Shameless Plea For Money Monday, Dec 30 2013 

I am currently putting together some movies. I have about 200 pages in notes on the history of the last 2000 years that I am going to make into a few 2 hour length or more movies. My laptop’s audio system is terrible so I was needing a new voice recorder, money for audio files and a few other audio gadgets. Any help would be great. The return will be worth it, I promise! I will also be publishing a movie about the numerous documents I have filed concerning United States citizenship, our present Martial Law Government and how I returned to common law! I will put that all online for free which has cost me thousands of dollars. I will have (hopefully if a few items process properly in the next month),  documents written by the IRS admitting that my changed status now places me as a “non-taxpayer”. I will show my pay stub and the missing standard charges to prove to you that I have succeeded in this great matter.

The Irresistible Man-Beard Wednesday, Dec 25 2013 

Sol Invictus is Born! Wednesday, Dec 25 2013 

The Alliance Between the Jesuits and the Knights of Malta Tuesday, Dec 24 2013 

EJP, VA3, page 446,”Recalling previous chapters, the Knights of Malta expelled the Jesuits from their island of Malta in 1768. So Napoleon the Freemason, with his French Fleet, was used by the Jesuits to return the insult, driving the Knights from Malta, absorbing their weapons and treasures thirty years later. (The Order never forgives or forgets!)

And to where would those ancient Crusaders go? The Knights sought and received protection from the Russian Tzar Paul I (having designated himself as their Grand Master) and stayed in his Imperial Palace from 1798 onward. It just so happened that on March 7, 1801, the Polish Jesuit Vicar General Franciskus Xavier Kareu, also appeared in Russia. (For it was in 1801 that the suppressed Company of Jesus was given legal existence and permission to reside in that “heretic” nation by Pope Pius VII). What reason could justify this secret rendezvous? The Knights of Malta and the Jesuit Order had mutual interests. They both wanted to take Jerusalem away from the Moslems and rebuild Solomon’s Temple for the Pope. So having been humbled by the Jesuits with Napoleon, they evidently agreed to be subordinate to the Jesuit General. The Knights would never be expelled from Russia unlike the Jesuit Order. By 1879, the Jesuit-trained Pope Leo XIII gave the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta the status of a Cardinal. This act formally subordinated these warriors to the Pope—the now “infallible” Papal Caesar under Jesuit domination.”

Reply to a Naive White Man Tuesday, Dec 24 2013

This is most likely an emotional reaction that you have used in your mind to justify maintaining the false doctrines your religion teaches.

Did you know that Feudal Lords used to force diversity and integration onto people they did not like? It was called Prima Nocta. It fascinates me that so many young white men like yourself celebrate something that no other people in the word do: Genocide. You have to understand that manipulative people use words that mean something you don’t grasp at first site. The word diversity is a code word for Genocide sir.

Black people hate white people sir. You can break the 9th commandment in rejecting it all you like. You know I’m right. They are committing massive acts of violence against white people in this country:


Native American people hate white people sir.I just had to break fellowship with a native american here in town because of his hatred for my ancestors. These people have fully convinced themselves that the white race as a whole has committed mass genocide against them and  we currently live on stolen land.

Asian people may not hate white people as much as the other races but their countries do not celebrate diversity.

When we examine documents from the OECD, PISA 2009 Database we find that the top performers in Education are highly homogeneous nations, such as China, Japan and Korea.

Click to access 46643496.pdf

Homogeneity and not diversity give them strength.

Moreover, the immigrants send billions of dollars back to their home countries, further destroying our national wealth.

As of the USDOJ’s Hate Crime, 2003-2009 report (Page 4, Figure 2; Page 6, Figure 3), the #1 reason for Hate Crime in America was race and ethnicity.

According to the USDOJ’s Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008, Blacks, while making up only 12% of the population, account for 65.6% of drug-related homicides.   And so far from being persecuted by the White Man, the same report states, “93% of Black victims were killed by Blacks.”  The CDC released the Homicide Rates Among Persons Aged 10–24 Years — United States, 1981–2010 in July of this year, 2013. Figure 3 shows young Blacks commit homicides almost 15 times the rate of Whites!

You can ignore these facts to your own destruction if you wish.

If you feel that your emotional equilibrium is worth breaking the 9th commandment, you go ahead and keep celebrating diversity, but if you wish to obey Yahweh’s laws concerning truth telling, you must utterly renounce what you have written here.


