Christian Shades of Gray and The Coming Civil War

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following excerpted article ponders whether we'll have a real civil war in the near future, by talking to five historians about the topic. I say that we will indeed have a civil war, as this seems to be Trump's hidden agenda, consistent with the historical and religious typology I have discussed elsewhere on this site.

Trump is a type of Samson, preparing the way for the "Kingdom Come" du jour, the 'next' new world order. Samson, the son of Danoi (yes, those Greeks) immigrants was sent to "seek an occasion against" the Philistines, the people whom the Lord had placed in charge of the 'evil-doing' Israelites. At a mortal cost to himself, Samson succeeded in riling up the Philistines, but we are told that ultimately the Israelites obtained a kingship, ironically one which they hated.

Today, white America, at least, are the descendants of the pioneers who fanatically re-enacted the Biblical Conquest upon the American Indians, the Canaanites du jour. Racial slavery was Biblically justified, ironically making African blacks the literal descendants of Canaan, who suffered because his father Ham had some funny business with the drunk and naked Noah, his grandfather.

The northern slave colonies [sic] eventually disavowed the Biblical justification, and as well turned the insane Bible global real estate land grab narrative into a theological metaphor celebrating personal salvation. This is how we fool ourselves with religion, and why it is yet possible to be having a real life typological redux of history, working well within repeating millennial apocalyptic cycles. These revealing 'apocalypses' are always revealing how gullible most humans are to cynical shepherding techniques. This is why Jesus (aka Titus Flavius - the graft of Romans 11) says: "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do (Stupid MFs)."

Now, in the unfolding Futurist Apocalypse, the Christian (actual or cultural) Nationalists are being led over the cliffs of Gadara by Trump the Pied Piper, of which some evangelicals have even correctly identified Trump as their Samson. But he is also the Beast of the Sea, fulfilling the dragon's hidden global agenda.

Imagine the glee in Steve Bannon's mind, the student of The Art of War, knowing that he and the WH Jesu cabal are craftily employing the white "losers" that historically equated his Irish Catholic ilk as little better than the black sons of Canaan. The Jewish nationalist Zealots of old did not understand their global canonic subtext, and neither do the nationalist zealots today, their ancestral Conquistador heritage notwithstanding.

"This land is my land, this land is your land, from ...."

Because Jews and Christians, of all shades of gray, refuse to wean themselves from this cynical, genocidal, filth, we are all doomed to repeat this sick nonsense over and over. While the "knowing" laugh all the way to the bank.

...
America’s stability is increasingly an undercurrent in political discourse. Earlier this year, I began a conversation with Keith Mines about America’s turmoil. Mines has spent his career—in the U.S. Army Special Forces, the United Nations, and now the State Department—navigating civil wars in other countries, including Afghanistan, Colombia, El Salvador, Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan. He returned to Washington after sixteen years to find conditions that he had seen nurture conflict abroad now visible at home. It haunts him. In March, Mines was one of several national-security experts whom Foreign Policy asked to evaluate the risks of a second civil war—with percentages. Mines concluded that the United States faces a sixty-per-cent chance of civil war over the next ten to fifteen years. Other experts’ predictions ranged from five per cent to ninety-five per cent. The sobering consensus was thirty-five per cent. And that was five months before Charlottesville.

“We keep saying, ‘It can’t happen here,’ but then, holy smokes, it can,” Mines told me after we talked, on Sunday, about Charlottesville. The pattern of civil strife has evolved worldwide over the past sixty years. Today, few civil wars involve pitched battles from trenches along neat geographic front lines. Many are low-intensity conflicts with episodic violence in constantly moving locales. Mines’s definition of a civil war is large-scale violence that includes a rejection of traditional political authority and requires the National Guard to deal with it. On Saturday, McAuliffe put the National Guard on alert and declared a state of emergency.

Based on his experience in civil wars on three continents, Mines cited five conditions that support his prediction: entrenched national polarization, with no obvious meeting place for resolution; increasingly divisive press coverage and information flows; weakened institutions, notably Congress and the judiciary; a sellout or abandonment of responsibility by political leadership; and the legitimization of violence as the “in” way to either conduct discourse or solve disputes.

