim is assumed proven on the assumption that it is true. Must I accept this kind of reasoning? Is there any reason why God should not have created them in virtually the same form as we see them now?
2. The theory relating to the evolution of humans from their assumed ancestor in common with the chimpanzee requires millions of years of mutation, genetic drift and natural selection prior to the appearance of “modern man.” However, when I consider mutation rates, the “cost” of the substitution of each new mutant gene in a population in terms of the number of “genetic deaths,” the assumed number of mutant gene differences between evolutionary stages, and the population size necessary to accommodate such a large number of successive mutations, I find that there is a remarkable lack of evidence for the “evolution of man.” My reasons are as follows.
Haldane3 considered this kind of information and came to the conclusion that the number of genetic deaths needed to secure the substitution of one gene for another by natural selection is in the region of 30 times the number of individuals in a generation.4 Using this figure, the cost of substituting 5,000 successive, independent mutant genes in a population of constant size can be calculated. On the basis of an average mutation rate of 10–6, the size of the population must be at least in the order of one million. This implies some 150,000,000,000 forerunners of “modern man,” forerunners who are often represented as belonging to small groups of cave-dwelling hunters called australopithecines who roamed the African savannah. Why is there such a shortage of evidence in the form of fossils, tools, or whatever, for the existence of such vast numbers of australopithecine-like prehumans?
It could, of course, be argued that such vast numbers of individuals were spread over millions of years, but I find difficulty with this when I look not only at the lack of evidence, but at the reality of total population numbers.
According to the 23rd General Population Conference in Beijing in 1997, the total human population of the earth in that year was assessed to be in the region of 6,000 million, showing that there has been a remarkable increase over the past 200 years. Estimates of the population numbers back to the year 1500 and a prediction for the year 2080 are given in the following table.

Bolivia is planning to table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans.


By Steven Edwards, Postmedia News April 13, 2011

UNITED NATIONS — Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.


The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened.


The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.


That document speaks of the country's natural resources as "blessings," and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.


It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.


"If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?" Pablo Salon, Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, told Postmedia News. "But if you recognize that nature too has rights, and (if you provide) legal forms to protect and preserve those rights, then you can achieve balance."


The application of the law appears destined to pose new challenges for companies operating in the country, which is rich in natural resources, including natural gas and lithium, but remains one of the poorest in Latin America.


But while Salon said his country just seeks to achieve "harmony" with nature, he signalled that mining and other companies may come under greater scrutiny.


"We're not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow," he said. "But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you (cause to) disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth. Of course, you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits."


Bolivia is a country with a large indigenous population, whose traditional belief systems took on greater resonance following the election of Morales, Latin America's first indigenous president.


In a 2008 pamphlet his entourage distributed at the UN as he attended a summit there, 10 "commandments" are set out as Bolivia's plan to "save the planet" — beginning with the need "to end capitalism."


Reflecting indigenous traditional beliefs, the proposed global treaty says humans have caused "severe destruction . . . that is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother Earth is sacred."


It also says that "Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all human beings."


In indigenous Andean culture, the Earth deity known as Pachamama is the centre of all life, and humans are considered equal to all other entities.


The UN debate begins two days before the UN's recognition April 22 of the second International Mother Earth Day — another Morales-led initiative.


Canadian activist Maude Barlow is among global environmentalists backing the drive with a book the group will launch in New York during the UN debate: Nature Has Rights.


"It's going to have huge resonance around the world," Barlow said of the campaign. "It's going to start first with these southern countries trying to protect their land and their people from exploitation, but I think it will be grabbed onto by communities in our countries, for example, fighting the tarsands in Alberta."


Ecuador, which also has a large indigenous population, has enshrined similar aims in its Constitution — but the Bolivian law is said to be "stronger."


Ecuador is among countries that have already been supportive of the Bolivian initiative, along with Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda.

UN document would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as humans

Bioethics, Eugenics, Club of Rome, Green Agenda

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]THE GREEN AGENDA[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The First Global Revolution[/FONT]​

[/FONT][/FONT]

Genesis 1:26-31 (New King James Version)

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Why should Christians care for the planet?


"Reasons to care
The Bible gives three main reasons why we should care for the environment. First, God Himself says that His creation is very good. The material world matters to God; He sustains it all the time. Without Him it would fall apart into chaos. "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1.16–17). So if we neglect, abuse and spoil the environment, we are damaging something that is precious to God.
The second and even more important reason why we should care for the environment is that in Genesis 1.28 and 2.15, God specifically commanded humankind to do so. He told us to take care of both the living and the non-living creation. We are to work at ruling and ordering creation as good stewards without abusing it for our own selfish ends. By caring for the earth properly, we enable it to be fruitful and to play its intended role in giving glory to God. That is part of our proper worship of God.
The very existence of the universe is the result of God's creative activity
The third reason is that one day the cosmos will be renewed and re-created as the "new heavens and new earth", to which both the Old and New Testaments look forward (Isaiah 65, Revelation 21). That will bring the fullness of life that God intended and purposed for His creation: a place where people will truly be at home, where God will dwell with His people, and both they and the whole of creation will worship Him and give Him glory."

Environmentalism is Marxism






The green doctrine that nonhuman things have "objective value" may be descended from Marxist theory of objective value. This notion was exploded in 1871 by Carl Menger's publication of *Grundsatze der Volkswirtschaftslehre*, which exposed all values as radically subjective. As Aldo Leopold admitted, this is absolutely true for naturalistic aesthetic values.

To be accepted as an "environmentalist" nowadays, it is not sufficient to seek to implement the most effective means of conserving natural resources and minimizing environmental harm. It is necessary to accept the dogma that free people are self- destructive, and that statist aggression through global nationalization and totalitarian control of resources and behavior (including reproduction) is necessary to restrain their self-destructive tendencies (Not explained is why people suddenly become non-self-destructive when acting politically or as bureaucrats).

It is irrefutably demonstrated in the work of Coase, Posner, Breyer, Buchanan & Tullock and Olson that the common-law institutions of several property and strict liability are the most effective means of conserving resources and minimizing environmental harm, and that nationalization and bureaucratic regulation lead always to regulatory capture and the tragedy of the commons, as seen at Chernobyl, in the killing of Lake Baikal, and the burning of soft coal throughout Eastern Europe and China.

Yet to be an "environmentalist," one must pay obesiance to this command-and-control approach, regardless of the ecological catastrophe it engenders. The slightest hint of ideological deviance or pragmatism in consideration of exactly what types of institutions are most successful in achieving the purported goals of maximizing environmental health and the quality of life is enough to brand one as an "eco-villain."

The embrace of Greenpeace and Earth First! by such formerly orthodox Marxist journals as The Nation reveals a serious deterioration of the left. CPUSA National Chairman Gus Hall said as early as 1972 that "in the struggle to save the environment....we must be the leaders of these movements.... Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible." Likewise, Carl Bloice boasted last year that "The environmental movement promises to bring greater numbers into our orbit than the peace movement ever did."

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

- Aldous Huxley

A Christian view of Communism

"First, Communism is based on a materialistic and humanistic view of life and history. According to Communist theory, matter, not mind or spirit, speaks the last word in the universe. Such a philosophy is avowedly secularistic and atheistic. Under it, God is merely a figment of the imagination, religion is a product of fear and ignorance, and the church is an invention of the rulers to control the masses. Moreover, Communism, like humanism, thrives on the grand illusion that man, unaided by any divine power, can save himself and usher in a new society--
Cold atheism wrapped in the garments of materialism, Communism provides no place for God or Christ.

At the center of the Christian faith is the affirmation that there is a God in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator, sustainer, and conserver of values. In opposition to Communism's atheistic materialism, Christianity posits a theistic idealism. Reality cannot be explained by matter in motion or the push and pull of economic forces. Christianity affirms that at the heart of reality is a Heart, a loving Father who works through history for the salvation of his children. Man cannot save himself, for man is not the measure of all things and humanity is not God. Bound by the chains of his own sin and finiteness, man needs a Savior. "

Marx, Darwin, and the upheaval in the biological sciences

[FONT=9261e02fb064d9550e644750#780c00]By Sam Marcy [/FONT]

Published Feb 9, 2009 10:56 PM
This essay by the founder of Workers World Party was originally published in the Workers World of March 25, 1983, to coincide with the centennial of the death of Karl Marx.