Awesome Debate: Pure Communism vs. Pure Capitalism Monday, Dec 23 2013 

Replying to an Objection Concerning the South and Antebellum Slavery Monday, Dec 23 2013 

I have argued that the South did not have the ability to purchase slaves in mass from the African Slave factories as the Yankees did with their massive rum vessels. Some have objected that the South had tobacco to sell to obtain these slaves. This is a complete lie and it was taken up by Fogel and Engerman,

“To those who identify slavery with cotton and tobacco, the small U.S. share in the slave trade may seem unbelievable. Consideration of the temporal pattern of slave imports, however, clearly reveals that the course of the Atlantic slave trade cannot be explained by the demand for these crops. The temporal pattern of the slave trade is displayed in figure 2. It shows that 80 percent of all slaves were imported between 1451 and 1810. This fact clearly rules out cotton as a dominant factor in the traffic since the production of cotton was still in its infancy in 1810. Figure 2 also shows that there was an enormous increase in the extent of the slave trade during the eighteenth century. This fact rules out the possibility of a major role for tobacco. For during the eighteenth century, tobacco imports into Europe increased at an average annual rate of about 350 tons per annum. Since an average slave hand could produce about a ton of tobacco, the total increase in the tobacco trade over the century required an increase of about seventy thousand hands, a miniscule fraction of the six million slave imports during the same period.

It was Europe’s sweet tooth, rather than its addiction to tobacco or its infatuation with cotton cloth, that determined the extent of the African slave trade.”

Time on the Cross, Fogel and Engerman, pages 14-15

Reply to Edward Feser: Why Is There Anything At All? It’s Simple Sunday, Dec 22 2013

“For wherever we have a composite thing, a thing made up of parts, we have something that requires a cause of its own, a cause which accounts for how the parts get together.”

>>>Assertion. Is this an empirical observation? Does a hive of bees require another hive or another supra-bee to collect them together? If it is an empirical observation of things in-ousia, is this assumption not asserting the very thing it denies, that God is huperousia, and thus not capable of being known in essence or spoken about in essence? If knowledge is one thing for me and another for God, why would causality for me and causality for God be the same?

“This is obviously true of the ordinary things of our experience.  For example, a given chair exists only because there is something (a carpenter, or a machine) that assembled the legs, seat, etc. into a chair.  And the chair continues to exist only insofar as certain combining factors — such as the tackiness of glue or friction between screw threads — continue to operate.  The point applies also to things whose composition is less crudely mechanical.  A water molecule depends for its existence on the oxygen and hydrogen atoms that make it up together with the principles of covalent bonding.”

>>>This definitely seems to be where this is heading.

“But it is true at deeper metaphysical levels as well.  Any changeable thing, the Aristotelian argues, must be composed of actuality and potentiality.  For example, an ice cube melts because it has a potential to take on a liquid form that is actualized by the heat in the surrounding air.”

>>>But an ice cube is in-ousia.

“In any contingent thing, the Thomist argues, its essence is distinct from its existence.  That is why a tree (say) can come into existence and go out of existence, since what it is to be a tree — a tree’s essence or nature — by itself entails nothing one way or the other about whether it exists.  Whether it is, you might say, is distinct from what it is.  Actuality and potentiality, existence and essence are thus components of any thing that has both — even if they are metaphysical components rather than material components — and their composition entails that such a thing depends on a cause, on something that actualizes its potentials, that imparts existence to its essence.”

>>>But a tree is in-ousia.

“So, whatever the ultimate source, cause, or explanation of things is — again, refrain from calling it “God” if you want — it cannot be made up of material components”

>>>I don’t believe in ADS and I don’t believe that Yahweh is made up of material components.

“or actuality and potentiality”

>>>I don’t believe that there are any historical existent potentialities in Yahweh.

“or existence and essence”

>>>I believe that existence and essence are distinct in Yahweh, not chronologically, but logically.

“Nor can it be composed of any other metaphysical parts — genus and difference, substance and properties, or what have you.”

>>>This is a conflation between the genus of being and the genus of epistemology. Genus is not a historical thing. Genus pertains to epistemology. That is genus informs us to the meaning of a historical thing. Genus is not a thing or a part of a thing.

“It cannot be an instance of a genus, for then it will require some aspect or other that differentiates it from other instances of that genus, and that entails having metaphysical parts.”

>>>You keep assuming that a Genus is some historical entity or being. The way you are using the word “require” does not pertain to the order of being but to epistemology. Yes, in order for a person to know the difference in meaning between the Father and the Son, the Father’s hypostatic property of supremacy and independence will need to be known.

