THE [IGNORANT] MASSES
PART 1 of 2
By R.C. Murray
May 1, 2010
“Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously; for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you.” -Habakkuk 1:5
Even if you’re not one of their public school products – a willingly ignorant, dumb on purpose [stupid] prole – educrats, the views media, Laodicean preachers and all politicians will treat you like one. They expect you to gobble up every bit of propaganda they spin your way, and sadly, most of you will. Yeah, me too – sometimes.
Sometimes, after hearing a report on a news station, say ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, CSPAN, PBS or CNN, I’ll compare their Democratic bias to a FOX News report with their Republican bias; then, reading between the lines of what’s said and what’s not said, I believe the lie being orchestrated by the puppet masters. I confess that for a while there, I began to believe there was such a thing as a pro-life Democrat, that a small group of these mythical creatures might succeed in killing ObamaCare. Not so. Being politicians first, Americans second and Christians last, Stupak and his fellows surrendered to those who control their thoughts and actions.
I’ve grown more skeptical than most, especially these last 30 years. I served four years in the public school [prison] system (2001-2005), so I not only know educrats are lying every time they speak, I know how they get away with it. I even documented everything I learned in the classroom and about the classroom in a book about The System called Legally STUPiD: Why Johnny doesn’t have to read. It’s too bad too few folks read much these days or more folks might buy a copy and find out how educrats are dumbing down their kids – and their parents.
I tuned out Balaamite preachers after I left a Southern Baptist seminary and the Southern Baptist Convention in 1982 over the issues of Biblical authority and the inerrancy of the Scriptures. I believe both, while my seminary professors and far too many Southern Baptist preachers believe neither.
I stopped believing Democrats when I seceded from that left-wing bunch of baby-killing perverts in 1980, and I stopped believing Republicans in 1996 when their presidential candidate called people like me extremists, saying he didn’t have to listen to us. Million of extremists like me chose to stay home that year, rather than choose between a left-winged womanizer and a neo-con phony.
As far as journalist go – hey, I am a journalist and I know we are the most arrogant airheads since the dawn of time. Even though I’m just as opinionated, my not being a socialist makes me a little different than 99.9 percent of my colleagues. That’s why I dismissed Bill O’Reilly years ago; he’s a card-carrying neo-con, too full of himself to be taken seriously. When Glenn Beck came along, at first I thought his ideas were bolder, fresher and more controversial – enough so to get him kicked off the Clinton News Network, which I thought was admirable at the time. That’s when I started to pay attention to what he said – what he really said.
To start with, Beck has a favorable, even worship-like attitude for Comrade Lincoln, the man who destroyed the Union and supplanted the U.S. Constitution with executive orders. That doesn’t sit well with me. If Beck knew the truth about Dishonest Abe, he’d know about his dark side. I suspect he does know the truth about our first dictator, and wholeheartedly agrees with what he did to this country.
Back in February, Beck decided to mix it up in Texas politics and help push the one truly conservative candidate, Debra Medina, out of the race for governor with a contrived, cheap shot question. With damage done, he then left Texas, grinning like the proverbial Cheshire cat.
Last month, Beck teamed up with his mentor, O’Reilly, who took it upon themselves to explain for us the differences between socialists and progressives. Beck admitted that, like socialists, progressives want to get your stuff, and they want to control everything you do, but – he claimed – progressives don’t want to kill you. To this, O’Reilly piped in, saying that if progressives killed you, then you wouldn’t be around to make money for them to take and redistribute to their supporters.
Hearing these talk show demagogues agreeing with each other, I imagined at that very moment millions of genuinely conservative Americans were gobbling up every bit of garbage spewing from their lying lips. I wondered how many of my fellow, supposed-to-be-thinking Americans asked themselves this uncommon sense question: If progressives don’t want to kill us, why have they worked so hard to disarm us?!
History is replete with examples of wanna-be tyrants first disarming the masses – for their own good, of course – before seizing complete power. Immediately thereafter, there’s always a purging of those considered to be a threat to the new regime.
As surely as left-wing socialists have enacted local, state and federal laws that violate the 2nd Amendment (which is really one of those unalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence), right-winged socialists have given us the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, NORTHCOM and CBRNE brigades. Think about it.
Both the left and the right are responsible for continued construction of containment camps scattered around the county. With so much evidence that these camps exist, do you believe the government and views media denials and promises that they don’t exist, or, their explanations that what we think are camps are really storage facilities or training areas? I don’t. Do you?
So, despite what Speck and Smiley have to say, historically, progressives have no problem with killing us then taking all our stuff. Their mutual hero, Adolf Lincoln, had no problem with killing every Southern man, woman and child – white or black – in order to keep the land and resources belonging to the 11 states that had chosen to withdraw from his empire [union]. If you want to know the truth about Mr. Lincoln’s War Against the Southern People, get a copy of Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s Lincoln Unmasked, or Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson’s Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists, or H.W. Crocker’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War.
Lincoln’s same ethnic cleansing policy was later applied to the plains Indians who were resisting what left and right-winged socialists [progressives] called their manifest destiny. If you doubt my word here, just ask a Native American.
Progressives are not simply kinder, gentler socialists. They may be a little more patient in their tactics, but once they take over, the results will be the same. You’ll have nothing, or you’ll be dead. They will control you and what’s yours, and if you won’t let them control you, they will kill you. They cannot leave you alone and allow you and your family to enjoy your unalienable rights. By the way, did you know there were those here planning how to control the masses here even as those masses were rebelling from Great Britain because the monarchy there had tried to control them?
It’s always about controlling the masses. But the masses cannot be controlled if they’re aware someone is trying to control them. That’s why it’s so important for the elitists who would rule over the masses to make and keep the masses ignorant.
The British were unsuccessful at this in their American colonies because of several factors peculiar to the New World and the rugged individualists that came here to settle it. And it was the British, not the Spanish or French, who laid the cornerstone of the house that became the United States.
You have to look back at the time of British colonization, starting with the failed attempt in 1587 at Roanoke to Jamestown in 1607 then Plymouth in 1620, finally ending with Savannah in 1733. The British subjects who settled here came here with a commitment to stay, to start a new life in this new world – not simply to find gold or get rich off the resources of the land.
The world they left behind was a class society of a few, very rich; a small, middle class -tradesmen; and an enormous population of poor. Europe was just coming out of the Little Ice Age and the Great Plague, and the Reformation along with the Renaissance had awakened the souls of men at every class level. The mostly middle class-tradesmen and the poor who first settled here brought with them hope for real change, not change caused by some government action [interference], but hope that rested in their faith in God and their willingness to work hard to provide for their own families.
The Texas School Board is right to correct its history and economics textbooks about our Christian heritage. Along with their courage, their swords and guns, our forefathers brought with them the Bible, now printed in English for all the faithful to read.
For more than 1,200 years, the Catholic Church had resisted, discouraged and even persecuted those who sought to translate the Bible from Latin or Greek to the native languages of the masses they kept Biblically ignorant. The Church told the masses what it said that God said, making it the ultimate spiritual authority. But following the Reformation, a series of Bibles were translated into other languages – German, French and English, to include the Geneva Bible and the 1611 Authorized Version, better known as King James Bible.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
The KJV was published without a copyright, thus allowing the English-speaking masses an affordable copy of God’s Word and allowing them to read God’s words without theological clarifications and misinterpretations of those who would rule over their souls. The effect was phenomenal. For part two click below.
Click here for part -----> 2,
� 2010 - R.C. Murray - All Rights Reserved