The names have changed – the game’s the same

There is a point in the long series of youtubes on the elites of the known world from ancient times to the present which is quite accessible in what it says to readers of OoL and directly affects liberty because it is an expose of what the elites are and have always been about.

Someone said the other day that the terms Left and Right are now obsolete and that Statist and Freeman are the new terms. I’d suggest they’re hardly new concepts – they’ve always been but from time to time, Left-Right, Communist-Capitalist and so on have come into vogue and caused mayhem on earth. The names change, the game remains the same.

The series itself is an unapologetically Christian view on the practical political manifestations of what, by any definition we would take as evil [or as something we should at least fight] but the series not about Christianity itself – it’s a political/historical treatise.

This part is about Plato and republics in general. If you can get past the opening few words, which do sound lecturing, it’s worth a look as his tone in general is anything but lecturing – he just presents a case:

… and this about pseudo-science:

He previously mentioned the Jezebel principle which goes like this:

There are two approaches to get what you want – Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is the Feminin or soft or persuasive, manipulative, using attraction and reason and Plan B is the forceful, Masculin, using coercion and violence.

It can be applied to anything which has ever happened politically. The series is not specifically anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim in that it’s a political/historical treatise but it does recognize how politics and religion have been interwoven through history as a means to ensure power. It mentions Mohammed at one stage and his Mecca persona then his Medina persona, two completely different things. The former saw Mohammed using soft words of enticement, characteristic of a still weak position and the second used far more authoritative or even authoritarian language, from his new position of strength.

Similarly, in the early days, the EEC [later EU] trod softly and peddled lies or rather the truth they wished to be allowed known but recently, the gloves have come right off and they’re now compelling nation states to do this or that.

It’s the Jezebel principle and it has never altered, ever, throughout history. You might label it differently.

He goes into the Jesuits as a power organization, their modus operandi and how they were suppressed, how many arose again through Weishaupt’s new organization. He never claims anything without backing it up with documentation from the time period and one motif which continually crops up is the use of words to mean one thing to the public but actually meaning something entirely more sinister to the adepts.

We can see this today with “positive discrimination”, “fair distribution”, “the greater good” and all the PC buzzwords employed to mislead the muggles who are, in fact, not thick but simply are not into politics in a big way and who are therefore more susceptible to being misled than would be, say, a reader of political blogs.

The names have changed – the game’s the same.

And the goal? Well look at the clips.

26 comments for “The names have changed – the game’s the same

  1. Lord T
    December 13, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    That is how they do it all the time.

    1) They try something. It fails.
    2) They rename it and tweak something and try again. It fails.
    3) Go to 2

    There as so many failed experiments in our history and some of it still to come. Yes, EUSSR, I’m talking about you.

    And we keep putting up with it because what they say the goals are sound admirable. Not achievable but whats the harm in having a try.

    Slowly bit by bit they chip away until we end up where we are now and they still chip away.

    I’m coming to the conclusion that we need to strangle all these people at birth. How to identify them though. Ah, who cares, let’s strangle them the first time they suggest something that impinges on another human beings freedom. That should do it.

  2. Voice of Reason
    December 14, 2011 at 3:34 am

    Has there ever been a society not organized this way in fact?

  3. Voice of Reason
    December 14, 2011 at 3:49 am

    The problem is that the correspondent deliberately ignores the fact that every ‘Christian’ society has also acted in these ways, not just the Catholics.

  4. Voice of Reason
    December 14, 2011 at 4:03 am

    The maker of those videos is a religious lunatic zealot. The whole point of science (which is what I practice) is to try and understand the world, and make that information as widely known as possible. The only people that I know who are actively suppressing that dissemination in the West are the extreme Christians and Muslims, and the politicians who pander to them.

    Unlike the Catholic church, the science community doesn’t torture and burn people who try to learn. He is too lazy and ignorant to actually learn what we know, as are most people. Science has one basic rule – if it doesn’t work, discard it. That’s what people hate, as it interferes with their emotions.