“It cannot instantiate properties since that would, again, require some differentiating feature that sets it apart from other instances of those properties”

>>>There are no other instances of the Father’s properties. And you keep conflating historical being with epistemology. By “sets apart” are you referring to logical distinction? If so, you have admitted to a conflation between ontology and epistemology.

“which again entails having metaphysical parts.”

>>>A genus is not a metaphysical part.

“Naturally, if it is the ultimate source, cause or explanation of things”

>>>See, you just conflated cause and explanation.

“it is actual or existent”

>>>But if it is huperousia, the word existent for you means something different for “it”.

“ — it could hardly cause or explain anything otherwise — but it is not a compound of actuality and potentiality as other things are, nor a compound of existence and essence.  It would have to be, always and “already” as it were, pure actuality rather than something that has or could have any potential in need of actualization.”

>>>You are conflating being and activity. A being does not have to be potential simply because it is logically distinct from its activity. Legs are not the same thing as running. Running is the activity of the legs. Does that mean that legs are only potential when they are laying still while you sleep and not actual? Do I actually only have legs when I am walking or running? Ridiculous!

“It would have to be, not “an” existent thing among other existent things, but pure being or existence itself.  Anything less would require a cause or source of its own and thus not be the ultimate cause or source.”

>>>And here is the pantheism. All things are the ultimate cause in substance. The ultimate cause is existence itself. If you exist you must be the One that is existence itself. It is either God does not exist or you are God on this silly dialectical model.

“Note that on the classical theist view of ultimate explanation, there are no inexplicable “brute facts.”  Things that require causes require them because they have potentials that need to be actualized and parts that need to be combined.  To say of a thing that it has parts and yet lacks any cause which accounts for their combination, or has potentiality yet lacks any cause which actualized that potentiality, would be to make of it a “brute fact.”  But that is precisely what the classical theist does not say about the ultimate cause of things.  It says instead that, since it is purely actual (and thus devoid of potentials that could be actualized) and absolutely simple (and thus devoid of parts that could be combined), it not only need not have a cause but could not in principle have had one.”

>>>But since you conflate cause with explanation, the fact that you are having to explain it means that it must have a cause.

 “It, and it alone, has its source of intelligibility in itself rather than in some external cause.”

>>>See, you did it again.

“So, whatever else we say about the ultimate cause, source, or explanation of things — and whether or not we want to call it “God,” whether or not we want to identify it with the God of the Bible specifically, and whether or not we think it has any religious implications in the first place — we are going to have to regard it as absolutely simple or non-composite, as pure actuality devoid of potentiality, and as being itself rather than something that merely instantiates being.”

>>>Keep dreaming.

“We are also going to have to regard it as immutable and uncaused, because only what has potentiality capable of being actualized, or parts capable of being combined, can be caused or undergo change, and the source or cause of all things must be devoid of potentiality or parts.”

>>>So now, immutability is conflated with aseity. Thus the Son cannot be immutable and caused or eternally begotten. The “deity” of the Son now gets the flush.

“Whereas the classical theist’s philosophical analysis of the idea of God typically begins by thinking of Him as the ultimate cause of things, the theistic personalist begins instead by conceiving of God as a certain kind of “person.”

>>>Then both are wrong, because this contrast affirms that causality is distinct from personhood, whereas the Orthodox position sees causality as a personal property of the Father.

“One of the main objections theistic personalists often raise against the idea of divine simplicity is that it makes God out to be too abstract, and is irreconcilable with the idea that God is a person.”

>>> Agreed, but who is to say that the father and the son are different persons if causality is a divine attribute and divinity cannot be caused?

 “Now classical theists, in general, by no means regard God as impersonal.”

>>>Smile and nod.

 “They typically argue that when the notion of the ultimate cause of all things is fully developed, it can be seen that there is a sense in which we must attribute to this cause intellect and will.”

>>>No you cannot because intellect and will require distinction. That is why the nous is second place in Plotinus’ construction.

“But the meaning of these terms as applied to God must be very carefully unpacked, and anthropomorphism avoided.  And it is definitely a mistake from the classical theist point of view to start with the idea that God is, like us, an instance of the kind or genus “person”.

>>>Person is not a genus. Humanity is a genus. Person is an instance of that genus.

“who instantiates some of the same properties that other persons do, but has them to a higher degree and lacks some of the other properties (such as corporeality).”

>>>Them? Can a monad possess them?