President Trump “modeled violence as a way to advance politically and validated bullying during and after the campaign,” Mines wrote in Foreign Policy. “Judging from recent events the left is now fully on board with this,” he continued, citing anarchists in anti-globalization riots as one of several flashpoints. “It is like 1859, everyone is mad about something and everyone has a gun.” ...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-america-headed-for-a-new-kind-of-civil-war
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Today, few civil wars involve pitched battles from trenches along neat geographic front lines. Many are low-intensity conflicts with episodic violence in constantly moving locales.
Charlottesville sure fits this definition. This HBO video got about 20 million views on Facebook, as well as 4 million on YouTube.

 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I pondered for a while as to where I should post the video on slavery below, since I have commented on slavery so much on the blog and especially the forum. Then I remembered this recent article on WaPo about "antebellum" thinking going on in the new white 'conservatism' today. The article discusses the rhetorical lengths of casuistic justification that can only be described as what Christians traditionally ascribed as coming from the Pharisees of Jesus' day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/29/conservatives-say-weve-abandoned-reason-civility-old-south-said-that-too/

The author demonstrates that blaming 'liberals' (or whomever) for the lack of civility today, while working overtime to roll back the hard fought rules of the game, is from an old playbook meant to place the opposition on their heels. And, such techniques have been fairly successful.

In any case, the above segues well into Alex O'Connor's discussion (below) of the OT treatment of slavery, in the light of a black American Xian's absurd defense of Biblical slavery practices. This where the latter is demonstrated to take such verses out of context. As such, one would think that such argumentation would be natural for a Southern white mourning the Lost Cause, but such mental inversion is typical for anyone mentally enslaved to the Good Book of Slavery.

O'Connor takes on the issue that slavery of yore had an aspect that was volitional, and this has its roots from at least Sumeria. But, he goes on to show repeated verses showing that in the wider context, that if one was outside of the Hebrew tribes, slavery that was permanent and brutal was on a extra-tribal basis. If you were one of the Hebrew tribes, you could only be enslaved for 7 years. You could opt to stay enslaved permanently, but then had to have a hole punched in one of your ear lobes, as a legal requirement.


The dark irony is that we know today that the common 'Hebrews' were mostly the original Canaanites, of whom were condemned by God to be permanently enslaved, because of Canaan's father, Ham, having had sex with the naked and fallen-down drunk, Noah, Canaan's grandfather. BTW, Noah did not become preggers, as every conservative today knows that one cannot become preggers via rape. That is Xian Science 101.

Unfortunately, O'Connor did not go on to detail that the NT merely goes on to ask slaveowners to be nice to their slaves and for slaves to obey their masters. How can these Christians be more reasonable than this for Dogod's sake?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You could opt to stay enslaved permanently, but then had to have a hole punched in one of your ear lobes, as a legal requirement.
This requirement is quoted from Exodus 21:2-6, and applies to a Hebrew servant who says "I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free...", meaning that if the servant goes free, he leaves his wife and children behind as slaves? I think O'Connor missed that element of coercion. I bet a surprisingly high percentage of "Hebrew servants" opted for pierced ears and re-enlistment, with those terms.

Rick, do you happen to know if any of the other religious texts and traditions dating back to the same era as the Bible, had any more enlightened position regarding slavery? Wasn't it pretty much of a universally accepted practice? And, doesn't this constitute a good reason to be skeptical of all ancient religions, and not just Judaeo-Christian denominations?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
meaning that if the servant goes free, he leaves his wife and children behind as slaves? I think O'Connor missed that element of coercion. I bet a surprisingly high percentage of "Hebrew servants" opted for pierced ears and re-enlistment, with those terms.
Good catch, makes sense.
Rick, do you happen to know if any of the other religious texts and traditions dating back to the same era as the Bible, had any more enlightened position regarding slavery? Wasn't it pretty much of a universally accepted practice? And, doesn't this constitute a good reason to be skeptical of all ancient religions, and not just Judaeo-Christian denominations?
I'm not aware if there are such texts from that period or not. Obviously the Greeks and Romans had slaves. There are older Sumerian (or Akkadian?) texts that provide details about such as volitional bondage, motivated by poor circumstances, involving members of one's own society. Such a bonded person could earn their own money on the side and buy there way out of bondage, or even own their own house.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
BUDDHISM AND SLAVERY

"Slavery is an institution wherein a person is legally owned by others and forced to work for them. Slaves (dàsa), like other property, can be bought, sold or mortgaged. There were five types of slaves in ancient India; those born to enslaved mothers, those purchased, those who voluntarily became slaves, e.g. to escape starvation during times of famine, those who became slaves out of fear and those captured in raids (Ja.VI,285; Vin.IV,224).

The Buddha said that the buying and selling of human beings is a wrong means of livelihood for lay people (A.III,208) and he forbade monks and nuns to accept gifts of slaves or to own them (D.I,5). These teachings seem to be the oldest known prohibition against slavery.

Despite such teachings, slavery has existed in all Buddhist countries, as it has everywhere else in the world. The first country with a significant Buddhist culture to abolish slavery was Japan which did so in 1590. "

https://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=384
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Buddhism frequently gets viewed by critics of most other religions as being very benign in comparison. And in some senses this is true, where it appears to have the most profound emphasis on personal spiritual perfection, and thus providing a means to becoming most effective in both living a fulfilling and productive live for one's self and for society. However, the widest evidence demonstrates that it some rather vile aspects as do all the others.

Michael Parenti has written quite a bit about this, and such as its "enlightened feudalism": https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Michael+Parenti+Buddhism&t=ffsb&atb=v173-1&ia=web

It has been noted that Christianity's traditional implementation of feudalism dovetails with the Platonism embedded within the NT corpus, where Plato described a feudal society as seeming to be the ideal. As I have pondered whether Christianity is a degraded implementation of Buddhism, did Prince Siddhartha (the last Buddha) get his idea to reform Hindu's caste system from Plato? And interesting to note that Prince Siddhartha was from a warrior caste of the Pali - the oldest substrate of Buddhism. It is also interesting to note that some people believe that the Kassites whom briefly took over Sumaria were of this kshatrya warrior caste mentioned below.

Here's what Jerry and I have stated previously, though it seems we need to revise this last paragraph based upon the recent commentary of the CosmicSkeptic:

Caste, Slavery and Freedom
As shown by Georges Dumezil, the idea of a tripartite social caste system is basic to Indo-European culture. A paradigmatic example is the Vedic Indian caste system, consisting of the Brahman (priest / king), kshatriya (warrior), and vaishya (agriculture / trade) classes. This caste system, generally, was known in the Mediterranean region via Plato’s Republic, if not earlier. If partly forgotten, it was re-encountered in Alexander the Great’s time, when the Greeks ran headlong into it on the way to India. Hellenistic art from that period and region shows a cultural fusion of people in Greek attire portraying Buddhist themes. Aspects of this Indian cultural fusion later found their way into the elite Roman and Helleno-Jewish formulation of Christianity. From there, in turn, flowed the horrors of feudalism, the inquisitions, holy and not so holy wars, institutionalized Jewish ghettos, and so on.
However, Stephen Knapp argues here that in the original Vedic concept of the caste system, one’s place was not determined by one’s birth (though as it does today it certainly helped). Rather, it was more of a meritocracy. Moreover, everyone had an inherent dignity and satisfaction in their respective societal contributions and rewards. He provides a folk story that attempts to explain why and how this system devolved. Inasmuch as this all happened in prehistoric times, perhaps this is the case.
Nicholas De Vere, in his The Dragon Legacy, makes the same underlying argument — that there was once a widespread ancient and benevolent caste system. De Vere believes that it was his ancestors, the red headed and green eyed clan of Aryans, who emerged as the rulers by universal acclaim of their self-evident merit. Since the collapse of that system, De Vere’s ultra-exclusive Aryans have been quietly and gallantly fighting off the greedy “tinker nobility”. These latter would be either the descendants of conquering warlords of other clans, or the latter day merchant class nobility. The pseudo-fascist Julius Evola argued somewhat similarly for what he claimed was the oldest sect of Buddhism, that of the Pali. He says that subsequent schools of Buddhism debased the ‘divine’ caste system in their successive attempts to popularize Buddhism.
Similarly it is claimed that in the days of ancient Sumeria, the practice of actual, overt slavery was relatively benign. One might become a ‘bonded’ slave to another to address an exigent downturn in personal circumstances. However, one could not only emerge from this condition, but while still in it one could even buy and sell property as a slave. Perhaps the book of Leviticus contains a memory of this context, where such ‘bondage’ could not last for more than 7 years, and one must treat one’s enslaved brother better than the others. ...
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is an interesting presentation, from a year ago on thoughts about another US civil war. Roth discounts this from happening, but I'm not convinced of that. In the latest Trump crisis, his base support is hardening, convinced he (and they) is getting screwed ... in light of clear corruption by the DNC elites, etc..

 
I have to agree Richard, that this speaker is overly optimistic about the USA's risk of civil war.
The following is an interesting presentation, from a year ago on thoughts about another US civil war. Roth discounts this from happening, but I'm not convinced of that. In the latest Trump crisis, his base support is hardening, convinced he (and they) is getting screwed ... in light of clear corruption by the DNC elites, etc..
He seems to think that most poor people have somewhere decent to live. The scrawny poor people on the streets of California this year were worse off than six years ago - and both worse off than the Georgia I saw back in 1990.

When there is internal strife in nation, one temporarily effective way to defuse it is to have an external war - and you-know-who is willing to oblige over Iran! The issue of civil war will probably arise only after US defeat or mass US devastation in such a war (i.e. WW3), rendering civil war necessary to wipe out the ideologies and people that led to the lost war in the first place! And Postflaviana cannot pretend to be a site that is neutral about religion!:D

So you're right on the message here!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Georgetown University says we're heading for civil war. Hmmm, now could THIS be considered Predictive Programming? From the Jesuit institution that controls our national security apparatus and staffs the White House, including this one, more than any other place.

Partisan political division and the resulting incivility has reached a low in America, with 67% believing that the nation is nearing civil war, according to a new national survey.
“The majority of Americans believe that we are two-thirds of the way to being on the edge of civil war. That to me is a very pessimistic place,” said Mo Elleithee, the executive director of Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service.
And worse, he said in announcing the results of the institute’s Battleground Poll, the political division is likely to make the upcoming 2020 presidential race the nastiest in modern history. ...
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
More discussion of a new civil war, the following being an excerpt of an article by Thom Hartmann. Also, referenced is the November issue of The Atlantic, where the lead articles are dedicated to this schism facing the country. In line with the thread, Hartmann briefly mentions the religious overtones that launched us on this current path, beginning with "Saint Reagan" who as well opened the Neoliberal floodgates to global Free Trade.

However, Hartmann's main focus is on the impact of the oligarchs and how this is a common thread extending back through the 'noble' magnates of the (debauched) monarchies all the way to Classical Greece. And in the wider article Hartmann includes that the oligarchs are now running in global concert, which the delusional cultists believe is their nationalist/fascist salvation.

While Hartmann offers some bromides to help correct the problem, as have I, I fear that it is too little too late. The progressive activists and others on the Left are yet too distracted with such as Identity Politics, and I suspect this is no happenstance.

...
The difference between now and the 1860s is that the oligarchic control is no longer regional; it’s national. Instead of the North and the South fighting each other, it’s now Free Speech TV viewers facing off with their Fox News–viewing neighbors.
The Koch oligarchy machine, for example, has branches in every state, and pretty much every county. Oligarchy-supporting media are ubiquitous.
And now Very Serious People are talking about the possibility of a second Civil War.
What they’re not pointing out, though, is that it won’t just be a war of white supremacists and Trump cultists against the rest of us, as they generally narrate, but a war between those comfortable with oligarchy (indeed, embracing it, as it promises them safety and stability) versus those who believe in democracy.
This is a crisis point for our nation as real and critical as those we hit in 1776, 1861, and 1932. In each of those three cases — roughly four generations apart — the oligarchs lost the battle. This time they could win.
America needs an honest discussion of what’s really going on in this country right now, what the real conflict is, and who the real players are (and why they’re playing). The conflict is playing out on a series of meta-layers (race, class, religion, regionality), all designed to conceal the real war the oligarchs are waging against democracy itself, and those conflicts will continue to intensify until one side or the other has won what is now still a “cold war.”
Then comes the threat of a real Civil War breaking out, and an informed populace is the best defense against it.
If the forces of democracy can succeed in seizing enough power to temporarily hobble the oligarchs, then they need to immediately restore local control to the media (undoing the 1996 Telecommunications Act and breaking up the media conglomerates) and reinstate a ban on the “right” of oligarchs to own politicians and political parties by overturning several Supreme Court decisions since 1976. Repairing the damage done to our court systems will take longer, but needs to begin immediately.
On the other hand, if the oligarchs decide to promote an actual “hot” Civil War on the forces of democracy — as Southern oligarchs did in 1861 — then parts of America that are still functioning democracies (California comes to mind — there has been discussion of various “compacts” between the three West Coast states, possibly joining with a few Eastern Seaboard states) must consider some form of independence, whether it be “soft independence” like California declared when they established their own air quality standards or some form of partial independence or succession. ...
 

Seeker

Active Member
I wonder, if Democrat Michael Bloomberg is nominated to run against Republican Donald Trump in 2020, would that appear to be a "civil war" between billionaires, that eventually trickles down all strata of society and consumes their followers?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I would tend to doubt it, but the social dynamics today is pretty complicated. I doubt Bloomberg will be able to win over blacks based upon his "stop and frisk" policy as mayor. This is the similar problem Buttigieg has because of his firing the black police chief in South Bend. But Trump needs to win to stay out of prison, assuming he can't negotiate a get out of jail deal, or abort the Constitution for some reason.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
In general support of Hartmann's thesis, here is a documentary on the oligarchs' plot to overthrow FDR in 1933. They planned to use a veterans' paramilitary akin to the Fascists' Black Shirts and the Germans' Freikorps and SA Brown Shirts, most all post-WWI veterans. What is interesting is the alleged admission that they were going to dupe the veterans. General MacArthur would have been the first choice to lead the coup except that he had made the mistake of putting down the Veterans March (for redeeming their WWI benefits).

Not mentioned in the video is that it was generally these same financial interests that funded the growth of the Nazis. The common thread is the overarching impulse of profits uber alles, because they would also help to industrialize the USSR.

 

Seeker

Active Member
Very interesting (and eerie) program, especially when comparing it to what is happening in America today. He was not mentioned in this presentation, but was Huey Long not also considered a "threat" to FDR before his untimely demise in 1935? A very long time ago, I read "The Glory and the Dream" by William Manchester, which also starts out with the 1932 Bonus Army dispersal, and I seem to recall Manchester asserted that Long was the only person who ever "frightened" FDR.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
As usual, there is most likely more to all these stories hidden out of sight. But, you appear likely correct in this regard. FDR was likely politically scared of Long because Long considered the New Deal as not going far enough. Much like Obamacare versus Single Payer today, and Long was advocating something like Yang's Freedom Dividend, called his Share Our Wealth plan. As I've mentioned elsewhere, FDR was politically forced into such as Social Security, and even that was started as an old age poverty insurance program, not a guaranteed payout.

Roosevelt considered Long a radical demagogue. The president privately said of Long that along with General Douglas MacArthur, "He was one of the two most dangerous men in America."[75] In June 1933, Long visited the White House to meet President Roosevelt, but the meeting was a disaster: Long was flagrantly disrespectful, refusing to take off his straw hat and addressing Roosevelt as "Frank", instead of the normal "Mr. President".[9]
Shortly thereafter, in June 1933, in an effort to undermine Long's political dominance, Roosevelt cut Long out of consultation on the distribution of federal funds or patronage in Louisiana and placed Long's opponents in charge of federal programs in the state. Roosevelt also supported a Senate inquiry into the election of Long ally John H. Overton to the Senate in 1932. The Long machine was charged with election fraud and voter intimidation but the inquiry came up empty, and Overton was seated.[76] To discredit Long and damage his support base, Roosevelt had Long's finances investigated by the Internal Revenue Service in 1934. Though they failed to link Long to any illegality, some of Long's lieutenants were charged with income tax evasion, but only one had been convicted by the time of Long's death. ...

Conservatives were scared of Long and branded him a Communist while the (s)ocialists equated him to Hitler. But all this seems to place Long and MacArthur as threats to FDR from opposite positions.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
In general support of Hartmann's thesis, here is a documentary on the oligarchs' plot to overthrow FDR in 1933.
The video was describing a relatively soft coup, in which Roosevelt would be allowed to keep his title and serve as a figurehead, although he would no longer be making policy.

The documentary says that the "American Liberty League" was the organization behind the coup plans. This organization disappeared as rapidly as it materialized. But this presumably means that the interests behind it, shifted their support elsewhere.

I would question Hartmann's assumption above, that after this failed coup attempt in 1932, these "oligarchs" have been quietly biding their time until the next four generational opportunity. I see it as more of a continuous struggle; and also that the 1963 assassination of JFK was a successful implementation of a presidential coup. Ever since Lyndon Johnson, the presidents have just gotten successively worse, and the policies have been uniformly "oligarchic" in character.

What's happening now, perhaps, is that we will be dispensing with the figurehead, or democratic formalisms.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The video was describing a relatively soft coup, in which Roosevelt would be allowed to keep his title and serve as a figurehead, although he would no longer be making policy.
Possibly so, but I would guess that would all depend on how things had played, and whether or not, that mason, FDR, was part of some Machiavellian script.

And I would tend to agree that an organic generational cycle is not the man driver, although maybe such could be exploited?
 
Top