    • December 14, 2011 at 8:06 am

      You miss the distinction between true science and Scientism. The latter is the utter bullsh put out by the Royal Society and others [check out their antecedents, you just need to ask the right questions] for political reasons, namely the replacing of Catholic dogma [it being the ruling force for ages] with pseudo-scientific dogma. This has now extended into any major scientific body, e.g. the Gore campaign’s IPCC, Kyoto, COP etc.

      For example, there’s a fossil record and no one disputes it but the interpretation by Darwin and others is so full of holes, as science itself has shown. To teach evolution as an unquestioned dogma is just as bad as the Catholic church doing as it did for centuries.

      And yes, other churches did it too. The whole point of Wycliffe and the others was to get the bible out to the common people so they could read it for themselves and what happened? The “elders” and “pastors” still stepped in and claimed the right to interpret it. This has been the bane of Christianity all along. The faith itself makes sense but not when presented to the public the way it has been – for command and control reasons, not to mention moneymaking reasons.

      Any biblical Christian knows where all that stuff is. Those worshipping the Goddess of Reason would not see it because their minds are closed to history.

      As for the young Scot, he’s spot on with the model for the EU – the knowledgeable and wise at the top – Barroso, Rumpy-Pumpy etc., the facilitators, e.g. Cameron, Clegg and then the muggles down below – us.

      He’s also spot on about what this is all leading to and who’s behind it [comes near the end of the series]. The symbolism alone at EUHQ gives the game away. If it wasn’t so, then why would they bother putting it everywhere? Why would it be the same at UNHQ?

      We need to wake up and smell the coffee.


      UPDATE: The Slog said this, on another article:

      When religion is left to its own devices, and a neutral influence on the State, it is nearly always benign, and a force for social good.

      When religion either drives the State (Iran) or backs up its bigotry (Saudi Arabia) it cannot be but a force for evil.

      I would – truly, madly and deeply – like to hear what Harriet Harman’s take on this is [the Saudi execution]. But I’m not holding my breath.

      • Kevyn Bodman
        December 14, 2011 at 3:51 pm

        1) What do you think are the shortcomings of Darwinism?


        2)’He’s also spot on about what this is all leading to and who’s behind it [comes near the end of the series]. The symbolism alone at EUHQ gives the game away.’

        My internet connection is far too slow to watch videos, can you please briefly explain?


        • December 14, 2011 at 8:56 pm

          The issue of Darwin is fraught because any statement about him will be misinterpreted by scientismists on the one hand or by creationists on the other.

          Firstly, he was not operating dispassionately. There were conclusions he is susceptible to having wanted to prove, rather than dispassionately observe natural phenomena and come to a neutral conclusion. The atmosphere at that time was too highly charged. This history article mentions the neutrality issue.

          There are issues even within evolution, touched on by this pdf:

          darwinism pdf

          … and within natural selection itself:


          Even Darwin went to his deathbed protesting that he’d been misunderstood and things were attributed to him which were not as he’d intended. Essentially, he came out with a theory to explain natural phenomena and that’s all it was. How good or bad it was has been debated even within science and new ideas come up all the time, e.g.:

          Nigel Goldenfield

          It’s natural to wonder if the very concept of an organism in isolation is still valid at this level. In natural selection, we all know, the fittest win out over their rivals. But what if you can’t establish clear boundaries between rivals in the first place?

          Epigenetics has something to say about natural selection as well. As science and in particular biology changes, so does the need to reevaluate natural selection and the accepted tenets of evolution itself. As I said in the post, the issue is not the fossil record but the interpretation of it.

          The point in my post was that scientismists are so dogmatic, without fully comprehending but psychologically bent on accepting natural selection, when Darwin even admitted there were other theories as well as NS to explain phenomena.

          My issue is not with Darwin but with the Scientismists, just as much as with the blind faithers in the church. I’d be much more inclined to believe a biologist who happens to be a Christian as well and who accepts evolution in certain ways, e.g.

          In the end though, it is a theory with holes in it, as mentioned in the pdfs and the modern studies. it is not gospel by any means.


          The symbolism of the goddess and bull is from Babylonian times.

          • Kevyn Bodman
            December 15, 2011 at 6:54 am

            Will look.

  5. Voice of Reason
    December 14, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    “For example, there’s a fossil record and no one disputes it but the interpretation by Darwin and others is so full of holes, as science itself has shown. To teach evolution as an unquestioned dogma is just as bad as the Catholic church doing as it did for centuries.”

    This is complete and utter bull. The assumptions, raw data and results are checked again and again. The problem is that the results in science all too often run into emotional pet notions, including Young Earth, Geocentrism and the like. Everything there can be checked by anyone with the ability and work ethic necessary.

    • December 14, 2011 at 9:01 pm

      Just replied to Kevyn Bodman and that covers your own bull, VofR. You’re so obviously hardwired:

      “The assumptions, raw data and results are checked again and again.”

      What utter tosh. You ascribe nobility of method across the board and don’t even specify who checks again and again. In the pipeline at this very moment are reports on two falsifications of data which I’m posting on as soon as I can get time at the blog again. Scientists are being called out more and more and if we follow your logic, VofR, we also have to accept the IPCC, I suppose. It’s really laughable to put scientists up on that pedestal you so desperately want them up on.

      Natural selection was bought hook line and sinker, unfisked, as part of the whole rationalist push in the C19th. The issue is not what a hardliner thinks on the issue but what the uncommitted think. That was why an alternative voice to the blind scientism and evolutionary dogma needed to be given.

  6. Voice of Reason
    December 15, 2011 at 2:55 am

    I have been reading detailed debates and debating conservatives on Global Warming, Evolution, Peak Oil, Star Wars defense and other topics online for some years. It never fails to surprise me when my earnest opponent serves up supporting documentation which either is not relevant , or undermines their own case.
    Let’s look at your references here:
    1. – a philosophy lecture that discusses the moral implications of Darwins’ discoveries, not the science itself.
    2. – another philosophy piece which doesn’t address the science in either contents or references. The argument mostly concentrates on the issue that Darwin discussed, that evolution is not a process that always leads ‘upwards’. This piece argues otherwise, against the evidence, since Darwin knew about blind cave fish and tapeworms, which have ancestors with the usual features which the former have lost. That this doesn’t fit what the author would like to be true is his problem, not reality’s.
    3. – this is the most interesting. I gather that you didn’t actually read it. It was written by Russians, and perhaps a better title would be ‘…in natural selection..’, since it discusses conclusions of some differential equation models in competition of two species. I don’t have time to check right now, but it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot more work hasn’t been done in this specific model, since population dynamics took off after WWII, and is a very active field.
    In short, we are only discussing this issue because your particular belief system has zero evidence in its favour, and evolution theory has lots, with mathematical models, genetics, comparative morphology, paleontology, geology, physics, and the rest of science supporting it.

    • December 15, 2011 at 8:39 am – this is the most interesting. I gather that you didn’t actually read it. It was written by Russians, and perhaps a better title would be ‘…in natural selection..’, since it discusses conclusions of some differential equation models in competition of two species.

      I did read it, VofR, which is why I included it. Obviously the mathematical part went over my head but the conclusions didn’t. I’m not trying to throw out the theory but merely to point out that it is but theory based on observed data, just as there was considerable evidence that something went on in ancient times from which a consistent theme came out and references to the same sorts of names came through in different parts of the known world.

      And science being science, things come up all along to modify the original theory. Of all areas, true science should be the one with the least dogmatism because the whole idea is hypothesis, testing and the drawing of tentative conclusions, given this factor or that.

      My beef is with the blind scientismist who doesn’t fully know his stuff [Dawkins et al] but trots out the old rationalist line in adversarial, dogmatic manner, rather than taking into account all phenomena, physical and metaphysical. I’m suggesting that there is very strong bias at work in here, even detestation from the rationalist and fundamentalist and that must cloud judgement on both sides.

      I’m suggesting that the truth must take into account all phenomena and all anomalies. The High Church of Rationalism is no more useful in leading us to this than the former High Church of the “Christian” religion [which was actually the mystery religion tricked out in crusading robes, with corrupt secularists running it in its formal form].

      First reject the dogmatist in any area of discussion and then we can at least look at things dispassionately. But to ascribe nobility to one’s own favoured group and not to the other is too melodramatic.

      your particular belief system has zero evidence in its favour

      Utter bollox. Assertion without evidence in itself. You’re trying to compare an explanation of, say, how electricity works, with why love and conscience work. Two completely different fields but both adding to the whole sum of human experience.

      This italicized statement is all about mindset and prejudice rather than rational debate. So there it sits and those who have that prejudice will continue to and those who see the other side will also.

      Those in the middle will make up their own minds, free of either of us.

      [By the way, VofR – you’re always welcome and there is no personal edge to this whatever.]

      • Voice of Reason
        December 15, 2011 at 4:06 pm

        1. You also have to be careful. The model considered was done without data (although the original Latka-Volterra equations were based on data). The conclusions on branch points suggest what might be observed. Thus, it strengthens the underlying theory, rather than point out defects.
        2. As for the belief system that I referred to, you have made it very clear that you are Christian. Some of what you have written strongly suggest that you belong to the minority that take the Bible not just as inerrant, but as factual. Examinations of the events given in both Old and New Testaments by scientists, archaeologists and historians show the contrary, in every case that I know of – the Great Flood, Fall of Jericho, who was in charge in Palestine, etc.
        3. You also appear to suffer from the delusion that our various business and political leaders like science. They don’t, since scientists ask awkward questions. That’s why those are the first people persecuted in any revolution. Science also has the unfortunate tendency to come up with results that don’t fit emotional ideas, not just in religion, e.g. tax cuts for the rich will jumpstart the economy.

        On the last issue, I never take any of this personally, unless my opponent gets off-topic and deliberately personal.

  7. December 15, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    Some of what you have written strongly suggest that you belong to the minority that take the Bible not just as inerrant, but as factual.

    Suggest you look at your own point one, first sentence in the last comment, VofR. One does need to be careful about assertions and base them on the person’s overall track record. Better still – ask. 🙂

    • Voice of Reason
      December 16, 2011 at 1:24 am

      In that case, why is the correctness of evolution theory an issue to you?

      • Revolution Harry
        December 17, 2011 at 8:49 pm

        “Correctness of evolution theory”

        I’m afraid you’ll have to be slightly more specific VoR. All the ones I looked at didn’t bear scrutiny.

        • Voice of Reason
          December 18, 2011 at 4:02 am

          I have been watching and reading debates on the subject for at least two decades. For those on the anti-evolution side, I have seen arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, arguments from adverse consequences, and outright lies. Throughout those debates, and several federal lawsuits, the sum total of scientific evidence produced against evolution is 0.
          Unless you have such data, your dislike of evolution theory is most likely emotional, not scientific. If you do have it, then thousands across the US and UK would be overjoyed to have it.

          • Revolution Harry
            December 18, 2011 at 10:32 pm

            Thanks for that but all I really wanted to know was what is your definition of evolution.

            I too have watched many debates on this issue and the conclusion I reached is that the science does not support evolution. I’ve seen no transition fossils or species when there should be innumerable examples. I’ve seen no evidence as to how life could arise from non-life. I’ve seen no evidence as to how ‘something could come from nothing’ aka the ‘Big Bang’. An event that just happened by chance to create a Universe with physical laws just right for the existence of life. The odds involved that the evolutionary process could then proceed from non-life to the world and all that’s in it are beyond comprehension. That’s before we get to how something as mind bogglingly complex as a single cell let alone DNA arising by random chance. How exactly does a fish become a bird or a whale become a cow? I could go on, there are many more anomalies and unanswered questions with regards to evolution. My disbelief is not emotional.

  8. Voice of Reason
    December 19, 2011 at 2:40 am

    If your response is not emotional, it is a rather amazing coincidence that every objection which you list is from the standard creationist playbook.
    For the record, and anyone else still reading this, let’s give the very brief run-down:
    1. The Big Bang model is cosmology, not evolution. All of the physical evidence points in that direction, although the question of what happened ‘before’ doesn’t make sense, as time itself started then.
    2. ‘Life from non-life’ is abiogenesis, again not evolution. The only people who claim that whole cells arose at once are creationists. The current models show very primitive self-replicating strands of RNA covered in lipids, all of which can be explained by current physical laws. It’s no more ‘random’ than hydrogen combining with oxygen.
    3. The topic of transitionals is evolution. In one sense, every creature on Earth is such, unless you wish to insist that children are identical to their parents. That such exist is demonstrated by the fact that we have literally millions of extinct species. The best known ‘new’ example is Tiktaalik, whose existence and placement in the fossil record was predicted long before it was discovered.
    As I said before, your arguments are those from ignorance and incredulity, with no scientific evidence whatsoever presented.

    • Revolution Harry
      December 21, 2011 at 1:06 am

      The reason I initially asked what your definition of evolution is, was precisely because there are so many varied definitions. Many include the hypothesis of the Big Bang in the sense that it was there that the whole process that resulted in the world around us began. The term is, I think, cosmic evolution.

      I’d dispute that all of the physical evidence points in that direction. Indeed your claim that ‘the question of what happened ‘before’ doesn’t make sense, as time itself started then’, starkly proves the magical element of the Big Bang theory. There was nothing then from nowhere there was time, space and matter, seems to sum it up.

      ‘Life from non-life’ seems a suitable label to pin on the theory of how life evolved or came into being. Abiogenesis is ‘the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes’. Wikipedia includes the ‘RNA world hypothesis’ as one of the possibilities of how this may have happened. This hypothesis is a very long way from being proved or successfully replicated. At least in the sense of a plausible theory for how life evolved on earth.

      Every creature on earth, including children, do indeed show evidence of variation in the gene pool. What they do not show is new, beneficial, genes being produced. This is micro-evolution which nobody disputes.

      I wanted evidence for macro-evolution, that is changes from one type to another, fish to bird for example. I see you gave me just one when there should be a vast array of examples. Unsurprisingly ‘Tiktaalik’ is heavily disputed.

      In the first link above the Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer states:

      “The (historical) question that must be asked about biological origins is not “Which materialistic scenario will prove adequate?” but “How did life as we know it actually arise on earth?” Since one of the logically appropriate answers to this latter question is that “Life was designed by an intelligent agent that existed before the advent of humans,” I believe it is anti-intellectual to exclude the “design hypothesis” without consideration of all the evidence, including the most current evidence, that would support it”.

      Anti-intellectual and emotional?

  9. Voice of Reason
    December 22, 2011 at 2:15 am

    Here are some brief answers:
    1. There is a single definition for biology, which is what James first addressed. (Biological) evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. It is observed and has generated observed predictions. The evolution of the universe is modeled mathematically, and that model has also produced verified predictions. That we can follow back to the start is a consequence of General relativity.
    2. New beneficial genes have also been observed through gene sequencing. The mutation which allowed some to digest lactose was a beneficial mutation, as was the one for digesting gluten, which my wife and children lack. A mutation has been found in a family/village in Italy which apparently makes them immune to heart disease. Another allowed some to survive the Black Plague, which also gives protection against HIV. A species of bacterium developed a mutation which enabled it to digest nylon (only invented in 1945 or so).
    3. Macro-evolution is change at the species level, which is also observed. In fact, in Lake Victoria, it is even observed at higher levels.
    4. The design hypothesis has been around for a long time. Not only is there no evidence found for it, but it is scientifically useless. I had a debate some time ago with a local creationist. I asked why squid eyes are different from ours, to which he replied that this is because they were designed to live in the lower waters. I then asked why shark eyes are the vertebrate eye, rather than the cephalopod eye. ‘They were designed that way’. This hypothesis answers everything and nothing. It doesn’t say who the designer was (to get around the US First Amendment), or how it was done, or why.
    5. Changes from one ‘type’ to another have been mapped in the fossil record. Tiktaalik is not disputed by scientists as to whether it is an intermediate from fish to reptile, but whether it was the first.
    6. For more detail, just go to the archive. There is more referenced information there than you could digest in a month. In contrast, the anti-evolution groups do no actual research, and then lie about what is known.

    • Revolution Harry
      January 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm

      Sorry for the delay in responding but I’m afraid Christmas and a bit of a cold got in the way.

      As I’ve said, nobody disagrees with the definition ‘change in allele frequency over time’. Allele frequency on its own does not create new genetic information, it merely changes trait distributions.

      Mathematical models are just that, models. Which ‘model’ are you referring to? The ‘Big Bang’ theory? Which Big Bang theory? There are major flaws in them all but I need to know which one you’re talking about.

      A few beneficial genetic mutations may have been discovered but this is as a result of new traits not new genetic information. In addition, the scarcity of these examples doesn’t bode well for the evolutionist claim that this is the mechanism whereby species change occurs.

      You mention Lake Victoria but without any specifics. Is your example of macro evolution the cichlid fish? That’s all I could find when I ‘Googled’. If so surely it’s self evident that this is only proof of micro evolution, varied combinations of the same characters from the same ancestral gene pool.

      It’s interesting that you should choose the ‘irreducibly complex’ eye as an example of the evidence for evolution. ‘They were designed that way’ seems as perfectly acceptable as ‘they evolved that way’. Who the designer is, how it was done and why is surely a separate issue.

      Tiktaalik is most certainly disputed by scientists.

      Is that really the best example for macro evolution you can provide? You’ll have to give me some examples of those that have been ‘mapped in the fossil record’.

      Anti-evolution groups do no actual research is so laughably wrong. Perhaps the reason why you’re not so aware of it is the incredible disparity of funds available. As with ‘global warming’ the ruling ‘elite’ oligarchy heavily fund evolution and promote it throughout all educational institutions and the media. The interesting question is why? Teach the science and let people come to their own conclusions.

      It seems neither of us are going to change our minds on this. Having said that I suppose technically I already have. I’m not sure what it was that inspired me to look at this subject with fresh eyes but I’m glad that I did. I shudder to think that at one time I actually believed in evolution.

      Happy New Year,


      PS If you click ‘reply’ if and when you respond then I get an email telling me which is a lot easier than having to keep checking back. Thanks 🙂

  10. Voice of Reason
    January 6, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    Some quick comments:

    1. “Big Bang” – the model fits all observations up to Planck time. What causes the expansion, and where the singularity came from are open questions.
    2. “…new traits not new genetic information…” – this is scientifically null. Dembski and others have tried to use techniques from information theory to apply to biology, and their efforts have failed.
    3. “…varied combinations of the same characters from the same ancestral gene pool…” – this is demonstrably not true. In fact, an experiment last year showed entirely new genes being produced under experimental conditions.
    4. “… the ‘irreducibly complex’ eye…” – isn’t, as intermediate forms have been discovered throughout the fossil record.
    5. “‘They were designed that way’ seems as perfectly acceptable as ‘they evolved that way’” – not true. Other than the problems which you mentioned, it doesn’t give a method to discern that which is designed from that which has evolved, and the latter has been observed to do so.
    6. “It’s all about the money, that’s why they haven’t done the research” – also demonstrably not true. Not only is there research that doesn’t require funding, the Discovery Institute and others have a lot of money from creationist sources, which they choose to use on PR, rather than knowledge. At the Dover trial, it was also shown that the anti-evolution groups haven’t even tried to do research. Behe himself admitted that he stopped doing research.

    • January 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm

      You still at it, VofR? 🙂

Comments are closed.