“There are various objections that can be raised against this approach, but the most relevant one for present purposes is that insofar as theistic personalism implies that God has parts”

>>>But I don’t accept the same definition of “parts” as you do. Your definition assumes that a genus is a historical thing/being/subject or a part of a thing/being/subject and that distinguishing being from activity implies potentiality. All unforgivably stupid.

“or that he is one instance among others of a kind, or that like those others he instantiates properties, etc., it makes theism simply unsuitable as a candidate for ultimate explanation.”

>>>Which would also make your explanation unsuitable because that would imply that you caused the One.

 “For (as the classical theist sees things, anyway) it makes of God something essentially creaturely”

>>>It’s almost as if man was made in the image of God! Oh no Nigga, we can’t be havin that!  If man got the idea that he was made in God’s image he might start excusing the intermediaries and flirting with heresies like the priesthood of the believer and private judgment! oh no nigga we can’t be havin that!

“– something which, like other composites, requires a cause of his own.  Or if he doesn’t have one, he will simply be a brute fact and thus not an ultimate explanation at all — something which, like other things, is composite, but which merely happens inexplicably nevertheless not to have been caused.  This opens theism up to New Atheist-style objections to the effect that God is a metaphysical fifth wheel — something which at best seems dubiously preferable to taking the universe as the ultimate brute fact, and at worst seems ruled out by Ockham’s razor.”

>>>Or you could distinguish being from activity and avoid the whole ocean of gobily-woop you have cooked up for us. Could it be that Ockham’s razor is what helped get you here in the first place? Maybe it is not such a good idea to conflate categories as a reaction to a multiplicity of entities?

“The question of whether a deity of the theistic personalist sort exists or not therefore does seem “eclipsed” by the question of why anything exists at all, and “not directly on point.”  And that was precisely my point in offering my friendly criticism of John and Robert’s choice of selections for The Mystery of Existence.  Given the book’s mission, it would, I argue, have been more appropriate to emphasize classical theist writers and give theistic personalist or neo-theist writers secondary consideration.  But (as I have complained) the reverse course was followed.”

>>>Seeing that your view of ADS would logically preclude the existence of anything I fail to grasp the point. On your view the ultimate principle is a monad huperousia which would imply it does not exist in the same sense we understand existence. It also has no distinctions and so how any emanation of distinctions, implying the distinction-less One is one substance with distinctions, could be explained remains in the realm of squared circles and elephants dancing on their ears.

“The first thing to say in response is that it cannot be emphasized too greatly that divine simplicity is not merely Aquinas’s doctrine.  It is by no means the eccentric teaching of a single thinker or two.  Rather, it is the common heritage of the entire mainstream Western tradition in theology and philosophy of religion, endorsed by the major pagan, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers referred to above and incorporated into the official theology of Roman Catholicism.”

>>>Nonsense. Plotinus was very clear to make intellect and will a secondary being to the One.

“So, suppose we took God to be one instance among others of the kind or genus “person,” who thus instantiates the same properties we do — power, knowledge, goodness, etc. — just to a higher degree.”

>>>Ridiculous. Yahweh is eternal and omniscient; nothing of this pertains to us.

“Since what we call “power,” “knowledge,” “goodness,” etc. in us are obviously different properties”

>>>No. Power is an attribute, not a property. Knowledge is the activity of a being not a being itself. Goodness is also activity.

“then argues that what we predicate of this cause cannot, for that very reason, be exactly what we predicate of the things of our experience, but only analogues of what we predicate of those things (Summa theologiae I, q. 4).”

>>>Like all composed things require a cause?

 “Hence when we say that God has power and knowledge (for example) we don’t mean that He instantiates the properties having power and having knowledge, just as we do.  We mean that there is something in Him that is analogous to what we call “power” and “knowledge” in us, but that whatever this amounts to, it does not amount to his “having” just the same thing we do, or instantiating “properties,” or being a substance in which various distinct attributes inhere, etc.”

>>>Depends on what kind of analogy we are referring to.

“Hence there is nothing any more suspect about Aquinas’s procedure than there is in quantum theory.”

>>>Fine. I reject both.

Apollo Zero; Exposing the Moon landing Hoax Saturday, Dec 21 2013 

Neil Armstrong, high level Freemason (link) was involved in the fake moon-landing to give credence to Jesuit Heliocentrism.  This documentary is amazing, especially the last 20 minutes where the big three are confronted and totally meltdown. Great job Jarrah White!


Reply to Joseph Farrell on Yahweh The Two Faced God Thursday, Dec 19 2013 

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: