Arvo Part - Magnificat - Robert Shaw Festival Singers
Musical Excepts of the Divine Liturgy.
The first and oldest New Testament Prayer
Excerpts of the Rachmaninov's Music for the Divine Liturgy
Rachmaninov - Vespers.
Tchaikovsky's Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom - in Slavonic
This is liturgy is accompanied by a very good choir.
Divine Liturgy in California - in the "Antiochian" style chant. You will see the "arab" musical influence.
The is an Anglican Liturgy - in the Roman Church - This Liturgy is also used inside the Orthodox church by some "western rite churches."
This Liturgy is also used inside the Orthodox Church by some "western rite churches."
The Apostolic Orthodox Church of the Copts, The Saint Basil Liturgy
This liturgy contains the core elements Tradition teaches were composed by Saint James the Apostle. Some other "apostolic churches" use a liturgy called the "Saint James Liturgy that is very similar. We have confirmation of this core in the "excerpts of liturgy recorded by Saint Hippolytus." It contains the core of all Orthodox liturgies, both eastern and western rites. The chanting in this one is rather ugly, but you will get the idea of its primitive roots.
This hour is interesting about the social and sexual behavior of higher primates. I have to note that he mentions that Jane Goodall's first book, touting the peaceful society of the Chimpanzee was totally wrong on that point. She was caught up in an age when anthropology had gone completely off the rails and produced a body of work for more than a decade that in truth was based upon the anti-vietnam war, peace movement's pacifist sentimentality. I have a collection of the insane articles publish in reputable scientific periodicals. The psychological establishment latched onto the mythology of the anthropologist and soiled themselves almost as badly. Suddenly the Buddhist leaders like the Dali Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh the Vietnamese Buddhist leader became celebrities in the west. Yoga and transcendental meditation became the rage. It was a decade of constant comedy.
Jane, of course, discovered on her on and to her deep grief that her utopian ideal was just wrong, that chimpanzees live in colonies where any imbalance of power between adjacent colonies of chimpanzees was answer with steady aggression until all the males of the weaker colony are killed, the young left to starve, some female taken, some rejected and left to their own fate. She and others also record the fact that outside the colony the chimps simply wither and die prematurely. Rather than a peaceful utopia, it is a struggle for survival, a balance of power in peace, and then war when that balance is interrupted.
Very refreshing to see that Archeology and Anthropology have recovered from their generation of total fantasy where they then claimed that some but not all primitive men were peaceful. They painted back then as fanciful and ideological utopian picture of those primitive humans, as Jane Goodall initially painted of the Chimpanzee communities. As anyone with a brain knew thirty years ago, the archaeological data clearly showed that man was violent when he had to be. Whether he was gratuitously violent, indeed savage for savagery sake is a question not known. There is no trace extant of any period of utopian peace in mankind's history. There is plenty of evidence of man's wars from the earliest primitive times.
Mankind cannot be thought of as less fallen than the other animals in nature. But that proves nothing vis a vis evolution. Why? Because no trace of human evolutionary development appears in any archaeological data. At this point in time we have much more to observe and study about early man, and we have gained knowledge with tools of technology and collected a lot of raw data from archeology and history. But in truth we know very little of those primitive times. There is an advance in knowledge, in recorded history, this is self-evident. However, there is no evidence of an advance in "human nature." We may or may not have better abilities of "abstraction." But, all the same animal and instinctual forces that governed primitive man, have governed mankind throughout his history upon the earth.
Notice that Dr Wyman dismisses all the sociological and political science paradigms for the causes of war. For him war is animal, primal, impossible to avoid. He makes man's reasoning power and powers of discretion void. I don't agree with that. Human wars are not predicated solely upon the culture of the Chimpanzee and the instincts of the non-human primate family.
He gives examples both in history and in present day primitive tribes where all the sociological and political science causes did not and do not exist, yet the various tribes are brutal and very violent tribe against tribe. This is the record. However, to extrapolate that situation to every tribe and all of human history is a stretch. He even mentions the documentation of "hardships" not being the cause of war among these people but sometimes the result of war. This is all backward from the present day false narrative painted vis a vis Islam and terrorism, and backward to the everyday Secular Humanist definitions for the causes of war, as if economic development in the hands of the Jihadist nations would make them more peaceful. Just as some religions produce cult detrimental to life, and some others produce cult that is life engendering, so some cultures follow these pattern. Dr Wyman's view of war is that at all times all sides are motivated by the same drivers, and that this static picture extends across all of time in every location. If in this world there were not a struggle of life against death, I would readily accept his premise. When viewing history, we see that both sides fight and kill, so both sides use brutality. In this from the view of history each side looks somewhat identical. But we cannot equate to each side identical motivations for war, that premise is absurd. When there are peaceful forces that would chose peaceful life, how can you distinguish them from the aggressive forces across time, since the only evidence we have is the destruction of war? The thousands of skeletons of men and women and children who died by violent means.
Now Dr Wyman would say, (I think) that he is taking a view of war from a higher view, where the aggressor and the defender isn't as important as the biological imperatives that produce war. Yet he admits that war is something that can defy "self interest" and by extension be counter to survival of the species. So I can't gather what the message is supposed to be here, except to build the common mythology demanded by present day evolutionists that everything is about war, war between individuals, war between families, tribes. The theory is a call to one world governance, the world governed by the "experts" which is the goal of all "Scientism." This theory goes, that as long as there is "us" vs "them" war will persist. The "us" and "them" will fight, not for rational cause, but simply because there is "us" and "them." In the biological/evolutionary paradigm this is an absolute lie. However, if you grasp the forces of death that Christians know exists upon the earth, and the "us" are those who seek to preserve and engender life, and the "them" are the life destroying forces of death. Then, yes he is absolutely right. In the Christian paradigm the struggle will remain until the last enemy is put down, that enemy being death.
Notice that he falls into talking about "brain size" as accounting for the relative intelligence of his dog. This old saw is silly, and so obvious. There are studies that show that different aspects of dog intelligence are stronger or weaker in certain breeds of dog. Breeds that were bred for this or that purpose, but there is no evidence whatsoever that small dogs are less intelligent than large dogs. In fact one of the smartest, and I have to say most cunning dogs I ever owned was a Pomeranian, (Tiny Lee) who full grown was shy of five pounds, at the same time I owned a Great Pyrenees (Puff) who weighed one-hundred-ten pounds. They had different areas of cunning, but his brain had to have weight twenty times what Tiny Lee's brain weighed, and that extra size didn't produce super doggie intelligence. I read somewhere, that Neanderthals had larger brains than Homo Sapiens. Where are they? They didn't gain the skills to survive and only exist as a tiny portion of Homo Sapien genome. This brain size thing is just mythology, canines alone prove it.
If it is not brain size that determines the intelligence of a species, how can we think that the brain is the actual holder of the intelligence of a species? Mankind, holding his ability of abstraction inside his limited ability of speech says, "It is the spirit of the dog that gives the dog, doggie intelligence." And as silly as you think that sounds, the dog family alone proves it. There is not a dime's bit of difference between the intelligence of a tiny Pomeranian and a Great Pyrenees though the size of their brains are ten fold different. Mankind with their intelligence of "abstraction" which the Darwinist deny, that is the power to abstract the underlying reality from the thing visible to our senses and experience, know - I know it and if you are honest you know it - that what makes a dog intelligent is the "spirit of the dog" not the size of his brain, not the biological or chemical make up of his form. Remove the life from that dog, where all the chemical and biology is still present, there is no intelligence to animate its form. This is glaringly obvious. Yet, the Darwinist keep talking about the size of a species brain - as if the total intelligence of the species is housed in the brain. Mankind knows rather that each species is "ensouled" as a dog, not a cat or rat, as a monkey, not an ape or man, and each species regardless of the physical size of their brains function on the intelligence native to their soul.
The stupidity of brain size exposed in the Scandal of Piltdown Man. Go to minute, 4:40.
Dr Wyman does make a startling statement, stating that "human biological instinct" social/sexual/violent isn't overwhelming and can be controlled. "We have instincts for sure. You see it come out in the most horrible ways and in some good ways, ah . . but it's not that difficult ah . . . to control." This is the old saw of the secular humanists, you can know without reference to God what is moral and good. To which I have to respond, show me the human society that proves this and I will believe you. Beside that, this shows a very shallow understanding of the human. It is the secular humanist version of Pelagianism, we can all save ourselves by merely thinking about it.
When Dr Wyman launches into the typical mythology of "separating from Chimps six million years ago" if you read the series called "Defanging The Atheist Tiger" you know that anomalous evidence in Archeology proves that this is a myth. Michael Cremo and many others have adequately disproved this myth. So rather than revisiting the topic I would recommend the books:
These books will lead to many more reference sources about the outdated Evolutionist paradigm.
I meant to point this out before about the chart he uses labeled "Our Family Tree" where he lists the "five Great Ape" species. It contains a typical "iconographic evolutionist distortion" to make the human look less foreign to the set. That is the "humanized" drawing of the Gorilla's foot. I spent too much time with Willy B, a great silver backed Gorilla, at the Grant Part Zoo in Atlanta as a child, to be fooled by that humanized drawing. If that drawing were correct it would make the human foot really standout as very different, from the others in the subset of "great apes."
How similar does this foot look to your foot. Besides the clasping capability of the "thumb" not big toe, and the webbing of the finger joints except in the last joint, it is thoroughly "ape like" and non-human. Compare that foot and the print below to his chart of prints.
These convenient little iconographic deceptions are plastered all over the textbooks and natural history museums. These myriad fraudulent and unproved depictions are in fact "cheesy" and silly. However, these false Icons have been wonderfully effective in conditioning children to accept the naturalist pagan mythology. In fact it is effective on everyone but the skeptics who know better. They used for many decades the Neanderthal as one of the stepping stones from ape to homo-sapein until they could not suppress the fact that Modern man and the Neanderthal lived for a very long period side by side. Just as everyone knows about Jane Goodall's "peaceful chimps" and few know of the hellish chimpanzee wars she personally witnessed, so Huxley's fraud remained part of the Evolutionist case and in THE major biological text book for eighty-years after being proved a fraud. So these standard Icons of Evolutionary fraud remain in the pop-culture and text book. It is a propaganda war, part of the mythology needed to replace "traditional religion" with Scientism. It is beyond what some have called the knowledge filter. It is purely propaganda.
What they are suppressing now is the evidence of a much older history for Modern man, which most likely is older than the history of the Neanderthal. When Dr Wyman talks of extinct humanoid relatives, there is evidence for only one and that is the Neanderthal. The rest are markedly more ape-like species that are now extinct.
In case you don't realize the fact that Darwinists have been committing fraud in their Iconographic tradition from day one, please watch this. Charles Darwin himself engaged in such fraud. It is amazing that history simply ignores it.
If you don't have patience, go to minute 3:45 and listen to the story of the fraud of evolutionary biologist Earnst Haeckel.
I've enjoyed Dr Wyman's lecture so far because he has proved that much that is associated with "evolutionism" concerning behavior is mythology. In the first hour he said, "So I spent some time when I started getting interested in this whole topic ah . . reading ah . . the anthropological literature, the sociological literature, the feminist literature, and basically I thought all those explanations were a crock. And I don't think they came close to . . . to an answer." He has proved that the "great apes" are merely lucky that they have survived as a species, that rather than their behavior being "pro-evolutionist" it is rather a process of devolution he is explaining, where we see species after species engage in behavior that is dangerous to the survival of the species, and he included humans in this category. That is the conclusion I came to many years ago. The prospect of human survival is much more tenuous than people want to believe and the idea that we are inexorably gliding to a "higher plane of evolution" is foolishness indeed. Where is the behavior that proves it?
Dr Wyman criticized those anthropologists who state that there were peaceful societies, because there were some examples of no wars for a period. You cannot prove a negative. Since War indicates at least one aggressor, a peaceful society unwilling to defend itself would quickly cease to exist. The fact that wars have existed for all time does not preclude societies that were indeed peaceful, and fought only when threatened, and only to protect their peaceful way of life. I can't prove this, he can't disprove it.
I agree with his explanation of the fact that the death tolls in wars as percentage to overall population is shrinking and that our wars are farther apart. Of course he is basing this on this period, and tomorrow it could all be very different, but he could not resist hinting that there might be an evolutionary connection. The evolutionary connection he would naturally want to make would be the presence of "international bodies of quasi-governance." This idea is baseless and part of the mythology. The idea that war creating massive deaths won't happen soon is mythology, it is plastering a scenario upon a totally unknown. But that has been the hallmark of Darwinism from the beginning, plastering a scenario upon the near total and most often completely and totally unknown. It does this every time it pretends to state "cause." When in truth all it ever records is "processes."
An aspect of Dr Wyman's data rings true. Without that being his goal, he has confirmed the fallen state of nature and how hard it struggles just to survive and how most species have not survived. He has also confirmed the fallen state of man, that in the history of his conflicts, he has mirrored of the actions of the beasts. No surprise there, that is what Christianity teaches and has known of the human from the beginning. Dr Wyman made a big deal of God ordering the killing of entire tribes and inhabitants of cities. He gave the example of the people who were not killed as Moses had ordered, and then Moses sparing all the virgin women. Even though we don't know the answer why God would order the death of a tribe of people we can conjecture. The Old Testament story paints it as important enough that all those people be eliminated that by Moses not following God's instruction, it was counted against him and he was not allowed to enter the promised land. With the increasing understanding of DNA-genome, one could conjecture that there were people who as the Bible clearly states "had become corrupt in their flesh" - this could mean that something had entered their DNA that would threaten the survival of the species. We do have the story in Genesis of the angels mating with humans, producing a race of beings who were not of God's making. Some have conjectured that these creatures not created by God, not 'ensouled' by God were produced by the demonic angels to use, to inhabit. After all the angels, good and bad are called "bodiless powers." As a bodiless power then did not mate with a human female in the standard way, but manipulated her DNA to produce a child they could inhabit.
We have no idea about that, but we have that story in Genesis and it is told more fully in the Book of Enoch. We have the mythology of the Greeks and all the stories of the competing gods, who had human attributes, the demi-gods of history. Then we have the evidence of sudden and massive exterminations of people, in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, the extermination via the great flood and the various extermination on a smaller scale that the Bible records as "ordered by God." Had these humans lost the ultimate characteristics to causes the species to survive? Was a mass insanity taking hold of them? In a way we know the answer, from a Christian perspective, they had ceased to hold consciousness of God and had become completely brutish, bestial. We know that those societies that took to themselves the civilizing imperatives grew, and those societies that grew bestial ceased by one means or another to exist. So there is the real possibility, and no evolutionist could or would ever admit this, that God has guided the survival of those humans who held the capability to survive.
When the professor talked about the massive slaughter of Chinese by the Japanese in World War II, I remembered the report by Malachi Martin, in "Hostage To The Devil" about the young man who everyone knew, who lived in Nanking, named Thomas Wu. As the Japanese landed and pushed up the Yangtze delta, Thomas Wu suddenly became a cannibal. This formerly well liked young man suddenly became a fiend! Why? The story of mini-massacres before major massacres is not uncommon. The insanity that happened in France in the person of the Marquis De Sade just prior to the bloodlust of the French Revolution is such a case.
Father Michael Strong found Thomas Wu, in an old granary, surrounded by many mutilated corpses. In the town of Nanking he was wanted for having killed and eaten five people. Now weeks later he was discovered surrounded by many corpses he was eating and abusing. No one knows the exact number but it was described as a scene from a slaughterhouse. Father Michael sent word to the police chief that he was doing an exorcism. When the police arrived, Father Michael was in the process of exorcism, but the demonic force was so strong it merely mocked Fr Michael. The entity said in a voice no one who knew Thomas Wu recognized, "I'm taking him. And no power anywhere, anywhere, you hear, can stop us. We are as strong as death. No one stronger! and he wants to come! You hear? He wants to!" Suddenly the building was on fire from what appeared multiple sources, and no one knew how it was started. The entity screamed, "It's all one. Fool! We're all the same. Always were. Always . . There's only one of us. One . . . " Father Michael and the police chief watched through a window as Wu and the corpses burned. Wu stood as flames melted him and as that happened the images of thousands of faces crossed Wu face. Each face marked with what Fr Michael dubbed, "A chin with the fingerprint of Cain." Father Michael was pulled away just before the building collapsed and he thought, "Cain . . . " A voice hissed, "Wrong again, fool! Cain's father . . . I . . . The cosmic Father of Lies and the cosmic Lord of Death. From the beginning of the beginning. I . . . I . . . I . . . "
As to the massacre of Chinese by the Japanese: I have to commend Dr Wyman for telling the truth of it, at least as far as he can from the perspective of the "material dictatorship" of his "natural science." But I have news for him. His natural science is not capable of explaining the suicidal tendencies of a species. In his paradigm he does not have all the tools to grasp the real means and motive of the carnage. He can relate the insanity Jane Goodall saw envelope the Champ colonies she had observed as peaceful for twenty-five years. There is no biological imperative that can explain it, as our Professor made perfectly clear. It was in a sense, "anti-evolutionary" "destructive to the prospects for the survival of the species." When our Professor says of those months and years of massacre in China, "There was something there. Something going on" as he described the hellish brutality of the Japanese making sport of mass murder, killing first over three hundred thousand. He is absolutely right, though he would not and probably cannot entertain the answer that eye witnesses could give. He sounded rather like Malachi Martin describing the carnage, the insanity, and brutality of it. Martin told it this way, "On December 14, the Japanese High Command let loose 50,000 of their soldiers on the city with orders to kill every living person. The city became a slaughterhouse. Whole groups of men and women were used for bayonet and machine-gun practice. Others were burned alive or slowly cut to pieces. Rows of children were beheaded by samurai-swinging officers competing to see who could take off the most heads with one sweep of the sword. Women were raped by squads then killed. Fetuses were torn alive from wombs, carved up and fed to the dogs. . . . the spirit Fr Michael had tangled with in the microcosm of Thomas Wu's grisly charnel house in the suburbs of Nanking - 'the Cosmic Lord of Death' - had been let loose over all the land."
Natural Science, in its present "material dictatorship" cannot even consider the words of Saint Paul, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies." This isn't an illusion, all of fallen nature's struggle and all of fallen primate history and all of the history of fallen mankind proves this. I am really very curious now what "biological imperative" our biology professor can give to this hellish reality. What part of "matter" is responsible for it? Can an "in group" and "out group" explain this inhumanity?
Again, what he describes as the answer is that the "nation states have to become more interconnected" which is the utopian political pretensions of Social Darwinism. The many nations under the old Soviet System became very, very interconnected. Did it stop the systematic slaughter of one hundred million? But to his credit our Professor says, "But this is just guess work. We don't really know." That's honest and so far except for the misleading chart of "evolution" this presentation has the ring of honesty about it. When relating the data, that seems real, and only seems unreal when he overlays the data with an evolutionism that really won't fit it.
Noah & Eve: Did you catch that amazing line about genome/DNA evidence, that says that every living human can be traced to a single female. What? You mean that the ancient oral histories first recorded in primitive Paleo-Hebrew Pictographs actually got it right? That we all are the descendants of a single Female, that the YHVH tradition called Eve? Amazing guess for such primitive people! "And, we are all the descendants of a single male. And those two didn't have to live at the same time." Really? Like quite possibly we are the descendants of Eve and Noah? Amazing! "In fact almost certainly did not live at the same time. It's just the randomness of lines dying out." And maybe with the help of intelligence where some line were purposely eliminated, like in the Great Flood. "The rate of extinctions of lines was great."
Explaining the explosion of human population he says, "Clearly something was making us superior, and this even predates agriculture." What was it?
I have to give Dr Wyman credit for his opening here, his view of both sides of the abortion debate was simplistic, balanced, but propaganda. I would very much like to view the previous content in the course about abortion that he edited out.
Here is the propaganda: Dr Wyman: It encapsulates diametrically opposed views of our roles in everyday life. People perceive it as an everyday kind of issue. And what are the roles that I'm talking about? Sex roles, work roles, husband and wife roles, motherhood and fatherhood roles; all of those - - how you perceive yourself in those roles will very much determine how you feel about the abortion debate. For instance, both sides in the debate agree that the issue is about murder. A pro-lifer sees images of a three month old fetus, which even though only about the size of your finger they see - - they're having visual of blown up photographs and I'm sure you've all seen those things and it already looks quite baby like, and thinks of it of being dismembered and murdered. A pro-choicer also sees it about murder, but she, in her mind, sees a young woman, maybe herself, in a back alley abortion, being butchered and possibly murdered. And almost everyone of the older generation of pro-choice women has either themselves had an abortion, or has had a friend who has had an abortion, and they perceived it as lifesaving, or if it was a back alley unsuccessful one, as a life depriving situation. Both sides agree that the issue is about babies and motherhood. A pro-life mother thinks that babies are so precious that whenever they come they will be loved and wanted. There is no such thing as an unloved or unwanted baby. A pro-choice mother thinks that babies are so precious that they should only be had when the woman really wants the baby and is in a situation in life where they have the resources to take care of the baby. Both sides agree that the issue is about sex. A pro-life woman things that sex is so special that it should be guarded by strong religious and social controls so that it always has an almost sacred character. A pro-choice woman things sex is so special that it should be freed from worry about pregnancy and disease so that it can be enjoyed as a unique sharing of intimacy. Both sides agree that the issue is about the status of women. Pro-life women think that women are so important that their special life role of motherhood must be protected. Pro-choice women think that women are so important that they should have every bit as much control over their life roles as men have. Just viewed in that way, one of the interesting things about this abortion debate is that the two sides on - - if you really get down to what the fundamental values of the two sides are, they're not different. They apply them differently. They're thinking of different instances, of different real situations in which to apply these rather same kinds of fundamental human values.
I could follow Wyman until the sentence, that the fundamental values of the two sides are not different. That is a sophistry applied to vastly different sets of values. All one has to do is look at the choices. The mother has the "option" of aborting or not aborting. What choice does the fetus have? The pro-lifer understands that crossing the threshold of purposely destroying human life, is based upon that "life" being a mere beast, a biological mass without meaning. That is where the debate is joined, no other aspect of it has meaning. Notice that Dr Wyman couched his comparison saying, "how you perceive yourself in those roles will very much determine how you feel about the abortion debate." This idea of how one "feels" about an issue is a tactic of the deconstruction of reason, where 'feelings' are values and feelings equal values and values then are nebulous, ephemeral, on the whim of emotion and sentiment, but most importantly ALL values are EQUAL. Again it is a tool to make the ground of each side seem equal.
It is only upon such ephemeral ground where the potential harm to the woman from an illegal abortion can be equated with the murder of the unborn. Truth be told there is nothing equal about it. A woman seeking an illegal abortion "chooses" to place herself in danger, in the same way that a woman enduring a dangerous pregnancy, chooses to endanger her own life to have the child. Both have chosen to endanger their lives, but the reason and purpose is NOT equal. One is hoping to allow the individual D.N.A. that is that unique person inside her womb to grow and to experience breath, and the other wants to rid her womb of a meaningless biological glob. So yes, Dr Wyman is quite right that how a woman (or man) perceives herself will govern what she thinks about abortion. But Wyman misses the categories. The woman who sees herself as a human being, with all the attributes and qualities tradition teaches, with human perceptions knows the human value of the fetus and protects it. The woman who sees herself as a post-human beast only, with the rights of the beast to enjoy her sensual pleasures, since the five senses are all there is for the beast, that "potential" beast in her womb is meaningless, an inconvenience, a stumbling block to her "life style." Nothing about that is equal.
Now look at what has to be called The Carnage. Worldwide, there are 40 to 50 million abortions every year as a worldwide statistic. That's staggering! Six years of the world's aborted fetuses would create a country the size of America, were those babies born. This figure was consistent from 1983 to 2003. That is somewhere between 800 million and one billion abortions in two decades - that is staggering!
And notice how matter-of-fact and unemotionally Dr Wyman states these staggering figures. And he questions? "Has anyone changed their minds about abortion?" As you know if you have watched the lectures, there was nothing in the content of the lecture that would challenge a pro-lifer to become pro-abortion, or a pro-abortionist to gain greater appreciation for life. So again we have to assume that the edited content contained such material. He also made mention in one lecture of a second guest lecturer or a lecture by a graduate student, he didn't define it, just said in "x" person's presentation (I don't recall the name"). Now if you doubt that even a boring lecture on demographics in the Darwinian/Evolutionist post-human world has become an "evangelical event" for the new religion of Scientism, let us set this dry, unemotional presentation of 40 to 50 million abortions a year, against Dr Wyman's first hour where he is beating the drum of abuse of women, and sucking-in like a talented con man the female students, and especially those who are feminist, and in "women's studies." Deftly, he is also disarming those who hold pro-life views making them think he is sympathetic to their view. Also remember what I've say consistently about the priests of Scientism, "if nothing else, they are consistently inconsistent."
From lecture one: "During the long course of human history females are treated very badly. There is a huge amount of battering. Battering is the prime human version of violence. And females are so discriminated against that statistics indicate that there is something now, right now, something like a hundred million missing females. That these females are either aborted, ah . . before they are born, killed by infanticide, pretty much as soon as they are born, or neglected so that they don't get the food, or they don't get the medical care, that their brothers get. There is a dearth of something like a hundred million women in the world today, and uh . . so . . these are ah . . extreme incidences . . but it is an extremely common . . ah . . .thing. One of the purposes of this course is to get you to understand what is causing all of this."
He stated this with the utmost seriousness, in what could only be called a "solemn voice" literally like a preacher giving an altar call. He continued in the same solemn voice:
"From a biological point of view this abuse of females is extremely weird. Ah . . males as you know can only reproduce by a female. And so . . an evolutionist . . ah . . the name of the game is reproducing. So almost all species, what kind of a female do the males want? They want the healthiest, the most well protected, the most well fed female, and you will see some examples of the extremes males will go to ah, ah . . provide this, so that that female can produce off springs for that male and carry on the evolution game." "In the evolution game, it just doesn't make sense that human males should keep their females hungry, sick, and abused." "So this is all a biological disaster the way human males treat human females and ah . . . we don't know why . . . ah we do . . we have some idea why humans do that . . . in the first part of the course we'll talk . . . something about that. "
Let me repeat the line, "That these females are either aborted, ah . . before they are born, killed by infanticide, pretty much as soon as they are born, or neglected so that they don't get the food, or they don't get the medical care, that their brothers get . . . In the evolution game, it just doesn't make sense that human males should keep their females hungry, sick, and abused." "So this is all a biological disaster the way human males treat human females . . ."
"Something like one hundred million missing females . . . these females are either aborted . . . etc." Then in this lecture he rattle off statistics of world wide abortion suggesting the low number is 40 million abortions a year, and suggests a few paragraphs later that "condoms, backed up by abortion is the safest means of . . . " What? "birth control." He bemoans "something like 100 million missing females" lost to us today, "right now" who are "lost" due to abortion, infanticide, abandonment and neglect. That period he mentioned where they have "very good data" showed that total abortions in the world were 40 to 50 million each year from 1983 to 2003, two decades. That is a total of 800 million to one billion abortions in that twenty year period. We know that the abortions are weighted heavily toward females so that mean in all likelihood around 500 million females aborted in that twenty year period alone. And this is seen as a "good thing" merely part of the "fertility transition." Reconcile that consistent inconsistency if you can.
If we take the idea that the forcible taking of a human life, when that human life has not given you cause, hasn't threatened you and is peaceable, is murder, making the distinction that not all killing is murder, just like not all abortions would be murder, IF the mother's life were truly threatened by the pregnancy - but what is murder, is a crime against an innocent, then murder is murder whether it is via abuse or so-called family planning.
So then, why was the murder of 100 million females over a 73 year period morned in lecture one, and five time that many, 500 million murdered females over a mere 20 year period seen as a "good thing," as part of the "fertility transition" from "religions times" to "scientistic times"? Why, because the 100 million murders do not fit the scientistic paradigm, and the 500 million (not to mention the additional 300 million to 400 million murders of males - recorded from very good data) . . . so the 800 million to one billion murders do fit the scientistic paradigm and are called, the "backup plan for the safest means of birth control." Then the mortality rate of women who choose to give birth is seen as higher than any other category, and child birth is called, "very dangerous for the woman, which it is, making it in some cases in reality and literally the most selfless act, the most heroic act some women will choose in their life time. This is seen as "questionable." In subtle and droning boredom and chart after chart of statistic, and tale after tale of mythology ultimately the purpose of the course is the religion of "scientism" and its Eugenic goals. Nothing could explain this inconsistency except the dictates of pure propaganda.
If you doubt the use of Propaganda at Yale, listen to this bit of propaganda used on the women of Ukraine: "In the Ukraine, when the Soviet Union fell apart, the family planning programs that they had also fell apart and so the whole area was left without effective family planning. And the international Planned Parenthood Federation, their nearest office was in Bangkok and so they couldn't help very much. What they did is they said, we'll take just the city of Moscow because it's most cost effective to work in a city of a lot of people, we don't have geographic access, but we'll try to provide some contraception in Moscow. That left all the other Soviet Block countries with nothing. The Planned Parenthood Federation of Connecticut here (of which Dr Wyman was a board member for years) I was associated with them at the time, got in contact with the Ukraine - - the whole Ukraine was like left bereft of contraception. Got in touch with the main - the head and the university in Kiev, the head of the OB/GYN Department, a very nice woman, and started to help her provide - - by contraceptives here and ship them abroad. Actually we buy them internationally, very cheap, a cycle of pills is 80 cents in the world market. A condom is like a penny and a half, diaphragm is $1.25. So, if you buy them in the United States they're expensive. You buy them in India or wherever they're made, they are a lot cheaper, so we could really help Ukraine a lot. What they wanted first was - - because you can't use any of these things if there's pelvic infections so they wanted Monistat and other treatments for vaginal infections as a first line and then they could start dealing with contraception. So, anyway, this program went on but it wasn't very successful and the reason was, the women were using abortion and were quite happy with it. They didn't see anything wrong with it; they were used to it and no problems, so why should we change? So one of the things that they did, and we helped them, was we got some of the right-to-life films, which show, in the goriest way, what the fetus looks like and what an abortion is like and you know are really are way, way off the deep end and shipped them to them so they could show their patients and say, 'see an abortion is not just this sort of nothing kind of event.'"
Like I say, there is nothing more consistent coming from the priests of Scientism than their constant inconsistency. And from the view of reason and morality this statement is very, very inconsistent. Dr Wyman knows full well that abortion is fully inside the Scientistic paradigm so what was objectionable about abortion in Ukraine? It was not the suffering of the fetus, which the films clearly show, or the fact that it is murder, or the fact that it is taking an innocent human life. No. For the post-human it is just a matter of costs. So the pro-life films were used as a propaganda tool inside the Scientistic paradigm, to save costs. He did not say what the cost of an abortion was in Ukraine but via common sense we know it was more expensive than an 80 cent round of birth control pills, penny condoms or buck-twenty-five diaphragm. Please notice that in the post-human paradigm the suffering of humans is meaningless, but the cost to continue the worldwide campaign of Eugenics has to be considered.
Notice, following the story of Ukraine is the story of Cuba, where a culture of death holds the population in sway. Our lecturer seems to think this is humorous. All communist regimes have created cultures of death, and the international capitalist regimes are not doing any better. In fact, Eugenics is becoming a crony-capitalist goal.
If you think that I've exaggerated at all about the Culture of Death created by the Secular post-humanists. Time to get rid of the very young and the very old. It is all about money, only the "cost" matters.
I would have to see the studies that confirm that none of the abstinence programs have had any effect on teenage pregnancy. I'm certain this is not the case. The sociologists said that Ronald Reagan's "Just Say No" drug policy campaign was ineffective but as it turned out it was quite effective and they were wrong. What I find amazing about this presentation is this: Dr Wyman will argue that changes in culture can have a huge effect upon the birthrate. Here he argues that there are no changes in the culture vis a vis teenage pregnancy in the U.S. and the drop in teen pregnancy of 1 percent per year since birth control was legalized is solely the result of birth control and abortion. I was suspicious of the chart and the idea. Then I noticed that he was using data from 1994, to make his point. He is lecturing in 2009. Why the 15 year old data? Here is why.
There has been a huge decrease in the rate of teenage pregnancies, abortions and births, in the last decade and we cannot say that contraception and abortion are the only cause. It is clear that the actual statistics blow the lid off Dr Wyman's very clever use of 15 year old data. Nothing "physical" has changed from 1994 till 2010, all the same tools have been available. What has changed is something in the culture of teens or the culture as a whole. It would be interesting to know what that change has been. Let us look further.
What happened in 1992 in the U.S. two things were introduced into the culture, Reagan's just say no policy to drugs, and the teaching of abstinence added to the sex education curriculum in public schools, a greater push for abstinence in the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Information from the Guttmacher Institute seems to indicate that Dr Wyman's premise that the lowering of the birth rate and the abortion rate from 92 to 96 had no cultural component is simply wrong. He touted the fact that such programs were "useless." So, let us look at the statistics.
Here is some dated information: Context: State-level teenage pregnancy rates, birthrates and abortion rates are needed for state-specific programs and policies. Accurate and complete state-level data were last published in 1992.
Methods: Teenage abortion rates according to state of residence, race and ethnicity were calculated from the results of The Alan Guttmacher Institute's survey of abortion providers and from information compiled by state health statistics agencies and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Natality data were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics, and population denominators from the Census Bureau.
Results: In 1996, some 97 pregnancies, 54 births and 29 abortions occurred per 1,000 U.S. women aged 15-19. At the national level and in virtually all states, these rates have fallen since 1992, yet they remain higher than rates in most other developed countries. The decline in the teenage abortion rate (from 36 per 1,000 in 1992) has been proportionately greater than the drop in the birthrate (from 61 per 1,000), indicating that an increasing proportion of pregnant teenagers are continuing their pregnancies. Pregnancy rates, birthrates and abortion rates vary enormously among the states for reasons that are largely unexplained. Pregnancy rates and birthrates tend to be highest in the South and Southwest, while abortion rates are highest in the most urban states.
I would like to offer the follow observations by Ken Brown."For those who have not been following the comments on my recent post on the Freedom of Choice Act, an objection was raised that restrictions on abortion merely trade a lower abortion rate for a higher rate of teenage pregnancy. Now those who believe abortion is murder might think that a reasonable trade–the lesser of two evils and all–but even if so, it is hardly an ideal situation. Better by far would be to reduce both teenage pregnancy and abortion, and a truly pro-life position must not ignore the negative consequences of its actions. Thus N. Adam claims the pro-life acceptance of this trade-off is one more instance of our “caring more about the welfare of the unborn than the born.”
In support of such a claim, it can be pointed out that most of those states with the highest teenage birth rates are in the South, and many of these are Red states. These numbers are a bit skewed, however, by the fact that a high abortion rate can mask a similarly high pregnancy rate. Still, even when comparing overall teenage pregnancy rates, it is clear that the South is not doing well. According to the Guttmach Institute(an arm of Planned Parenthood; figures are for 2000, the latest I can find), the five states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates per 1000 girls are (with Abortion rank and percentage):
1. Nevada: Pregnancy rate 113/1000 (Abortion: 4th highest; 36%) 2. Arizona: 104 (A 19th; 21%) 3. Mississippi: 103 (A 28th; 16%) 4. New Mexico: 103 (A 18th; 22%) 5. Texas: 101 (A 26th; 17%)
Nevertheless, the fact that these are all in the South, and include some states with pro-choice policies (e.g. Guttmacher ranks New Mexico the 6th best for “efforts to help women avoid unplanned pregnancy”) strongly points to a cultural factor–this is clearly not just a matter of access to contraception and abortion or even “Red vs. Blue.” (He means conservative vs liberal - politics) Thus, some very Red and very anti-abortion Midwestern states (like the Dakotas) are among the lowest in pregnancy and birth rates: North Dakota has the best overall teenage pregnancy rate (42/1000) and the 3rd best abortion rate (8%); South Dakota has the 7th best pregnancy rate (54/1000) and the 2nd best abortion rate (7%).
These numbers are also skewed by the fact that abortion restrictions and contraception restrictions (too) often go hand-in-hand, especially in the South. So if we want to get a better idea of the impact of abortion restrictions themselves–and thus the likely impact of FOCA’s passage, which would eliminate all such restrictions–we should instead look at the rankings for highest abortion percentages, and here the claim that increased access to abortion lowers teenage pregnancy rates collapses in ruin. According the Guttmacher Institute’s own numbers, the five states with the highest teenage abortion rates are all among the top 16 highest teenage pregnancy rates, and all are Blue states (with overall teenage pregnancy rank and rate/1000 girls):
Predictably, four of these states have very permissive abortion laws (California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey; Nevada is something of an exception, and in fact is not clearly Blue, though it went for Obama). More surprisingly, and according to Guttmacher, three of the four provide excellent access to contraception and related services: California (1st), New York (5th) and Maryland (12th) are all in Guttmacher’s top 12, though Nevada (34) and New Jersey (43!) get low scores. In other words, these states have some of the best access to abortion and contraception but not only have very high abortion rates (predictably), but also have consistently higher teenage pregnancy rates. In contrast, the five states with the lowest abortion rates are all among those with the 25 lowest teenage pregnancy rates:
46. West Virginia 10% abortion rate (Pregnancy rank 35th; 67/1000) 47. Kentucky 8% (P 25th; 76) 48. North Dakota 8% (P 50th; 42) 49. South Dakota 7% (P 44th; 54) 50. Utah 6% (P 45th; 53)
Note that this does not just measure overall numbers of abortion, but the abortion rate per pregnancy. In other words, Utah, South Dakota and North Dakota are not just low on the list because they have few pregnancies; they have the fewest pregnancies and the smallest percentages of those pregnancies end in abortion. Four of these five states have in place the very laws FOCA would eliminate (West Virginia is the exception).
Now clearly there is much more involved in these differences in teenage pregnancy and abortion rates than a few parental consent laws. There are, very obviously, strong cultural differences that no laws (for or against abortion) can eliminate. Thus, it is often rightly pointed out that, even if criminalized, many women would still seek abortions (though clearly this is more true in certain parts of the country than others). But the opposite is also true: even where abortion is legal, it can remain rare if the culture continues to view it as objectionable (as in parts of the Midwest), and this by no means needs to lead to higher pregnancy rates. In short, and as I have emphasized on numerous occasions, it is not the laws that need fixing so much as people’s hearts and minds. So long as we pretend that casual sex and abortion can be morally neutral and consequence free, we will have states like New Jersey and New York with extremely high abortion and teenage pregnancy rates.
But at the same time, it can hardly be an accident that four of the five states with the highest rates of abortion already have FOCA like laws on the books and yet still are among the worst in teenage pregnancy, while four of the five states with the the lowest abortion rates have the very kinds of laws FOCA would repeal and some of the best rates of teenage pregnancy. All of which renders very problematic the claim that restricting access to abortion inevitably leads to higher rates of teenage pregnancy. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case."
The bottom line is Dr Wyman's insistence that these changes are due to the legalization of contraception and abortion and cultural influences are absent is impossible to sustain and the statistics tell a different story.
Darwinists are nothing if not consistently inconsistent. Minute 8:50 forward Dr Wyman argues against himself. As he makes his point that "rich people have fewer children" he tells the story of a Professor from Kenya:
One year I taught this course, and there was a guy in it, a somewhat older guy who was actually already a professor in Kenya, he had come to Yale for more education and he took this course. After the course he told me that he was just blown away, that he had never realized, coming from Kenya, that poor people had more children than rich people. Actually he put it the other way, he had no idea that one of the aspects of being rich was that you have fewer children, and he was a college professor, or a university professor in Kenya.
Now if you are bored enough to have actually read and listened to this material you know that Dr Wyman made a big argument and claimed all kinds of sociological data that some "cultures" were having less children because of the influence of Western media. He pictured every shanty shack with satellite dishes and everyone watching the modern western family "with two children" and wanting then "two children." That was part of the content of his little speech about the "evolution" of culture predicated upon "fad." Apparently the upper class in Kenya didn't get the memo.
When Dr Wyman talks about social sciences and economists talking of children in the language of "consumerism" I could not help but chuckle. "Children are a time intensive commodity"; they take a lot of time to either enjoy or bring up properly. Women's value of time is a key component in "the price of children"; that children have a price like any other good. The time - - this is all quotes out of various recent articles. "The time cost of children and other household production"; children are one of the things that households produce. Then they talk about the opportunity cost for households to "produce and consume a child." I love the idea of what parents are doing is consuming you.
What was humorous to me was that Dr Wyman's entire lectures have been stated inside the paradigm of post-human anthropology. In the typically consistent-inconsistency of the evolutionary paradigm, he first anthropomorphized "Evolution" giving evolution personhood complete with a will, rational thought and capable of design. Then he started speaking of the imperatives of instinct as the sole driver of human procreation and the restraints on instinct according only to the social structure of the "primates."
This causes distortions of history. Unwilling to take into consideration the Christianity of Europe, which Scientism wishes to supplant, he describe the eras of "population stress" mentioning the number of unmarried males and females, in chimpanzee cultural/economic terms, without consideration of the massive numbers of religious and secular nuns and monks. The high number of single people were not sad-sacks, unable to accomplish the biological imperative during the "rich times" for lack of opportunity, as he describes it. Were that the case inside the paradigm of Chimpanzee culture, the single men would have been waiting on the hillsides of each village awaiting the husbands to turn their backs so they could kill their offspring and rape their women. Rather, because of the human's ability of "abstraction," a certain percentage, and I am guessing a large percentage were people who eschewed what they perceived as the decadence of the wealthy times, and contrary to biological instinct, "chose" to live either "in the world" or "removed from the world" in chastity and celibacy. We know all the abuses and failings of that system, but the fact is, chastity and celibacy was a recognized recourse and an honored place in that society. To consider the "culture" without including all the components of the culture is a blinding exercise. The Church surely was a part of that culture, in fact at the time the driving "mythology" of that culture, its teaching the abstraction spread across the events of that culture. In that period, for at least a thousand to twelve hundred years, monasticism was a competing (if that is the right word) culture, living IN or removed from the secular culture. Monastics were working secular monks, aiding families, working on farms and at skilled jobs, and religious monks and nuns together numbered possibly in the millions. Where is the data on the monasticism of the period? What percentage of the single people were monks and nuns, or were secular monks and nun, using the admired model of monasticism in the two periods Dr Wyman referenced, when things were very prosperous, and the population seem to be at the extent of its "carrying weight"? That is at the capacity of what the land could produce.
So as inappropriate as the "economist's" language is plastered over the sociology of low fertility in the developed world today, at least as inappropriate is the language of Malthusian/Darwinism and the culture of Chimpanzees plastered over the age of Monasticism in Europe. But more, except in the most primitive settings of tribalism, doesn't the "culture of subsistence primates theory" break down? Going back to China and the period of great stability, that period had a huge monastic movement as well. We cannot address either of these, from the "Darwinian/Malthusian" model, because it shows a phenomenon unique to humans, based up spiritual ideals the Darwinian/Malthusian model can't "quantify" in terms of "biological" parameters. Although, in the primate world, sans humans, there are instances of single males, biding their time until they can mate, a period as Dr Wyman painted of constant male competition so to be in place and ready to mate. There are no instances of willful, virgin females, or celibate primates, except in the human species. There are none in the post-human species, which exposes in clear relief the devolution of man in post-humanism.
There is another phenomenon in the ancient culture of humans, in fact in most ancient cultures at the dawn of recorded history which has no corollary in Ape/Chimpanzee culture, that is the "intentional sacrifice." The discipline before a higher power, even if that power had devolved to be a mere idol, to set something aside in honor of the deity and for the good condition of the family, or the tribe. Darwinism/evolution goes way out of the way to picture primitive human culture in terms continual and constant warring. Since what they are witnessing and discovering is the history of "fallen human nature" they are correct in this picture. However, in the process of marking human culture as "bestial only" they ignore higher aspects of human culture, like the monastic movements previously mentioned.
One typical slight of hand used by anthropologists to describe this phenomenon in humans of self sacrifice, based on abstractions about a higher power, is to call it pure superstition and from a base of total self interest. If the practice was merely to gain favor with the "god/gods" it still represented a consciousness of a higher power. Where in the primate world, sans humans, are the altars, the consciousness of the celestial bodies, the wish to produce music, other artifacts of art and creativity, and the artifacts of prayer? They are completely absent. One of the most recent finds was actually a flute in a Neanderthal cave, dating back 150 thousand years, capable of playing the pentatonic/diatonic scale of modern music. The anthropologists of the new scientism consider all such tendencies a psychosis driven by fear of the unknown. So we as the highest primate form are the least sane, not dealing with the world around us in a concrete way, the way the Chimpanzee do in their totally earthbound culture, we as a species suffer fear and create cultural psychoses called "religions." The premise is posited that since our "religions" have not stamped out, the biological imperatives, passions, and the resultant material conflict and war that no good thing has come from it. Despite the record of countless selfless acts, recorded in history, including the ultimate sacrifice of one's own body for the good of others, and the raising of the understanding of the human as an autonomous creature endowed by God with rights unalienable, affording the human a dignity above biological imperative, and fostering actions that sometimes match, this is mere, psychosis to the anthropologist-darwinian-evolutionist-socio-demographer.
Every religion in human history cannot be lumped together and called good, because there were certainly religions that were life engendering and religions that were death engendering, and so creating "cultures of life" and "cultures of death"; Cultures that raised the value of the human and cultures that demeaned the value of the human. When the choice is between true Christianity, which values all life, and Scientism that relegates the human to a sub-human, non-human, post-human creature devoid of his true higher attributes, recognizing in him only The Mark of the Beast, the choice is clear and real. True Christianity, with all of its failings is superior to Scientism in this regard, the former being a culture of life and latter being a culture of death. The Death culture of Darwinism/Evolution is self-evident, and has "death as the answer" clearly marked upon it from its very inception. To claim otherwise is to argue against history. What is the evidence? Where its paradigm held complete sway without the restraints of Christianity, hundreds of millions of people were "sacrificed," which in the words of the very progenitors of the mythology, is seen as a good thing.
My rant aside, this lecture is informing, and when he is speaking about the practical implication of modernization on the number of children, it is common sense and the data backs his observation, not to machine-like certainty but as a reasonable picture.
However, incase you doubt that even this very common sense picture of the effects of modernity upon human population is without the stamp of the liar, look at the point when Dr Wyman sums up the period from "primitive man to today."
Dr Wyman: "In terms of the whole picture of the changes in the world, probably this is the kind of sequence - - we've talked about a lot of different factors that happen to bring people into modernity. I want to sort of summarize a lot of that. The first thing that apparently happens, it starts in the renaissance in the West and continues on into the enlightenment, and then the industrial revolution . . . is that the first thing that happens is that people stop thinking supernaturally about things and start thinking about the real world and trying to think rationally about it. Technological progress ensues . . ." etc
I hate to burst Dr Wyman's bubble but technological progress that lead to the renaissance was the product almost exclusively of "the Church." The great feats of architecture and engineering, from the fall of the Roman Empire to through the renaissance, ALL were the product of the Church. ALL the classical knowledge saved from the destruction of the multiple invasions of barbarians which caused the fall of the Roman Empire and plunged Europe into a barbaric dark ages, was saved, exclusively by the Church. There is no single record of classical knowledge held by any secular institution or group of individuals, except by the Church. Some claim that this knowledge was held by secret societies, but if so the secret societies all had a religious base, even if the religious base was a mere unitarian theism. The Church was the financier of scientific development and the demythologizing of classical knowledge, turning astrology into astronomy and alchemy into chemistry, and making huge advances in engineering and agriculture. Galileo was not condemned by the church for his astronomy but for his theology. Not to whitewash the ignorance of Scholasticism and the wish to keep the "known" even when it was wrong, but this resistance by the scholastics does not diminish the truth of the things I've said of this era. The vast majority of advancements in "natural science" happened inside the paradigm of Christianity. If you understand that Darwinism/Evolutionism to a great extent is mythology and not hard science, little was learned until the advances of technology which allowed for greater observation. And this technology all has it roots, in modern times, inside The Church. It was the Christian world that experience the renaissance, and recognizing the "contextual truths" held in the ancient Greek record, wrestled with that knowledge and created a synthesis.
There is a huge question in my mind as to whether the so-called enlightenment, which quickly dismissed God, was truly an enlightenment at all or merely the counterfeit of the renaissance. To state that the vast majority of knowledge generated by the "Enlightenment" is truth is to greatly simplify a very complex subject. The enlightenment has produced only "contextual truths" exposing "processes" gained by greater and more precise tools of observation. When any product of the Enlightenment makes claims to "causes" and "origins" it is simply a lie. In my opinion a great many of the assumption of the enlightenment movement are not truth, the greatest lie of course is that it explains "cause" and "origins." This is proved a lie by the science itself. Certainly the enlightenment created the post-human paradigm, which most certainly is NOT truth. So even as Dr Wyman exposes "contextual truths" via common sense observation, the overall paradigm into which he stuff those contextual truths is often times mere mythology and some times pure lie and distortion of truth.
If you want a hint of how much what I am saying is true, if you are a human being, and want to be human, and live as a human, even more if you want to be a Christian and live as a Christian you need to read C.S. Lewis' book, The Abolution of Man. Even though Lewis does not used the term "post-human" as I have, you will quickly learn to what degree this is already true. And even though he does not use the term, "accepting the Mark of the Beast" you will realize to what extent our communities, our country, our culture, our families, our friends, our medical establishments, our social planners, our social sciences, our understanding of psychology and psychiatry, our educational system paradigm, our destruction of the meaning of language, all point to the post-human age, where all around us have accepted the beast as the paradigm, that is the Mark of the Beast. That is, these people and their institutions have agreed to accept the lie that humans are "beast only" and God and every higher perception of man is mythology and superstition. This is the Mark of the Beast and This Mark of the Beast is a result of the so-called, enlightenment.
I wrote in 1992, that it would be very easy to view the sudden and exponential increase in technological knowledge that happened suddenly in human history as "the loosing beast upon the earth." It is producing a slavery to technology that is taking Humanity into its grips. Rather than being freed by all the so-called labor saving devices, we have instead become enslaved to technology. Now twenty years later we are many times more enslaved to technology, privacy eroded, rights lost or threatened, our food supply tainted by genetic engineering, even our human genome in danger by rogue science producing hybrids. The work required to survive in the technological society has changed but it has not lessened. It has caused huge displacements, leaving huge populations unneeded and unnecessary. In primitive times, in the most elemental picturing of man vis a vis society a person held worth by means of his productivity. With every increase in technology exponentially expanding the power of productivity of the few, the value of the work of those few is exaggerated and the value of the work of the masses is destroyed. If the people making up those masses cooperate in the removal of their worth as humans, agree to be post-human, that is mere beasts, institutions will take their cue and their future will be dark indeed. We are genuinely at a point in history where we are slipping into a "bestial" dark ages, where the manipulations of a few, "Enlightened Ones" governs life and death for the rest of us.
This displacement of the concrete purpose of masses of people is the true challenge to society at this point in history. The social contract spoken of so eloquently by Adam Smith and Alexi de Tocqueville were predicated upon the individual's worth to society via his/her productivity. The enterprise via self interest creating goods and capital being good for the whole, and the ideas of increased productivity via "division of labor" worked like a charm for a very short period of time until overtaken by technology. Technology actually cut the foundation from under the formula, and mankind has been floating in a sea of the unknown ever since. No generations in history have faced the monumental changes we endure. At this point in time to debase the human to beast only bodes ill for the majority of humanity. The only means of preventing genocidal Armageddon which we have seen expressed in the slaughter, starvation, death by unnecessary disease, infanticide, abortion, and other privations, is to elevate the individual human to an object of value above and more than mere beast.