Charles Darwin


It would be wholly inappropriate and indeed regrettable to discuss the centennial of Marx’s death without touching on the relationship between Marxism and Darwinism, and on the relation of Marx and Darwin as contemporaries who also corresponded with each other. The current upheaval in the biological sciences should indeed deepen interest in both the natural sciences as well as Marxism. Had the capitalist mode of production already been eliminated, there would have been a double commemoration in the years 1982-83 for both Darwin and Marx.


Two giants of science




Karl Marx


Kliment Timiriazev, one of the very first in old Russia to have been a great Darwinian naturalist and incidentally one of the first to acquaint himself with Marx’s’ “Capital” when it was first published in Russia, wrote on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee Year (1919) upon the publication of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” and Marx’s “Critique of Political Economy”: “When we commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of the publication of these two books, when we think of it as a joint commemoration of Marx and Darwin, we do so recognizing that the two men marched side-by-side under the banner of natural science. Both of them regarded natural science as the one solid foundation for their revolutionary views, views that were destined to shake up both the ‘consciousness’ and the existence of all mankind.

Is it not plain that the way to the overthrow of the outworn culture of the bourgeoisie, the way to the building up of the proletarian culture of tomorrow, is the way of science, of natural science which has discarded the mystical and metaphysical formulas of the past?” (From “Karl Marx: Man, Thinker, and Revolutionist,” a symposium edited by David Riazanov.)

Marx and Darwin were, as the early Darwinian naturalist Timiriazev recognized, both standing on the solid ground of science. Timiriazev refers of course to Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” and Marx’s “Critique of Political Economy” because the fact they were published in the same year is such a striking illustration of the nature of the epoch in which they made their great discoveries. It was still the so-called progressive epoch of the bourgeoisie. The enthusiasm with which Darwin’s book was received—almost an instant success in England—was in sharp contrast to Marx’s book.


Darwin’s rather quick acceptance was due to the fact that some of the leading biologists at the time, including J. Hooker, A. Wallace, and Thomas Huxley in Great Britain, Haeckel, Muller, and Weisman in Germany, and some in the United States, accepted the Darwinian doctrine.

Thus the bourgeoisie was ready, but not altogether and not until after a lot of acrimonious discussion and struggle, to accept Darwin.

But it was altogether different with Marx. Under no circumstances could they accept Marx’s conclusions in his “Critique of Political Economy.” A conspiracy of silence veiled the discoveries of Marx except among the revolutionary working class elements of the time.


Marx and Engels hailed Darwin

Lenin on evolution

The reactionary evolutionism of Malthus

New attacks on Darwin

Sneaking God in
This is a way to sneak God in through the back door, a more sophisticated version of the old teleological theory of design and purpose in nature with the Designer being the “final” answer.

Gone is the period of early progressive capitalism with its robust optimism about art, science, technology, and practically everything!



from MARXIST GROUP WORKER'S WORLD:
Marx, Darwin, and the upheaval in the biological sciences

drugs are bad.. mmmkaay

noooo...some drugs do man a service.

the topic is more related to bad guys using their "science" for mind control.

..... You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile..

lol that and your avatar is so fitting lol.

mind control only works on the weak minded and the ones who do NOT have the HOLY SPIRIT inside them and have NOT given their mind, body and soul FULLY to GOD. For GOD is stronger than any poison be it chemical or pyschological. For a thief can not steal from a strong man unless he first bind the man and then try and steal from him and who can bind God? NO ONE or thing in the entire universe

We have to cast out any thoughts that are not of God.. The devil is after our minds. The only real power the devil has over us is deception

exactly.

nowhere are we called to be ignorant of his devices.

Hebrews 5:14
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

The first church I truly felt at home had this sign hanging on the doorway as you entered:

"Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds."