Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery
Locked
Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by Apache » Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:24 am

brianv wrote:Why has your "MWM" entity never joined up here? He wouldn't last two fucking minutes with his bullshit, that's why!


Is this comment aimed at me? If so, he's not "my" anything.
brianv wrote:This is the Mecca of Fakery Research
Sarcasm noted, but who said he was the mecca of fakery research? I certainly didn't. I for one have pointed out his errors. I was the one who orginally stated that he'd used the incorrect term "slander" (which is oral defamation) instead of libel (which is written defamation) proving that at least on one level he has no understanding of what slander actually means.

Oh, and please stop shouting. :P

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by brianv » Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:06 pm

Apache wrote:
brianv wrote:Why has your "MWM" entity never joined up here? He wouldn't last two fucking minutes with his bullshit, that's why!


Is this comment aimed at me? If so, he's not "my" anything.
brianv wrote:This is the Mecca of Fakery Research
Sarcasm noted, but who said he was the mecca of fakery research? I certainly didn't. I for one have pointed out his errors. I was the one who orginally stated that he'd used the incorrect term "slander" (which is oral defamation) instead of libel (which is written defamation) proving that at least on one level he has no understanding of what slander actually means.

Oh, and please stop shouting. :P
This is the Mecca of Fakery Research? Right Here! Cluesforum. :rolleyes: And it (Cluesforum) is certainly not the Mecca of Bullshit Research, nor do I wish it to become so. And nobody (that I know of) is shouting. <_<

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by Apache » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:49 am

brianv wrote:And nobody (that I know of) is shouting. <_<
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark

The exclamation mark (Commonwealth English) or exclamation point (American English) is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings or high volume (shouting), and often marks the end of a sentence.
brianv wrote:No, I guess it doesn't prove anything, but that IKON site, is not a web host! Suck it and see!
- 2 exclamation marks.
brianv wrote:"Slander of me" proves he is not who he says he is!
- 1 exclamation mark.
brianv wrote:He wouldn't last two fucking minutes with his bullshit, that's why!
- 1 exclamation mark.
brianv wrote:Anyways, I have better ways to waste my time!
- 1 exclamation mark.

Total sentences in your post = 5.
Total exclamation marks in your post = 5.

I followed my comment with the humorous :P icon as you have the habit of using exclamation marks in the vast majority of your posts probably not realising that to everyone else in the English writing world you are shouting.
brianv wrote:And it (Cluesforum) is certainly not the Mecca of Bullshit Research, nor do I wish it to become so.
:lol: implying that others in this thread do.

Most of the comments in this thread have been critical of Mathis, which I have already pointed out, and this criticism has resulted in Mathis removing a link to September Clues and accusing CF of libel. If you were arguing the case that this thread has resulted in a negative outcome for the spread of September Clues I could understand your agitation in wishing for admins to close it. That would make sense. What does not make sense is your stance that this thread is promoting "bullshit research" when no such thing is occurring.

fubarfuthark
Banned
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:20 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by fubarfuthark » Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:30 pm

I mentioned this elsewhere but, given his 'artistic freedom' position, is THIS a coincidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathis_de ... 28opera%29

Mathis der Maler (the painter) an opera by Paul Hindemith. Read about it you will get what I mean.

Here is Paul Hindemith's absolutely dreadful sonata for piano and tuba. Yay for artistic freedom!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FPsDV7_Y6o

o.catharnaigh
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:40 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by o.catharnaigh » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:22 pm

I just thought I'd add my two cents to this discussion, as I've read most of Miles papers and seen some of his art. I'm an artist as well, so I might be able to add something valuable. Maybe not. To get to the point, I like the guy. I don't understand the critiques of his artwork. They look fine to me. The test would be to see the model who sat for him and to THEN judge. And I understand why he has railed against modern art. When you actually have talent, it's tough to see the focus of the art world turn to what it has turned to, which is to crap. But his artist's eye it was makes his analyses so intriguing. He certainly has a knack for pointing out things that have remained hidden for decades, and he would lead you to believe it is because of his artistic background. I believe him, because I paint portraits, as well, and I know I see faces differently than most people. When you paint someone's face, you're spending hours studying every nook and cranny on that person's face. You're also very much aware of shadowing, which is where a lot of his conclusions are based, at least when he's looking at photographic evidence. Unless you're an artist, when's the last time you spent HOURS studying someone's face? It's a unique perspective, and I'm glad he's shared what he's shared. My opinion, based on him saying he came late to the party (of media fakery research), and what he has done since then, is that September Clues is what has prompted him delving in to past psy ops with a new eye. I really don't recall anyone talking about it openly prior to September Clues. (I could be wrong, though.) As for his failure to mention the Jewish/Zionist angle as often as some think he should, I think it makes perfect sense if his mother is a Jew. He's not proud of what he's finding, so he doesn't bring it up so much. It's not like he doesn't mention it. Just not as often as you want?? It really isn't strictly a Jew thing, anyway. And if you're trying to reach a wide audience, you're definitely not going to lead with "It's the Jews!" You might not be totally wrong, but you're going to lose just about everybody who was willing to listen. He has pointed to the idea of Intelligence being an arm of the banking families and uber-elite throughout his writings. I don't think it's any cause for alarm that he doesn't name names, if he takes the audience as far as he does. As for his failure to mention Mossad, I'm not sure where he even would, if you look at the things he's researched.

Mickey
Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:24 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by Mickey » Sun Apr 24, 2016 10:41 pm

I was never interested in, nor knew much about OJ Simpson, until the recent FX drama series that they just wrapped up. Didn't even think about the fakery angle until today (sigh!, was caught up in the BS research that they have plastered all over alternate media even usenet for ages). A comment on a youtube video (it's all a hoax) made me search the term "OJ Simpson Trail Hoax" where I found the 3rd link to be Mathis' pdf about the fake/hoax angle and I immediately came to my favorite hunting ground Cluesforum to see if we have anything about this.

Based on this thread, the jury is still out on Mathis (pun intended) but at least I felt compelling evidence about the OJ fakery in the pdf. All those fake actors from Denise Brown to the Goldmans to that whole thing made more sense than trying to chase the rabbit trail. I just can't believe that there isn't one video of an alive Nicole, its just pics and same old pics :wub: :wub: , there is one of Ron Goldman however. Then the entire cast of characters who have acted before like Dr. Lee and the likes.

I really wish we had a dedicated OJ thread considering the importance it has played in priming everyone for greater psyops down the road. Some good discussions about the OJ fakery angle also in this thread for anyone landing here from searches http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1466

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by ICfreely » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:51 pm

The only thing I'm sure of, vis-à-vis the OJ Simpson Circus, is that it solidified the supposed infallibility of DNA forensics in the minds of men.
DNA in the Courtroom

Chapter 1:

The DNA Wars: Science Meets the Law


The publication of this book coincides with the beginning of the trial of the century. The People of California versus Orenthal James Simpson combines the celebrity and media circus aspects of the Lindbergh kidnapping case with the science under attack scenario of the Scopes Monkey trial over the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. The celebrity element in the Simpson case is especially fascinating because it involves the suspect instead of the victim. There has never been any trial in history that cuts across as many issues. It covers sex and gender, fame and the media, public opinion and the jury system, race and violence, entertainment and commercialization, even of murder.

Before the start of the actual trial, Simpson's lawyers are putting DNA testing on trial. If DNA loses everyone loses, [ :rolleyes: ]because forensic DNA testing is such a revolutionary improvement to fairness in the criminal justice system [ :lol: ]. Every year hundreds of thousands of DNA tests are performed in both forensic and paternity cases. These replace older, often uncertain, testing methods, or help to solve cases where other testing would not have been possible.

Despite the proven value of DNA testing, its reception by the courts can be characterized by the ebb and flow of an ongoing war between prosecutors and defense attorneys and their DNA experts. The blame for this war lies partly with the laboratories which developed and introduced the testing, partly with the contentious and fragmented nature of our legal system, and partly with inaccurate media coverage. The DNA showdown in the Simpson case could be the last major battle in the DNA war or it could be just another skirmish in this expensive and senseless war fought with academic trivia and specious arguments.


Commercial Development in the United States

The introduction of DNA methods to the courtroom by private companies was unique in the history of forensic science. The sharp competition, the proprietary approach of the industry and their desire to keep their products and processes under wraps did not create a favorable environment in which to launch a new technology with such vast potential for changing the criminal justice system. Patent challenges, litigation, and technology-licensing questions became the norm and continue to impede the introduction of technological improvements.

The usual methods of testing new scientific methods are publication and peer review. The requirements for standardization and replication in multiple labs and evaluation of test performance under exacting environmental conditions are of paramount importance in the validation of a forensic test. These did not occur as the commercial laboratories maintained secrecy while rushing to get a return on their substantial investment and start-up costs.

In essence, the major private companies were racing with each other to the courtroom. They hoped to license their procedures and sell their proprietary materials and reagents to as many crime laboratories as they could. They used different tools that produced incompatible results which precluded comparison. As DNA testing became established, some labs were overwhelmed with casework. Systems were not yet in place to ensure quality control, nor had the labs performed sufficient validation studies. They were run like research labs, having been started by academic scientists, not forensic scientists. While the juggernaut of DNA seemed unstoppable, the very speed with which it was moving boded ill.

Rush to Judgment

Case after case involving DNA evidence was won by the prosecution on the basis of testing and testimony provided by Lifecodes and Cellmark. The two companies, while competing for the same business, often joined forces to promote the new technology to the bench, bar, and law enforcement. Their job was made easier by an adulatory press that wrote numerous stories about the miracle technology that fingered criminals with unerring accuracy.

Judges accepted the assertions of industry witnesses at face value and juries were wowed by the big numbers they were offered. In the words of a Massachusetts Supreme Court justice, DNA had acquired an "aura of infallibility." One juror in Queens put it succinctly when he said, "You can't argue with science." Judge Joseph Harris of Albany, N.Y., after sentencing a defendant on a murder and rape charge that hinged on DNA evidence, called it the "single greatest advance in the search for truth since the advent of cross-examination."

The reaction within the defense bar ranged from bemusement to shell shock. One Florida prosecutor commiserated with attorneys representing guilty clients. "If they print your guy with this stuff, you're dead. You can't combat it. There is no defense to it." Defense attorney Robert Brower's assessment was equally unequivocal. He felt that DNA evidence threatened the constitutional right to a fair trial. "In rape cases, when the semen has been matched with the defendant's and the chance that it came from another person is 33 billion to 1, you don't need a jury."

Across the board, the new technology was changing the criminal justice system, and defense attorneys didn't like this development. Of course, they could hope that at least some of the DNA convictions would be reversed on appeal. In the meantime, they were clearly on the defensive as they never had been before.

http://www.paternitytestinglab.com/dna- ... e-law.html

Prescient
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:45 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by Prescient » Fri May 20, 2016 9:32 pm

There may be real Satanists running the world: I have no way of knowing. But I see no evidence of it.
A world run by Satanists would be far less squishy at all levels. It might be a horrible place, but at least
it would be firm to the touch.
As I see it, the current Elders aren't Satanists. They are just thieves. They want to steal as much easy
money as possible, as far as possible without you noticing. They then use Satanism as another scare
tactic, in case you notice. They want you to think they are powerfully evil people, so that you don't
even think of taking them on. In other words, it is all a bluff. Yes, they currently control a lot of armed
people and may rub you out if they feel they have to. I am not saying they won't. But as individuals,
they are not powerful wizards. They are just the opposite. This is what Frank Baum was telling us in
The Wizard of Oz, though few got the message. They are weak and shallow people in a precarious and
vulnerable position, and they know that. Their position will always be vulnerable because they are
always fighting that innate sense of right and wrong inside everyone, even themselves. You may think
you cannot win, but it is they who cannot win. Because they have set themselves against Nature
herself, even as they win they lose. As they reach out to take in their hands all they have worked for
centuries to achieve, it slips away like mist. What they had thought would taste sweet tastes only bitter.
http://mileswmathis.com/potter.pdf

I think he's hit the nail on the head (again) with this last section, sadly buried at the end of his latest "update" on the subject of J.K.Rowling.

They see themselves as "Gods" - so why would they believe in higher powers?
This will, of course, be their downfall.

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by Apache » Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:11 pm

mileswmathis.com/trump.pdf

In Miles' always-fascinating look into fakery, I'm sad to report that I see a flaw in his latest work. As a long-term reader of Miles' work I appreciate his efforts and I am only reporting this flaw in order to help, not to invalidate the whole exercise of him looking at Trump's acting and his dubious past. It is a worthy look, but I can't let the flaw pass by without comment.
His genealogy is a total mirage. I'll show you where to look. First go to his mother at Geni.com. She is Mary Anne MacLeod. So they want you to think she is Scots. Then click on her father, Malcolm MacLeod. Then click on his mother, Anne MacLeod. She is the wife of Alexander MacLeod, so that is her married name. What is her maiden name? Whoops, it is also MacLeod, because her father is also named Alexander MacLeod. So both her father and her husband have the same first and last names? Did she marry her own father? Also, her birthyear is given as 1833.
That date of 1833 seems suspicious for a second reason: it is too early. I am 52 and my grandparents were all born between 1900 and 1910. My great-grandparents were born around 1880. Anne McLeod is supposed to be Trump's great-grandmother.
Miles has 3 issues.

1. Anne MacLeod marrying a man with the same name as her father, albeit with different birth dates.
2. Anne MacLeod being born in 1833.
3. Malcolm (Trump's grandfather) being born in 1866.

Ann (no e) MacLeod is listed as having a father called Alexander MacLeod (born 12.10.1806) and her marrying a man with the same name (born 1.5.1830). A coincidence? Maybe. I can't explain this strange anomaly of Ann's father and her husband both having the same name other than simply stating that the MacLeods were clearly a very large and extensive family like the Smiths, Robinsons and Jones of this world.

Ann (no e) MacLeod is listed to have been born on 12.2.1833 and she is the Ann (no e) who married Alexander MacLeod and who gave birth to Malcolm (Trump's grandfather) on 27.12.1866. (She is not the only Ann or Anne MacLeod to be found when searching through Trump's genealogy.)

So far no problem with the childbearing age of Ann, who was clearly in her 30s when Malcolm was born.

Malcolm married Mary Smith on 23.4.1891. Mary was born 11.7.1867 and was 4 months pregnant on their wedding day. She was 23 years old at the time and Malcolm was 24.

Trump's grandparents had 10 children. Malcolm, Donald, Christina, Kate, William, Annie, Catherine, Joan, Alex and Mary Anne (Trump's mother). They were all born between 1891 and 1912.


Malcolm jnr 23.9.1891
Donald 9.8.1893
Christina 2.1.1895

Kate 20.7.1897
William 20.7.1897 (twins)

Annie 30.8.1899
Catherine 12.11.1901
Joan 12.5.1905
Alex 25.11.1908
Mary Anne 10.5.1912 (Trump's mother)

So, Trump's grandmother was 45 when Trump's mother was born in 1912. This was normal in the 19th to early 20th century, where women had limited access to contraception and tended to have children right up to the menopause.

Donald Trump was born 14.6.1946 making him 70 years old next week. His mother (Mary Anne MacLeod) was born 10.5.1912. I see no problem with someone born in 1946 having a parent who was born in 1912.

After taking the time to do proper research into the issue that Miles brought up, I've concluded that there is nothing wrong in the 1833 birth date of Trump's great grandmother. It is not that Trump's great grandmother was born too early, but that his grandmother had his mother (Mary Anne) very late in her childbearing life that explains the gap :D

I am not saying that Trump's entire genealogy isn't faked from beginning to end, only that the 1833 birthdate of Trump's great grandmother and the 2 Alexander MacLeod's isn't proof of it.

starfish prime
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:36 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by starfish prime » Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:05 am

I am still confused by Mathis' obsession with declaring people "Jewish," considering he does not seem to dedicate any of his writings towards exposing Talmudic Judaism, Zionism, or the Mossad, and refuses to even acknowledge the Holohoax (while he has no problem saying, for example, that the "early" Paul McCartney is John Halliday). It is a complete non sequitur, and comes across as "race baiting." While I believe there is a powerful Jewish element within the Nutwork, it also certainly contains Goyim secret society members and intelligence agents; trying to determine if a given person is actually a "crypto-Jew" is a distraction.

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by Apache » Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:07 am

starfish prime wrote:I am still confused by Mathis' obsession with declaring people "Jewish"
Ditto. Even if Trump is "jewish" I tend to think, "So what?".
starfish prime wrote:trying to determine if a given person is actually a "crypto-Jew" is a distraction.
The conclusion of the Trump paper is this:
If you can't see through all these people, you really need to check your prescriptions and dosages.
Does Miles really need to have such contempt for those readers who might not have seen through Trump? Are they only going to see through Trump if he's declared to be "Jewish"? So yes, I agree, it does look like race baiting.

I have no doubt that Trump is a fake, but my reasoning isn't based on "His genealogy is a total mirage" or on whether "Trump is Jewish" or not. I only need to look at his actions in the world to know that Trump is a sociopath.

I've shown that the premise of Trump's great grandmother being born in 1833 is not too early and that Trump's genealogy can't be considered a "total mirage" based on that premise. If Miles can't admit that he got it wrong in his paper, then I will have no choice but to wonder what else he has got wrong in his "private research".

Seneca
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by Seneca » Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:25 pm

Apache wrote:
starfish prime wrote:I am still confused by Mathis' obsession with declaring people "Jewish"
Ditto. Even if Trump is "jewish" I tend to think, "So what?".
starfish prime wrote:trying to determine if a given person is actually a "crypto-Jew" is a distraction.
The conclusion of the Trump paper is this:
If you can't see through all these people, you really need to check your prescriptions and dosages.
Does Miles really need to have such contempt for those readers who might not have seen through Trump? Are they only going to see through Trump if he's declared to be "Jewish"? So yes, I agree, it does look like race baiting.

I have no doubt that Trump is a fake, but my reasoning isn't based on "His genealogy is a total mirage" or on whether "Trump is Jewish" or not. I only need to look at his actions in the world to know that Trump is a sociopath.

I've shown that the premise of Trump's great grandmother being born in 1833 is not too early and that Trump's genealogy can't be considered a "total mirage" based on that premise. If Miles can't admit that he got it wrong in his paper, then I will have no choice but to wonder what else he has got wrong in his "private research".
I agree that Miles evidence for claiming Trump's genealogy is a total mirage is worthless. He should correct this. But I don't agree that showing he is possibly Jewish is a waste of time. A lot of people would agree that being a member of a powerful group and then lying about that is usually very immoral. So it is an easy way to expose immoral people and to seek out suspicious people that are worthy of more investigation. Exposing someone as a member of a secret society or an intelligence agent is also very useful, but by definition there is little evidence available.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by fbenario » Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:17 am

Apache wrote:I have no doubt that Trump is a fake, but my reasoning isn't based on "His genealogy is a total mirage" or on whether "Trump is Jewish" or not. I only need to look at his actions in the world to know that Trump is a sociopath.
By your reasoning you know Trump is fake because he is a sociopath? I don't follow your logic. There are likely a lot of sociopaths that are not 'fake' people, and some unknown number of fake, non-real 'people' whose persona is not that of a sociopath.

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by Apache » Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:00 am

fbenario wrote:By your reasoning you know Trump is fake because he is a sociopath? I don't follow your logic. There are likely a lot of sociopaths that are not 'fake' people, and some unknown number of fake, non-real 'people' whose persona is not that of a sociopath.
Do I need to explain to you what I mean by my use of the word "fake" now? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Your inability to follow my logic and the undermining of my reasoning makes no difference to the fact that I found a mistake in the recent Miles Mathis paper. Where is your research into the latest Miles Mathis paper? Yes, that's right, there is none. :P

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Unread post by ICfreely » Sun Jun 19, 2016 5:52 pm

You may think I am blurring, but I am clarifying. You will say, “How do we know what is good or who
is angelic without those laws of the governors?” And I answer, “If you have to ask, you are already lost.”
Amen!
As with language ability, morality is innate. You don't have to be taught morality: you have to be untaught morality. Most people can tell a good law from a bad law, or a good government from a bad one, which means that neither the laws nor the government create morality. Laws simply codify what people already know. If people didn't have an innate sense of good and bad, you couldn't teach it to them.
Hallelujah!
You may think that God put that innate sense there, and maybe he did, but it doesn't really matter how you think it got there. What matters is that you know it is there and can tap it. Your entire ability to resist a bad government comes from that place.
Couldn’t have put it better myself!
If your entire understanding of good and evil came from laws—either civil or religious—you could never resist those laws. You would be exactly as you were educated to be, and could never question your education.
http://mileswmathis.com/potter.pdf

What do you mean or, Mathman?

Civil Religion
Jean-Jacques Rousseau coined the term in chapter 8, book 4 of The Social Contract (1762), to describe what he regarded as the moral and spiritual foundation essential for any modern society. For Rousseau, civil religion was intended simply as a form of social cement, helping to unify the state by providing it with sacred authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rel ... in_of_term

Check the fine print in your ‘Social Contract.’

Social Contract
In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Civil Religion in practice
The American Revolution was the main source of civil religion. It produced a Moses-like leader (George Washington), prophets (Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine), apostles (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin) and martyrs (Boston Massacre, Nathan Hale), as well as devils (Benedict Arnold), sacred places (Valley Forge), rituals (raising the Liberty Tree), flags (the Betsy Ross flag), sacred holidays (July 4th) and a holy scripture (The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution).[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... Revolution
American Civil Religion

There is a viewpoint that some Americans have come to see the document of the United States Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights as cornerstones of a type of civic or civil religion or political religion.

According to Bellah, Americans embrace a common "civil religion" with certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals, parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion.[2] Presidents have often served in central roles in civil religion, and the nation provides quasi-religious honors to its martyrs—such as Lincoln and the soldiers killed in the Civil War.[6] Historians have noted presidential level use of civil religion rhetoric in profoundly moving episodes such as World War II,[7] the Civil Rights Movement,[8] and the September 11th attacks.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
CALVINISM: THE SPIRITUAL FOUNDATION OF AMERICA - Christopher Pisarenko

As one of the 16th century’s most important Protestant reformers (second only to Luther), Calvin established himself as a minister in Basel and then later in Geneva. It was in these Swiss cities that he preached his distinctive brand of “reformed” Christianity, which advanced the premise that all human beings were innately depraved and totally undeserving of God’s salvation. Such total pessimism was tempered by Calvin’s belief that the Deity did happen to nevertheless hand-pick a minority of people, by means of his loving grace, to be the beneficiaries of eternal salvation. Calvin’s unique spin on all this was that none of the lucky beneficiaries (or the “elect”) deserved to go to heaven, no matter how profound their piety or copious their good works. In other words, no amount of good faith or good deeds could compensate for mankind’s utterly irredeemable nature. If one was “chosen” by God it was not due to that person’s own individual merits, it was merely an act of divine grace.

This dismal view of both God and humanity not only caught on in Europe and North America, but it became one of the key ideological underpinnings of post-feudal Europe, influencing every facet of revolutionary change, from the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution to the development of Capitalism and the exploitation of the entire planet by European imperialists. In time, it was essentially the countries of the Anglosphere – specifically Britain and its bastard offspring the United States – which embraced and promoted the Calvinist attitude most passionately.
It was precisely Calvinism that was needed in order to further advance the geopolitical and cultural interests of the Anglosphere. In order to employ large sums of money for the construction and staffing of industrial factories in Europe and in order to explore and commercially exploit the rest of the non-European world, a very specific ideology was needed; one which could re-legitimize the institution of usury (which the prior Medieval order adamantly opposed), and one which could legitimize unbridled avarice and exploitation – i.e. the accumulation of great wealth amidst even greater misery – and all within a preordained religious context. Calvinism, or a somewhat modified secular form of Calvinism, was a perfect fit.
http://katehon.com/article/calvinism-sp ... on-america
Cyrus Cylinder: Ancient Persia Foreshadowed Modern Values
The values articulated by Cyrus influenced Europe and the United States, conveyed there by Classical Greek writers Herodotus and Xenophon, admirers of Cyrus’ leadership. Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, a partly fictional account of the ruler’s life, was read by the Founders of the United States, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Jefferson is thought to have possessed two copies, one of which is on display in the current exhibit at the Sackler Gallery. “Only the United States takes up the Persian model,” MacGregor said. “Jefferson constructs a state … which supports the idea of faith but doesn’t endorse any particular one.”
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... a#p2398931
HOW PERSIA CREATED JUDAISM: PERSIAN AND JEWISH RELIGION - Michael David Magee

Religion was used for political purposes by ancient kings in the near east. Indeed, that probably is its purpose!

The Achaemenids [Aryans] from the outset showed that they were experts in human psychology. They had moved through the country of the Elamites to settle in Anshan but seem not to have raised any animosity from them. The Elamite kingdom itself with its capital at Susa remained independent, but its decline gave the Persians a constant supply of educated servants for long afterwards as scribes, administrators and bureaucrats in the chancellery and royal palaces. The Elamites were an old and civilized nation, and the Achaemenids seem to have gained their support by giving them the impression that they were restoring their old kingdom.

Historians like to say Cyrus had “no thought of” moulding conquered countries in a Persian mould. That was perhaps true and realistic, but Ahuramazda was always depicted as a god rising above the solar or equinoctial disc, implying that the Persians saw him as transcendental, and certainly Cyrus was interested in persuading people that the true god was universal in outlook. His purpose seems to have been practical and political rather than religious, but it was a policy that led to all the main patriarchal religions of today. Cyrus was the founder of the modern great religions!
His novel and clever policy of conquest was to be generous to defeated people. In his propaganda he painted himself as the saviour and legitimate ruler of a conquered country. This must have been such a shock to people who expected to be massacred by conquerors that they could only conclude it was true.

Cyrus’s religious policy was an extension of this practical policy—to make it seem to be God’s will, whoever the local god was. He reshaped the Marduks and Yehouahs as Ahuramazdas—transcendental gods, suns beyond suns. To do so, he “restored” the local gods, but the restoration was in a mould that suited a universal king. The “restored” god was willing to look beyond his traditional worshippers to a world scale to recognize a righteous king when it saw one and approve of him in the appropriate way.
http://katehon.com/article/how-persia-c ... h-religion
In addition to the influence of the Cyropaedia on the US founding fathers, its core principles resonate with those of the United Nations. The high-minded concepts fathered by Cyrus in Persia thousands of years ago have found expression in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Brought to life by John Peters Humphrey and the UN Commission on Human Rights chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, the Declaration was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... s#p2398897
Just a bit of historical perspective.

Question: What’s the difference between ‘God’s will’ and ‘the people’s will’?
The notion of auctoritas was often invoked by the papacy during the Middle Ages, in order to secure the temporal power of the Pope. Innocent III most famously invoked auctoritas in order to depose kings and emperors and to try to establish a papal theocracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas#Middle_Ages
The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people's rule is the principle that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated with social contract philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.[a]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty
Answer: Not a gosh darned thing. Same Scheiße, different Porcelain Throne!

It all boils down to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (AUTHORITY)!
The concept of cognitive authority is important because it forces us to be skeptical towards claims in the literature and elsewhere. It forces us to consider the criteria we should use when evaluating information sources. In other words: It forces us to consider epistemological issues.

Different "movements", "paradigms", "positions" or "schools" in a given field tend to have different cognitive authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive ... cal_issues
There’s no such thing as a ‘separation between Church & State.’ The State is a Church unto itself. Everyone (and I do mean EVERYONE!) is religious.

A religion is a belief system and nothing more. Atheists are the worst because they so ‘know’ that they’re not religious. And they look down at people who don’t share their faith in Evolution/Big Bang. Disbelievers are automatically suspected of having a religious agenda and/or being uneducated. Atheists aren’t necessarily bad people, just the biggest dupes (and usually the biggest supporters of Big State/Corp. Science).

We’re programmed to avoid discussing politics & religion (especially at the dinner table with the people who matter most to us) for a very ‘good’ reason. Post WWII, multi-family homes gave way to suburbs and the Nuclear Family of the Atomic Age…

Weird suburbia: How atomic bombs and UFOs created modern America – Ken Hollings
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... #p2394358

Locked