Category: Mark Musser

From Puritan Zionism to a Christmasy Hanukkah for Jerusalem


In between Thanksgiving and Christmas, President Trump gave to the nation of Israel perhaps one of the biggest Christmas gifts of all time: the long awaited recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  While Israel has never seen it any other way, the nations of the world have been reticent to acknowledge the obvious.  Jewish people have been waiting since ancient times for Jerusalem to once again be its capital, particularly since 1948, when Israel was born following the great consequential aftermath of both world wars.

Yet the Jewish return to the land of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital was actually predicted by more than a few Puritans and pilgrims who gave to America its first Thanksgiving.  The Puritans and pilgrims prided themselves in going back to the teachings of the Bible without interferences coming in from the Protestant state church.  Their crusade was a biblical one, in great contrast to the time of the Crusades in previous centuries, when European crusaders were sent to Jerusalem to protect the holy land from the Muslims.

Many Puritans were convinced that Israel would one day be regathered back to the land, with Jerusalem honored as its capital, not merely because of the divine authority of the Old Testament itself, but also because of the writings of Paul in Romans 11, not to mention the book of Revelation.  Moreover, they made such predictions based on biblical prophecies, irrespective of the fact that at the time, the Ottoman Empire was running the Middle East and had pushed up as far as the gates of Vienna.

Swiss theologian Theodore Beza (1519-1605) was perhaps the first significant Reformer who unleashed what should be understood as a form of Protestant Zionism when he taught that “Israel” in the New Testament refers to the Jews rather than to Christians.  Many in the Catholic Church for centuries had presumed that the Church is the true “spiritual” Israel.  Undergirded by its allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures that was deemed more spiritually minded, the importance of Israel’s covenantal history tied to the Promised Land was ignored.  Thus, while the Medieval Church did expend much time, energy, and blood during the Crusades, the holy land was to be taken from the Muslims for themselves – not for the Jews.  This was largely because Catholicism after Augustine buried Jewish eschatology under a replacement theology that taught that the New Testament Church completely supplanted Old Testament Israel.  (Eschatology is the study of the last things related to ultimate salvation.)

Yet the early Catholic Church before Augustine strongly held to a premillennial eschatology.  Early Catholics believed that the Second Coming of Christ would usher in upon the Earth His promised Messianic Kingdom as anticipated in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament and the Gospels.  premillennialism essentially means “before the kingdom,” with the term “millennium” standing for the Messianic Kingdom.  However, Catholicism after Augustine subscribed to amillennialism, which means there will not be a millennium after all, as the Church essentially became the kingdom of God on Earth that inextricably tied religion to the state for centuries to come.

Leaders of the Protestant Reformation like Luther and Calvin generally held to this Catholic default position during the 1500s, but more and more Protestants began to reconsider the early Church’s eschatological views.  This time around, however, when Puritan and pilgrim divines went back to biblical prophecies, they not only began to recover a premillennial eschatology again, but depicted the coming Messianic Kingdom in much more Jewish terms than previously envisaged.  Hence, the birth of what is today called Christian Zionism goes back to the Puritans and pilgrims.

With no small thanks to the publishing success of the Geneva Bible, Beza’s views on the future salvation of Israel became widely dispersed among the Puritans in England, Scotland, and New England.  Early on, the Anglican rector of York, Edmund Bunny (1540-1619), looked forward to Israel’s future restoration to the land and called on fellow Christians to love the Jews and minister to them with the gospel.  In 1608, English theologian Thomas Draxe wrote a commentary on Romans 11 called “The World’s Resurrection or the General Calling of the Jews.”  Draxe taught that the Jews are still peculiarly God’s people by virtue of the fact that God gave them His everlasting covenant in the Old Testament, which could not be forfeited.  In great contrast to Luther’s belligerent anti-Semitism, Draxe strongly discouraged Christians from acting likewise precisely because they are so indebted to the Jews and their Old Testament heritage.

In 1621, English lawyer Henry Finch predicted that the Jews would physically return to the promised land of Israel and that this homecoming would be a sign of the impending apocalypse.  Finch also sharply distinguished Israel from the church, as he sharply criticized those who said God’s promises have been transferred to the church as untrue “allegories.”  Finch presumed that God’s covenant given to Israel was eternal and that a revived Jewish state would one day cause consternation in the world.  Not surprisingly, Finch was arrested, tried, and forced to acknowledge that King James was his only sovereign – not some future Jewish king!  Such eschatological views were strongly suppressed by both the government and the Protestant state church that included book-burning.  William Gouge (1575-1763) was briefly put in jail in 1621 for publishing one of Finch’s works in his own name.

Thomas Goodwyn (1600-1680), who was Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)’s chaplain, was also an early Puritan Zionist.  It was Cromwell who dethroned and beheaded the king of England for treason toward the end of the English Civil War (1642-51) – all of which was a precursor to the American Revolution.  At relatively the same time, English divine Robert Maton wrote that the Second Coming of Christ is connected to the restoration of the Jews to their homeland.  The English Civil War provided an opportunity for Puritan Zionists to write their theological works without being shunned or persecuted by the royalist state church that had even less influences on the other side of the Atlantic.

Contrary to popular opinion, more than a few American Puritans also rejected the notion that North America was slated to become the New Jerusalem of the New World.  According to Puritan expert Reiner Smolenski, some of the American Puritans even associated the apocalyptic theme of the woman running away into the wilderness to escape the pressures of the Antichrist (Revelation 12:6) with their own colonial experience.  In other words, rather than set up the New Jerusalem in the new world, they wanted to run away into the wilderness of North America to escape the clutches of the Antichrist in Europe before the restoration of the Promised Land to Israel.

Neither should such apocalyptic views be considered dangerous in themselves.  It is simply not true that Christian Zionists are helping to facilitate the end of the world, as all too many have suggested.  It is the Islamo-fascists and the leftist compromises with them that are at the heart of the problem, as their policies of dividing up the Promised Land of Israel have done nothing to foster peace in the region.  Such foolish policies have left the entire Middle East in flames today with no signs of improvement anywhere on the horizon.  Perhaps it is time to finally acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital after all?

Neither is it a coincidence that Jewish Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim wrote that Christmas is rooted not in paganism, but in the Jewish Festival of Lights called Hanukkah.  Commemorating the re-dedication of the Temple (165 B.C.) following its desecration at the hands of Antiochus Ephiphanes, Hanukkah begins on the 25th of the Hebrew month Kislev, which normally occurs in December.  John 10:22 makes reference to Hanukkah, and Jesus often characterized Himself as the Light of the World (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36, 46) that refers back to Isaiah 9:1-7.  This opens the door for December 25 to become the exceptional day when the Jewish Messianic Light of the world was born on Christmas Day.

Happy Hanukkah to Israel and its capital city, Jerusalem!

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the Holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

In between Thanksgiving and Christmas, President Trump gave to the nation of Israel perhaps one of the biggest Christmas gifts of all time: the long awaited recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  While Israel has never seen it any other way, the nations of the world have been reticent to acknowledge the obvious.  Jewish people have been waiting since ancient times for Jerusalem to once again be its capital, particularly since 1948, when Israel was born following the great consequential aftermath of both world wars.

Yet the Jewish return to the land of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital was actually predicted by more than a few Puritans and pilgrims who gave to America its first Thanksgiving.  The Puritans and pilgrims prided themselves in going back to the teachings of the Bible without interferences coming in from the Protestant state church.  Their crusade was a biblical one, in great contrast to the time of the Crusades in previous centuries, when European crusaders were sent to Jerusalem to protect the holy land from the Muslims.

Many Puritans were convinced that Israel would one day be regathered back to the land, with Jerusalem honored as its capital, not merely because of the divine authority of the Old Testament itself, but also because of the writings of Paul in Romans 11, not to mention the book of Revelation.  Moreover, they made such predictions based on biblical prophecies, irrespective of the fact that at the time, the Ottoman Empire was running the Middle East and had pushed up as far as the gates of Vienna.

Swiss theologian Theodore Beza (1519-1605) was perhaps the first significant Reformer who unleashed what should be understood as a form of Protestant Zionism when he taught that “Israel” in the New Testament refers to the Jews rather than to Christians.  Many in the Catholic Church for centuries had presumed that the Church is the true “spiritual” Israel.  Undergirded by its allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures that was deemed more spiritually minded, the importance of Israel’s covenantal history tied to the Promised Land was ignored.  Thus, while the Medieval Church did expend much time, energy, and blood during the Crusades, the holy land was to be taken from the Muslims for themselves – not for the Jews.  This was largely because Catholicism after Augustine buried Jewish eschatology under a replacement theology that taught that the New Testament Church completely supplanted Old Testament Israel.  (Eschatology is the study of the last things related to ultimate salvation.)

Yet the early Catholic Church before Augustine strongly held to a premillennial eschatology.  Early Catholics believed that the Second Coming of Christ would usher in upon the Earth His promised Messianic Kingdom as anticipated in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament and the Gospels.  premillennialism essentially means “before the kingdom,” with the term “millennium” standing for the Messianic Kingdom.  However, Catholicism after Augustine subscribed to amillennialism, which means there will not be a millennium after all, as the Church essentially became the kingdom of God on Earth that inextricably tied religion to the state for centuries to come.

Leaders of the Protestant Reformation like Luther and Calvin generally held to this Catholic default position during the 1500s, but more and more Protestants began to reconsider the early Church’s eschatological views.  This time around, however, when Puritan and pilgrim divines went back to biblical prophecies, they not only began to recover a premillennial eschatology again, but depicted the coming Messianic Kingdom in much more Jewish terms than previously envisaged.  Hence, the birth of what is today called Christian Zionism goes back to the Puritans and pilgrims.

With no small thanks to the publishing success of the Geneva Bible, Beza’s views on the future salvation of Israel became widely dispersed among the Puritans in England, Scotland, and New England.  Early on, the Anglican rector of York, Edmund Bunny (1540-1619), looked forward to Israel’s future restoration to the land and called on fellow Christians to love the Jews and minister to them with the gospel.  In 1608, English theologian Thomas Draxe wrote a commentary on Romans 11 called “The World’s Resurrection or the General Calling of the Jews.”  Draxe taught that the Jews are still peculiarly God’s people by virtue of the fact that God gave them His everlasting covenant in the Old Testament, which could not be forfeited.  In great contrast to Luther’s belligerent anti-Semitism, Draxe strongly discouraged Christians from acting likewise precisely because they are so indebted to the Jews and their Old Testament heritage.

In 1621, English lawyer Henry Finch predicted that the Jews would physically return to the promised land of Israel and that this homecoming would be a sign of the impending apocalypse.  Finch also sharply distinguished Israel from the church, as he sharply criticized those who said God’s promises have been transferred to the church as untrue “allegories.”  Finch presumed that God’s covenant given to Israel was eternal and that a revived Jewish state would one day cause consternation in the world.  Not surprisingly, Finch was arrested, tried, and forced to acknowledge that King James was his only sovereign – not some future Jewish king!  Such eschatological views were strongly suppressed by both the government and the Protestant state church that included book-burning.  William Gouge (1575-1763) was briefly put in jail in 1621 for publishing one of Finch’s works in his own name.

Thomas Goodwyn (1600-1680), who was Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658)’s chaplain, was also an early Puritan Zionist.  It was Cromwell who dethroned and beheaded the king of England for treason toward the end of the English Civil War (1642-51) – all of which was a precursor to the American Revolution.  At relatively the same time, English divine Robert Maton wrote that the Second Coming of Christ is connected to the restoration of the Jews to their homeland.  The English Civil War provided an opportunity for Puritan Zionists to write their theological works without being shunned or persecuted by the royalist state church that had even less influences on the other side of the Atlantic.

Contrary to popular opinion, more than a few American Puritans also rejected the notion that North America was slated to become the New Jerusalem of the New World.  According to Puritan expert Reiner Smolenski, some of the American Puritans even associated the apocalyptic theme of the woman running away into the wilderness to escape the pressures of the Antichrist (Revelation 12:6) with their own colonial experience.  In other words, rather than set up the New Jerusalem in the new world, they wanted to run away into the wilderness of North America to escape the clutches of the Antichrist in Europe before the restoration of the Promised Land to Israel.

Neither should such apocalyptic views be considered dangerous in themselves.  It is simply not true that Christian Zionists are helping to facilitate the end of the world, as all too many have suggested.  It is the Islamo-fascists and the leftist compromises with them that are at the heart of the problem, as their policies of dividing up the Promised Land of Israel have done nothing to foster peace in the region.  Such foolish policies have left the entire Middle East in flames today with no signs of improvement anywhere on the horizon.  Perhaps it is time to finally acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital after all?

Neither is it a coincidence that Jewish Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim wrote that Christmas is rooted not in paganism, but in the Jewish Festival of Lights called Hanukkah.  Commemorating the re-dedication of the Temple (165 B.C.) following its desecration at the hands of Antiochus Ephiphanes, Hanukkah begins on the 25th of the Hebrew month Kislev, which normally occurs in December.  John 10:22 makes reference to Hanukkah, and Jesus often characterized Himself as the Light of the World (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36, 46) that refers back to Isaiah 9:1-7.  This opens the door for December 25 to become the exceptional day when the Jewish Messianic Light of the world was born on Christmas Day.

Happy Hanukkah to Israel and its capital city, Jerusalem!

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the Holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.



Source link

The Leaven of Political Football


At the pinnacle (1989-92) of Don James’s (1932-2013) football coaching career with the University of Washington Huskies, he was sabotaged by college officials from within, precisely because of political correctness.  Political correctness brought an end to the glory years of the Don James era (1975-92) which included a national championship, an Orange Bowl win over Oklahoma in 1984 that should have given the Huskies another national title, together with numerous Rose Bowl wins and many bowl appearances that racked up an impressive 10-4 postseason record.  Moreover, the political reckoning of Don James is was and is an important barometer relative to what is now sweeping the NFL as the increasing politicization of football is taking a heavy toll.  Thanks to the leaven of political correctness, the national anthem is now an apparent anathema in spite of the fact that American Football is a uniquely American sport.  If one cannot celebrate the national anthem at a distinctly American sport, can there be any real future to the NFL in America?

What started the ruckus at the UW that led to severe Pac-10 sanctions against the Huskies in the late summer of 1993 actually began in the mid 1980s over politics – from the inside before later being finished off by the outside.  Leftist UW President William Geberding became incensed when Don James introduced President Reagan at a fund raiser and then gave him a signed football to boot – pun intended.  To add insult to injury, President George Bush, Sr. later invited James to dinner at the White House. 

All of this was an affront to Gerberding who sharply reprimanded James for having the gall to mix sports with politics.  Not only was Gerberding incensed by James’s political conservatism, he was envious of his being the essential face of the school, not to mention the highest paid state employee in the state of Washington at the time.  Gerbeding’s political orientation was further insulted precisely because the UW’s athletic department was brimming with tons of cash thanks to the winning ways of Don James. 

To counteract this abomination, Gerbeding first went after Mike Lude.  Lude was Washington’s Athletic Director for many years.  He worked very closely with Don James to build Washington’s football program.  Lude’s previous background as the head coach of Colorado State University (1962-69), and then later as the Athletic Director of Kent State University, also afforded him a very respected and influential position in the NCAA. 

After Gerberding compelled Lude to share the incredible wealth he and James had brought into the UW athletic department with the rest of the school, he then forced Lude out of office in June of 1991.  This proved to be the primary catalyst that would later leave James exposed to the wolves of the NCAA, particularly at the Pac-10 level.  Pac-10 colleges were not happy watching their teams get mauled by the Husky defense.

A very inexperienced Barbara Hedges was then hired to replace Lude.  Hedges had priorities beyond developing the Husky football brand.  This became especially apparent when the Pac-10 finally came down harshly on the UW football program for what James considered to be petty violations that he initially thought would be relatively easy to overcome.  According to James, however, Hedge betrayed him and the entire football team at an emergency Pac-10 meeting in San Francisco by opting for much harsher sanctions rather than lobby for a lighter appeal.  According to other witnesses at the meeting, this decision was ostensibly made for the sake of men’s golf and women’s tennis.  Gerberding did not even attend the meeting. 

The undermining of James became very insidious in that also included Seattle’s very liberal press who were the first to dig up dirt on backup quarterback Billy Jo Hobert (that was later proved not to be illegal) but still managed to put the UW football program under the spotlight that led to other investigations.  Former 49ers coach Bill Walsh, who came to the Stanford Cardinals in 1992, went on to characterize the Huskies as a collection of outlaws and mercenaries that did not belong in the NCAA.  James was livid with Walsh’s insinuations. 

Yet after all of the investigations were completed, the primary allegations that were brought against the UW football program stemmed from the acts of California kids whom James had already dismissed from the team for being unethical.  Such manifest lawyerism, which made a Midwest law firm that specialized in NCAA violations almost one million dollars richer, together with other legalistic ticky-tack violations, which was further compounded by Hedges’s betrayal, led to the highly publicized harsh penalties leveled against the Husky football program.  James finally quit.  True to his word, James warned Hedges that if she does not appeal or lobby for a lighter sentence, he would resign. 

Hypocritically, long after the James Gang was gone, in 2006 Gerberding wrote a letter to Derek Johnson, the author of “Husky Football in the Don James Era.”  In the letter, Gerberding strongly agreed with James that the sanctions against the Huskies were far overblown.  He concluded by admitting the obvious that everyone already knew, “Don James was, of course, a great football coach.  He was also a gentleman and a fine representative of the University of Washington for 18 years.”  Today there is now a statue of James on the UW Campus recently dedicated to him.

At the dedication, future NFL Hall of Famer Warren Moon, who played for the Huskies in the late 70’s, reminisced, “After coach James left our living room and he got in his car, my mother told me: that’s where you’re going to go to school, son.  He wasn’t just a football coach that developed players. He was a football coach who developed young men.”   Here is a huge blind spot that leftist academics refuse to understand about American football – or perhaps they do all too well:  Football a not mindless sport for brutes.  If chess was to be played by real live people, it would be something akin to American football.

Neither is it a coincidence that the last truly dominating defense seen in all of football was the Husky defense of the late Don James era.  The Huskies did not merely defend, but destroyed the opposition. 

This Husky defense held the eventual all-time NFL rushing leader Emmit Smith to 17 yards in a 34-7 rout of the Florida Gators in the 1989 Freedom Bowl.  An even more powerful Husky defense derailed quarterback Todd Marinovich’s quest for the Heisman in 1990 with a 31-0 shellacking of USC.  In 1991, defensive lineman Steve Emtman was such a dominating force on the gridiron that he not only won the Lombardi Trophy, the Outland Trophy, the UPI Lineman of the Year together with the Pac-10 defensive player of the year, but incredibly, he also finished fourth in the Heisman race. 

In the 1992 Rose Bowl, retired Wolverine Coach Bo Schembechler (1929-2006) was shocked by the power of the Husky defense as he commented from the sidelines that no one pushes around a Michigan offensive line like that.   Even the depleted Husky defense of 1994 under Coach Jim Lambright, James’s successor and loyal defensive coordinator for many years, stuffed the Miami Hurricanes that ended their 58 home game winning streak dating all the way back to 1985 – with future NFL defensive Hall of Famers Ray Lewis and Warren Sapp looking on with envy.

The toothless defenses seen on the NFL gridiron today are most certainly the outworking of political correctness that began from within, but is now being taken over from the outside as professional football seems far more concerned about politics in general than playing football.  In 1978, politically correct rules leavened the game in a big way to favor offenses over defenses.  Certain NFL owners and coaches were tired of trying to fight their way through the Steel Curtain and other extremely tough defenses in order to earn their way into the Superbowl.  Claiming the game needed more excitement and entertainment to match the NFL’s growing inroads into Hollywood TV, they began to defang defenses by over-regulating them.  While the Raiders, Bears, Giants, and 49ers kept the defensive emphasis afloat during the 1980’s, the 1990’s saw its eventual demise with only an occasional strong defense seen since.  Now, such anti-defensive measures are touted even more for the safety of the game.

Today, nobody fears defenses.  This is a far cry from John Elway’s 1983 baptism into the NFL when he looked over at the remnants of Pittsburgh’s Steel Curtain with a toothless Jack Lambert growling at him.  This is what the NFL used to be all about – competition in the face of intimidation and danger – the kind of drama that has all but disappeared.  Today’s NFL is technocratic, slick, and full of glitz, but increasingly hollow of character and short on drama.  The NFL is now a pass happy basketball kind of game full of short passes and cheap touchdowns together with quarterback and receiver records that mean very little since they cannot be compared to other eras, particularly to the Super Seventies. 

In the 1970s, NFL fans were routinely presented with divisional playoffs, championship games, and Superbowls that were chock full of great competitive drama as the best teams on both sides of the ball collided against each other.  Because of the fierce competition between the offenses and defenses, even the best quarterbacks of that era seldom had more touchdowns than interceptions in any given year.  Moreover, most NFL teams had an exciting and outstanding running back that today is in short supply.  Today, super fullbacks like Larry Csonka are essentially out of a job since fullbacks are virtually non-existent.

The Super Seventies were also full of colorful coaches epitomized best by John Madden.  Madden’s rebel Raiders played three of the best games ever been played in NFL history – all of which were Divisional Playoff games.   First, there was the 1972 “Immaculate Reception” game where Franco Harris of the Steelers stole the win from the Raiders in the waning seconds of the game.  Jack Tatum’s bone-crushing hit that almost blew up the football itself, shot off of Fuqua’s chest like a cannon before implausibly popping into the hands of Harris with no one in front of him to stop him from scampering into the end zone.  Second, there was the classic 1974 “Sea of Hands” game against Miami that ended the Dolphins fourth straight drive to the Superbowl.  Third, there was the 1977 “Ghost to the Post” game that derailed the upstart Baltimore Colts – one of the longest NFL games ever played.

Such was the football drama of the Super Seventies that is today long gone as political correctness, legalism, and lawyerism now dominate the game.  All of this is turning into one big concussion for the fans that goes beyond the Kaepernick antics so that fewer people care much about the game anymore.  These days, Hollywood no longer cares even about entertainment – only politics.  This makes the NFL’s relationship to Hollywood even more insidious than before precisely because Tinseltown and Broadway demand political correctness as the first order of business.  Americans, who are already bombarded with the madness of politics 24-7, do not want to be subjected to it again on Sundays at a football game – a recipe for fewer fans and ticket sales to say the very least.

 

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

At the pinnacle (1989-92) of Don James’s (1932-2013) football coaching career with the University of Washington Huskies, he was sabotaged by college officials from within, precisely because of political correctness.  Political correctness brought an end to the glory years of the Don James era (1975-92) which included a national championship, an Orange Bowl win over Oklahoma in 1984 that should have given the Huskies another national title, together with numerous Rose Bowl wins and many bowl appearances that racked up an impressive 10-4 postseason record.  Moreover, the political reckoning of Don James is was and is an important barometer relative to what is now sweeping the NFL as the increasing politicization of football is taking a heavy toll.  Thanks to the leaven of political correctness, the national anthem is now an apparent anathema in spite of the fact that American Football is a uniquely American sport.  If one cannot celebrate the national anthem at a distinctly American sport, can there be any real future to the NFL in America?

What started the ruckus at the UW that led to severe Pac-10 sanctions against the Huskies in the late summer of 1993 actually began in the mid 1980s over politics – from the inside before later being finished off by the outside.  Leftist UW President William Geberding became incensed when Don James introduced President Reagan at a fund raiser and then gave him a signed football to boot – pun intended.  To add insult to injury, President George Bush, Sr. later invited James to dinner at the White House. 

All of this was an affront to Gerberding who sharply reprimanded James for having the gall to mix sports with politics.  Not only was Gerberding incensed by James’s political conservatism, he was envious of his being the essential face of the school, not to mention the highest paid state employee in the state of Washington at the time.  Gerbeding’s political orientation was further insulted precisely because the UW’s athletic department was brimming with tons of cash thanks to the winning ways of Don James. 

To counteract this abomination, Gerbeding first went after Mike Lude.  Lude was Washington’s Athletic Director for many years.  He worked very closely with Don James to build Washington’s football program.  Lude’s previous background as the head coach of Colorado State University (1962-69), and then later as the Athletic Director of Kent State University, also afforded him a very respected and influential position in the NCAA. 

After Gerberding compelled Lude to share the incredible wealth he and James had brought into the UW athletic department with the rest of the school, he then forced Lude out of office in June of 1991.  This proved to be the primary catalyst that would later leave James exposed to the wolves of the NCAA, particularly at the Pac-10 level.  Pac-10 colleges were not happy watching their teams get mauled by the Husky defense.

A very inexperienced Barbara Hedges was then hired to replace Lude.  Hedges had priorities beyond developing the Husky football brand.  This became especially apparent when the Pac-10 finally came down harshly on the UW football program for what James considered to be petty violations that he initially thought would be relatively easy to overcome.  According to James, however, Hedge betrayed him and the entire football team at an emergency Pac-10 meeting in San Francisco by opting for much harsher sanctions rather than lobby for a lighter appeal.  According to other witnesses at the meeting, this decision was ostensibly made for the sake of men’s golf and women’s tennis.  Gerberding did not even attend the meeting. 

The undermining of James became very insidious in that also included Seattle’s very liberal press who were the first to dig up dirt on backup quarterback Billy Jo Hobert (that was later proved not to be illegal) but still managed to put the UW football program under the spotlight that led to other investigations.  Former 49ers coach Bill Walsh, who came to the Stanford Cardinals in 1992, went on to characterize the Huskies as a collection of outlaws and mercenaries that did not belong in the NCAA.  James was livid with Walsh’s insinuations. 

Yet after all of the investigations were completed, the primary allegations that were brought against the UW football program stemmed from the acts of California kids whom James had already dismissed from the team for being unethical.  Such manifest lawyerism, which made a Midwest law firm that specialized in NCAA violations almost one million dollars richer, together with other legalistic ticky-tack violations, which was further compounded by Hedges’s betrayal, led to the highly publicized harsh penalties leveled against the Husky football program.  James finally quit.  True to his word, James warned Hedges that if she does not appeal or lobby for a lighter sentence, he would resign. 

Hypocritically, long after the James Gang was gone, in 2006 Gerberding wrote a letter to Derek Johnson, the author of “Husky Football in the Don James Era.”  In the letter, Gerberding strongly agreed with James that the sanctions against the Huskies were far overblown.  He concluded by admitting the obvious that everyone already knew, “Don James was, of course, a great football coach.  He was also a gentleman and a fine representative of the University of Washington for 18 years.”  Today there is now a statue of James on the UW Campus recently dedicated to him.

At the dedication, future NFL Hall of Famer Warren Moon, who played for the Huskies in the late 70’s, reminisced, “After coach James left our living room and he got in his car, my mother told me: that’s where you’re going to go to school, son.  He wasn’t just a football coach that developed players. He was a football coach who developed young men.”   Here is a huge blind spot that leftist academics refuse to understand about American football – or perhaps they do all too well:  Football a not mindless sport for brutes.  If chess was to be played by real live people, it would be something akin to American football.

Neither is it a coincidence that the last truly dominating defense seen in all of football was the Husky defense of the late Don James era.  The Huskies did not merely defend, but destroyed the opposition. 

This Husky defense held the eventual all-time NFL rushing leader Emmit Smith to 17 yards in a 34-7 rout of the Florida Gators in the 1989 Freedom Bowl.  An even more powerful Husky defense derailed quarterback Todd Marinovich’s quest for the Heisman in 1990 with a 31-0 shellacking of USC.  In 1991, defensive lineman Steve Emtman was such a dominating force on the gridiron that he not only won the Lombardi Trophy, the Outland Trophy, the UPI Lineman of the Year together with the Pac-10 defensive player of the year, but incredibly, he also finished fourth in the Heisman race. 

In the 1992 Rose Bowl, retired Wolverine Coach Bo Schembechler (1929-2006) was shocked by the power of the Husky defense as he commented from the sidelines that no one pushes around a Michigan offensive line like that.   Even the depleted Husky defense of 1994 under Coach Jim Lambright, James’s successor and loyal defensive coordinator for many years, stuffed the Miami Hurricanes that ended their 58 home game winning streak dating all the way back to 1985 – with future NFL defensive Hall of Famers Ray Lewis and Warren Sapp looking on with envy.

The toothless defenses seen on the NFL gridiron today are most certainly the outworking of political correctness that began from within, but is now being taken over from the outside as professional football seems far more concerned about politics in general than playing football.  In 1978, politically correct rules leavened the game in a big way to favor offenses over defenses.  Certain NFL owners and coaches were tired of trying to fight their way through the Steel Curtain and other extremely tough defenses in order to earn their way into the Superbowl.  Claiming the game needed more excitement and entertainment to match the NFL’s growing inroads into Hollywood TV, they began to defang defenses by over-regulating them.  While the Raiders, Bears, Giants, and 49ers kept the defensive emphasis afloat during the 1980’s, the 1990’s saw its eventual demise with only an occasional strong defense seen since.  Now, such anti-defensive measures are touted even more for the safety of the game.

Today, nobody fears defenses.  This is a far cry from John Elway’s 1983 baptism into the NFL when he looked over at the remnants of Pittsburgh’s Steel Curtain with a toothless Jack Lambert growling at him.  This is what the NFL used to be all about – competition in the face of intimidation and danger – the kind of drama that has all but disappeared.  Today’s NFL is technocratic, slick, and full of glitz, but increasingly hollow of character and short on drama.  The NFL is now a pass happy basketball kind of game full of short passes and cheap touchdowns together with quarterback and receiver records that mean very little since they cannot be compared to other eras, particularly to the Super Seventies. 

In the 1970s, NFL fans were routinely presented with divisional playoffs, championship games, and Superbowls that were chock full of great competitive drama as the best teams on both sides of the ball collided against each other.  Because of the fierce competition between the offenses and defenses, even the best quarterbacks of that era seldom had more touchdowns than interceptions in any given year.  Moreover, most NFL teams had an exciting and outstanding running back that today is in short supply.  Today, super fullbacks like Larry Csonka are essentially out of a job since fullbacks are virtually non-existent.

The Super Seventies were also full of colorful coaches epitomized best by John Madden.  Madden’s rebel Raiders played three of the best games ever been played in NFL history – all of which were Divisional Playoff games.   First, there was the 1972 “Immaculate Reception” game where Franco Harris of the Steelers stole the win from the Raiders in the waning seconds of the game.  Jack Tatum’s bone-crushing hit that almost blew up the football itself, shot off of Fuqua’s chest like a cannon before implausibly popping into the hands of Harris with no one in front of him to stop him from scampering into the end zone.  Second, there was the classic 1974 “Sea of Hands” game against Miami that ended the Dolphins fourth straight drive to the Superbowl.  Third, there was the 1977 “Ghost to the Post” game that derailed the upstart Baltimore Colts – one of the longest NFL games ever played.

Such was the football drama of the Super Seventies that is today long gone as political correctness, legalism, and lawyerism now dominate the game.  All of this is turning into one big concussion for the fans that goes beyond the Kaepernick antics so that fewer people care much about the game anymore.  These days, Hollywood no longer cares even about entertainment – only politics.  This makes the NFL’s relationship to Hollywood even more insidious than before precisely because Tinseltown and Broadway demand political correctness as the first order of business.  Americans, who are already bombarded with the madness of politics 24-7, do not want to be subjected to it again on Sundays at a football game – a recipe for fewer fans and ticket sales to say the very least.

 

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.



Source link

The Fake News of Tinseltown and the Dirty Streets of Broadway


At the very same time that Hollywood mogul and sexual predator Harvey Weinstein was recently said to have “owned the press” by his longtime Miramax screenwriter associate, Scott Rosenberg, the American public was served an interview on the Ellen DeGeneres Show with Jesus Campos, the security guard who was shot in the leg through the door of Stephen Paddock’s large suite at the Mandalay Bay Hotel on the fateful night of October 1, 2017, where almost 60 people were massacred.  While nothing should be taken away from Campos himself, who experienced the terrors of rapid gunfire, the way his testimony has been handled is pure theater.  Not only does Hollywood giant MGM run the Ellen DeGeneres Show, but it also owns the Mandalay Bay. 

While MGM has made movies galore, it has yet to cough up any film exposing what transpired before, during, and after the Las Vegas massacre in the hotel itself.  Hotel casinos are loaded with surveillance cameras.  It is impossible for MGM not to have any film of Stephen Paddock during his lengthy stay.  The longer such film evidence is controlled and withheld from public view, the more edited the film will become when (or if) it is finally released. 

Not only did Campos bizarrely disappear for a week before being interviewed by Ellen DeGeneres, but his side of the story seems to bring back the original timeline that police reports later repudiated.  Even more stunning, DeGeneres stated that Campos would not be giving any more interviews.  Does this mean her show will be the only and exclusive interview Campos will ever give for the rest of his life?  If so, this strongly suggests that an expensive agreement has been made between Campos and MGM.  Maybe MGM has plans to make a movie or documentary on the Las Vegas massacre.  Perhaps then the truth of the massacre will be revealed, or at least Hollywood MGM’s version of the truth. 

But then again, when was the last time Hollywood has really ever told the truth even with regard to its historical movies, purportedly based on actual events?  Hollywood regularly uses artistic license that converts historical facts into something much more entertaining, together with some political propaganda.  What’s more, if Hollywood cannot truthfully depict the past, then what about the accuracy of the daily news?

Many seem to forget that the news comes from huge networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC, whose Broadway and Hollywood offices in New York and Los Angeles play no small role in disseminating what is considered news where the heartland of America is sandwiched between both left coasts.  Even Fox News is run by 21st Century Fox, a Hollywood giant.  Worse, local TV stations take their cue from the national news.  Add on top of this the entertainment barrage after the news is over, coupled with constant internet connections all day long, and what is left over is a lot of images without much content, thought, or context. 

Hollywood and Broadway have mixed up entertainment and art with news and politics so much that the idolatrous image has become more important than content or substance – which precludes any serious discussion about politics, life, philosophy, and religion.  Jonah Goldberg’s book Tyranny of Clichés encapsulates this crisis perfectly, as many Americans cannot think beyond the political clichés that have been branded onto their hearts.  As such, all too many have increasingly confused fantasy with politics.  This in turn fuels great discontent and division as people’s fictional dreams and political fantasies, fanned by Hollywood’s artistic imagination, remain unfulfilled this side of the grave. 

The bedazzlement of entertainment also explains why most cannot see through Tinseltown’s incredible hypocrisy, literally laid bare with the lurid details of the Weinstein scandal.  Neither can one separate the sexual revolution of the ’60s from the sexploitation of women – a movement that Hollywood itself stands at the very foundations of.  Constant sexual imaging, so widespread today, does little to develop a thoughtful life beyond the rudiments of biology, body, and instincts.  Sexual images and news are virtually one and the same on the internet these days.

Financially, much of American leftism has been underwritten by Hollywood.  Corporate America’s bed with Hollywood can be regularly seen on virtually every commercial.  Most TV ads are politically and socially correct, selling products and leftist propaganda at the same time.  Even more foolish, Hollywood moguls and actors lecture Americans for not living a green enough lifestyle, all the while owning fantastic homes, flying in private jets, sailing in yachts, owning any number of cars, and spending their lives partying away on the dirty sidewalks of Broadway.

Historically and politically, Hollywood has revised history to give us an anti-American leftist view of the world that is actually far worse than the alleged “colonialist” disease they are trying to cure.  The only thing worse than the colonialism of England and America is the leftist socialist experiments that murdered more than 100 million people in the 20th century.

Hollywood’s artful images have divorced many Americans from actual history and the difficulties of real life that historical books describe in great detail.  The left and its MSM news media, however, largely dismiss the past as something irrelevant.  They believe they can transcend the past and progress beyond historical limitations through their leftist revolutionary politics – and the fictional fantasy of Hollywood art goes a long way in imaging such political fantasies onto the American conscience with high hopes and great expectations.  The fact that much of the repertoire of comedic late-night shows consists of the daily news should sober people up to think more seriously about life than they do, but Hollywood helps them laugh it off so that its true madness becomes lost in the bedazzlement of entertainment.

Images are powerful ,and the great success of Hollywood demonstrates this.  Images can be easily interpreted, manipulated, controlled, and propagandized in any number of different ways.  Worse, images also appeal to the baser instincts of human life, since no content or thinking is required.  It is easy to be a spectator.

The God of the Hebrew Old Testament constantly warned His people about worshiping graven images at the expense of His written word.  It is no coincidence that Hollywood has directed most of its ire against the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition by flooding the American soul with 24/7 imaging.  In so doing, Hollywood has replaced the colonial sins of Thanksgiving with ghastly ghoulishness of Halloween, where razor-sharp images of sex, violence, and death have been seared onto the American conscience through the powers of the motion picture.

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

At the very same time that Hollywood mogul and sexual predator Harvey Weinstein was recently said to have “owned the press” by his longtime Miramax screenwriter associate, Scott Rosenberg, the American public was served an interview on the Ellen DeGeneres Show with Jesus Campos, the security guard who was shot in the leg through the door of Stephen Paddock’s large suite at the Mandalay Bay Hotel on the fateful night of October 1, 2017, where almost 60 people were massacred.  While nothing should be taken away from Campos himself, who experienced the terrors of rapid gunfire, the way his testimony has been handled is pure theater.  Not only does Hollywood giant MGM run the Ellen DeGeneres Show, but it also owns the Mandalay Bay. 

While MGM has made movies galore, it has yet to cough up any film exposing what transpired before, during, and after the Las Vegas massacre in the hotel itself.  Hotel casinos are loaded with surveillance cameras.  It is impossible for MGM not to have any film of Stephen Paddock during his lengthy stay.  The longer such film evidence is controlled and withheld from public view, the more edited the film will become when (or if) it is finally released. 

Not only did Campos bizarrely disappear for a week before being interviewed by Ellen DeGeneres, but his side of the story seems to bring back the original timeline that police reports later repudiated.  Even more stunning, DeGeneres stated that Campos would not be giving any more interviews.  Does this mean her show will be the only and exclusive interview Campos will ever give for the rest of his life?  If so, this strongly suggests that an expensive agreement has been made between Campos and MGM.  Maybe MGM has plans to make a movie or documentary on the Las Vegas massacre.  Perhaps then the truth of the massacre will be revealed, or at least Hollywood MGM’s version of the truth. 

But then again, when was the last time Hollywood has really ever told the truth even with regard to its historical movies, purportedly based on actual events?  Hollywood regularly uses artistic license that converts historical facts into something much more entertaining, together with some political propaganda.  What’s more, if Hollywood cannot truthfully depict the past, then what about the accuracy of the daily news?

Many seem to forget that the news comes from huge networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC, whose Broadway and Hollywood offices in New York and Los Angeles play no small role in disseminating what is considered news where the heartland of America is sandwiched between both left coasts.  Even Fox News is run by 21st Century Fox, a Hollywood giant.  Worse, local TV stations take their cue from the national news.  Add on top of this the entertainment barrage after the news is over, coupled with constant internet connections all day long, and what is left over is a lot of images without much content, thought, or context. 

Hollywood and Broadway have mixed up entertainment and art with news and politics so much that the idolatrous image has become more important than content or substance – which precludes any serious discussion about politics, life, philosophy, and religion.  Jonah Goldberg’s book Tyranny of Clichés encapsulates this crisis perfectly, as many Americans cannot think beyond the political clichés that have been branded onto their hearts.  As such, all too many have increasingly confused fantasy with politics.  This in turn fuels great discontent and division as people’s fictional dreams and political fantasies, fanned by Hollywood’s artistic imagination, remain unfulfilled this side of the grave. 

The bedazzlement of entertainment also explains why most cannot see through Tinseltown’s incredible hypocrisy, literally laid bare with the lurid details of the Weinstein scandal.  Neither can one separate the sexual revolution of the ’60s from the sexploitation of women – a movement that Hollywood itself stands at the very foundations of.  Constant sexual imaging, so widespread today, does little to develop a thoughtful life beyond the rudiments of biology, body, and instincts.  Sexual images and news are virtually one and the same on the internet these days.

Financially, much of American leftism has been underwritten by Hollywood.  Corporate America’s bed with Hollywood can be regularly seen on virtually every commercial.  Most TV ads are politically and socially correct, selling products and leftist propaganda at the same time.  Even more foolish, Hollywood moguls and actors lecture Americans for not living a green enough lifestyle, all the while owning fantastic homes, flying in private jets, sailing in yachts, owning any number of cars, and spending their lives partying away on the dirty sidewalks of Broadway.

Historically and politically, Hollywood has revised history to give us an anti-American leftist view of the world that is actually far worse than the alleged “colonialist” disease they are trying to cure.  The only thing worse than the colonialism of England and America is the leftist socialist experiments that murdered more than 100 million people in the 20th century.

Hollywood’s artful images have divorced many Americans from actual history and the difficulties of real life that historical books describe in great detail.  The left and its MSM news media, however, largely dismiss the past as something irrelevant.  They believe they can transcend the past and progress beyond historical limitations through their leftist revolutionary politics – and the fictional fantasy of Hollywood art goes a long way in imaging such political fantasies onto the American conscience with high hopes and great expectations.  The fact that much of the repertoire of comedic late-night shows consists of the daily news should sober people up to think more seriously about life than they do, but Hollywood helps them laugh it off so that its true madness becomes lost in the bedazzlement of entertainment.

Images are powerful ,and the great success of Hollywood demonstrates this.  Images can be easily interpreted, manipulated, controlled, and propagandized in any number of different ways.  Worse, images also appeal to the baser instincts of human life, since no content or thinking is required.  It is easy to be a spectator.

The God of the Hebrew Old Testament constantly warned His people about worshiping graven images at the expense of His written word.  It is no coincidence that Hollywood has directed most of its ire against the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition by flooding the American soul with 24/7 imaging.  In so doing, Hollywood has replaced the colonial sins of Thanksgiving with ghastly ghoulishness of Halloween, where razor-sharp images of sex, violence, and death have been seared onto the American conscience through the powers of the motion picture.

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.



Source link

Heidegger, Fascism, and Evergreen State College


One of the mainstay courses at the recently newsworthy Evergreen State College is an all-year course entitled “The Human Condition.” This 36-credit course has its inspiration from a book of the same name written by Hannah Arendt (1906-75). Arendt was an assimilated German Jewess student in the Weimar Republic before the rise of National Socialism. In the 1930s she was forced to move around Europe before finally leaving for America in 1941 as World War II initially exploded in Germany’s favor. Considered one of the most important social theorists of the 20th century, much of Arendt’s worldview was absorbed from German existentialism that was presaged by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), but essentially rooted in the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), and Karl Jaspers (1883-1969).

While Kant himself often blew a gasket when he started to talk about Jews in his lectures, both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were proto-Nazis of sorts. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were the Fuhrer’s favorite philosophers. The Nazi cult of the “Triumph of the Will” was extolled in honor of these two philosophers. Heidegger himself was an actual Nazi who never repented of his fascist activities during the 1930s. In fact, Heidegger positioned himself to become the interpreter of Nietzsche for National Socialist consumption that continued until late in the war. More telling, Heidegger was a vehement anti-Semite. Jaspers was initially naïve of the true face of National Socialism in the early 1930s, but soon got educated. He eventually lost his professorship in 1937 due to a fascist gauntlet that enveloped him. He was married to a Jewess.

While there is no small disagreement among scholars over how subjective Kant’s philosophy actually was relative to the question of whether objective truth was humanly attainable this side of the grave, it cannot be denied that many German thinkers after him immersed themselves in subjectivist philosophies of what today are otherwise known as Romanticism and Existentialism. Both Romanticism and Existentialism highlighted a romance with nature together with an emphasis that esteemed earthly existence over the human mind and/or the Judeo-Christian worldview that described a heavenly realm far above the natural world. Both Romanticism and Existentialism valued subjectivity over objectivity, the subject over the object, existence over abstract categories, nature over theology or philosophy, naturalness over the civilized, authenticity over the artificial, spontaneity over mindful preparedness, real life experience over doctrine, matter over mind, activity over contemplation, intuition over reason, willpower over thought, instincts over rationalism, and holism over what was considered divisive rational analysis. What was desirous of Romanticism and Existentialism was the whole of life, not just intellectualism.

With medieval dogmatism, religious legalism, and scientific determinism that viewed both man and nature as a machine, what was needed was a re-enchantment of life itself for people to recover life indeed – romantically and existentially appreciated, and not just rationally analyzed. It was this German-based existentialism that captivated Hannah Arendt during the bloom of her youth. Her 1971 book on The Life of the Mind is a tribute to the legacy of this German escapade that grew up side by side with Kant’s secularist philosophy that dominated continental European thought throughout the 1800’s and early 1900s.

One of the most conspicuous existential truths of the 20th century is how young Hannah Arendt had a torrid affair with her teacher Martin Heidegger in the mid-1920s. The fallout of this adulterous relationship has yet to be sorted out in the postmodern academic Western world that they essentially established together after the war. While the affair came to an end, and Arendt was later shocked by Heidegger’s Nazi passions, like so many lovers’ quarrels that are so existentially rooted in the ups and downs of everyday emotions, she reconciled with him after the war. Arendt even became Heidegger’s apologist by downplaying his earlier Nazi commitments as an aberrant misjudgment of weakness that had nothing to do with his philosophy. In so doing, Arendt managed to rehabilitate Heidegger back into Western academia. According to Dr. Richard Wolin, Arendt essentially became “Heidegger’s de facto American literary agent, diligently overseeing contracts and translations of his books.” This allowed Heidegger’s brand of Nazi existentialism to seep back into western philosophy and leftist political, historical, and literary circles that laid the cornerstone for what today is called Postmodernism.

While Heidegger himself resisted being called an existentialist, he is certainly the father of Postmodernism. What is meant by Postmodernism is very difficult to express. First, Postmodernism is a form of existentialism. This by itself makes it very difficult to define because under existentialism, the application and power of rationalism and reason is greatly diminished. Ready-made designations, classifications, and descriptions are thus very hard to come by.

After the war, Heidegger’s writings became more opaque, which managed to disguise his Nazism. In so doing, Heidegger’s racism and anti-Semitism were replaced with anti-humanism, which should by no means be understood as any kind of progress, but a deepening of all the problems connected to his existentialism. Thanks to Heidegger, much of postmodern Western philosophy is deeply committed to various forms of anti-humanism, particularly with regard to the misanthropy of environmentalism. By overvaluing all of life, whether that be nature itself, or even by overemphasizing the willpower, passions, and instincts of human behavior rather than a thoughtful morality, Romanticism and Existentialism invariably opened the door to amoral anti-humanism where the laws of the jungle ultimately prevail — as was particularly the case with regard to National Socialism.

Closely related, it was Arendt who gave to the Western world the “banality of evil” thesis concerning the Holocaust while writing on Nazi SS official Adolf Eichmann’s (1906-1962) trial for The New Yorker. Published in February of 1963, Arendt used Raul Hilberg’s detailed historical account, which focused on the German bureaucracy that administratively carried out the destruction of the Jews step by step. However, Arendt added her own existentialist kink to Holocaust interpretation by accentuating the bureaucratic everydayness of Eichmann’s evil. According to Arendt, Eichmann was a “cog” in a vast bureaucratic machine in which monstrous evil become monotonously “banal.” Thus, crimes without conscience became an existential routine during the war.

What somehow escapes Arendt is that such everyday existentialism is precisely what the German academy had been breeding in the hearts and minds of Germans for quite some time before the advent of National Socialism. Arendt herself was steeped in it. As such, she unwittingly gave an existentialist interpretation of the Holocaust — an existentialism that was just as much of part of the problem with regard to the Holocaust as was Nazi Social Darwinism and ‘scientific’ racial hygiene. Both complemented one another into an explosive holistic synthesis — the syncretistic mixture of which blew up all of Europe.

In the Deconstruction of Literature: Criticism after Auschwitz, Dr. David Hirsch warns, “It is misleading to disengage contemporary anti-humanism from Nazi dehumanization, for they share (the same) philosophical and cultural origins.” Hirsch has thus strongly argued that postmodernism should best be understood as post-Auschwitz. In short, postmodernism is existentialism after Auschwitz. Much more disturbing, according to Hirsch, the goal of postmodernism is to deconstruct the sober truth that the European academy, particularly in Germany, actually fed the intellectual beast which led to the Holocaust. Neither Europe nor the North American leftist academy have come to grips with the fact that the 20th century was a socialist slaughterhouse of epic proportions. Postmodernism thus moved in to save secular Europe from confronting its own intellectual catastrophe in the face of the apocalyptic abyss of World War.

Thanks to her own existentialism, Arendt never noticed Heidegger’s fascism that he taught her in the 1920s. Neither did Arendt ever acknowledge that her own educational background was deep-rooted in the exact same training that led to the destruction of her own people. Such was one of the “banal” dangers of being an assimilated Jew in Weimar Germany.

Existentialism does not enlighten about real life. It only obfuscates. This is the semi-fascist human condition that besets the postmodern academy in the West these days, particularly now at Evergreen State College, with no small thanks to the adulterous affair between Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger. Much of the dumbing down and mindlessness that is now at the heart of the modern university is rooted in existentialist philosophies of continental Europe, with the lion’s share of it imported particularly from Germany. Indeed, with regard to Jean Paul Sartre’s Existentialism (1905-80), Heidegger once quipped, “When the French want to think they have to think in German.”

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington. He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance. His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s that proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the Holocaust. Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, which is a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

One of the mainstay courses at the recently newsworthy Evergreen State College is an all-year course entitled “The Human Condition.” This 36-credit course has its inspiration from a book of the same name written by Hannah Arendt (1906-75). Arendt was an assimilated German Jewess student in the Weimar Republic before the rise of National Socialism. In the 1930s she was forced to move around Europe before finally leaving for America in 1941 as World War II initially exploded in Germany’s favor. Considered one of the most important social theorists of the 20th century, much of Arendt’s worldview was absorbed from German existentialism that was presaged by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), but essentially rooted in the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), and Karl Jaspers (1883-1969).

While Kant himself often blew a gasket when he started to talk about Jews in his lectures, both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were proto-Nazis of sorts. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were the Fuhrer’s favorite philosophers. The Nazi cult of the “Triumph of the Will” was extolled in honor of these two philosophers. Heidegger himself was an actual Nazi who never repented of his fascist activities during the 1930s. In fact, Heidegger positioned himself to become the interpreter of Nietzsche for National Socialist consumption that continued until late in the war. More telling, Heidegger was a vehement anti-Semite. Jaspers was initially naïve of the true face of National Socialism in the early 1930s, but soon got educated. He eventually lost his professorship in 1937 due to a fascist gauntlet that enveloped him. He was married to a Jewess.

While there is no small disagreement among scholars over how subjective Kant’s philosophy actually was relative to the question of whether objective truth was humanly attainable this side of the grave, it cannot be denied that many German thinkers after him immersed themselves in subjectivist philosophies of what today are otherwise known as Romanticism and Existentialism. Both Romanticism and Existentialism highlighted a romance with nature together with an emphasis that esteemed earthly existence over the human mind and/or the Judeo-Christian worldview that described a heavenly realm far above the natural world. Both Romanticism and Existentialism valued subjectivity over objectivity, the subject over the object, existence over abstract categories, nature over theology or philosophy, naturalness over the civilized, authenticity over the artificial, spontaneity over mindful preparedness, real life experience over doctrine, matter over mind, activity over contemplation, intuition over reason, willpower over thought, instincts over rationalism, and holism over what was considered divisive rational analysis. What was desirous of Romanticism and Existentialism was the whole of life, not just intellectualism.

With medieval dogmatism, religious legalism, and scientific determinism that viewed both man and nature as a machine, what was needed was a re-enchantment of life itself for people to recover life indeed – romantically and existentially appreciated, and not just rationally analyzed. It was this German-based existentialism that captivated Hannah Arendt during the bloom of her youth. Her 1971 book on The Life of the Mind is a tribute to the legacy of this German escapade that grew up side by side with Kant’s secularist philosophy that dominated continental European thought throughout the 1800’s and early 1900s.

One of the most conspicuous existential truths of the 20th century is how young Hannah Arendt had a torrid affair with her teacher Martin Heidegger in the mid-1920s. The fallout of this adulterous relationship has yet to be sorted out in the postmodern academic Western world that they essentially established together after the war. While the affair came to an end, and Arendt was later shocked by Heidegger’s Nazi passions, like so many lovers’ quarrels that are so existentially rooted in the ups and downs of everyday emotions, she reconciled with him after the war. Arendt even became Heidegger’s apologist by downplaying his earlier Nazi commitments as an aberrant misjudgment of weakness that had nothing to do with his philosophy. In so doing, Arendt managed to rehabilitate Heidegger back into Western academia. According to Dr. Richard Wolin, Arendt essentially became “Heidegger’s de facto American literary agent, diligently overseeing contracts and translations of his books.” This allowed Heidegger’s brand of Nazi existentialism to seep back into western philosophy and leftist political, historical, and literary circles that laid the cornerstone for what today is called Postmodernism.

While Heidegger himself resisted being called an existentialist, he is certainly the father of Postmodernism. What is meant by Postmodernism is very difficult to express. First, Postmodernism is a form of existentialism. This by itself makes it very difficult to define because under existentialism, the application and power of rationalism and reason is greatly diminished. Ready-made designations, classifications, and descriptions are thus very hard to come by.

After the war, Heidegger’s writings became more opaque, which managed to disguise his Nazism. In so doing, Heidegger’s racism and anti-Semitism were replaced with anti-humanism, which should by no means be understood as any kind of progress, but a deepening of all the problems connected to his existentialism. Thanks to Heidegger, much of postmodern Western philosophy is deeply committed to various forms of anti-humanism, particularly with regard to the misanthropy of environmentalism. By overvaluing all of life, whether that be nature itself, or even by overemphasizing the willpower, passions, and instincts of human behavior rather than a thoughtful morality, Romanticism and Existentialism invariably opened the door to amoral anti-humanism where the laws of the jungle ultimately prevail — as was particularly the case with regard to National Socialism.

Closely related, it was Arendt who gave to the Western world the “banality of evil” thesis concerning the Holocaust while writing on Nazi SS official Adolf Eichmann’s (1906-1962) trial for The New Yorker. Published in February of 1963, Arendt used Raul Hilberg’s detailed historical account, which focused on the German bureaucracy that administratively carried out the destruction of the Jews step by step. However, Arendt added her own existentialist kink to Holocaust interpretation by accentuating the bureaucratic everydayness of Eichmann’s evil. According to Arendt, Eichmann was a “cog” in a vast bureaucratic machine in which monstrous evil become monotonously “banal.” Thus, crimes without conscience became an existential routine during the war.

What somehow escapes Arendt is that such everyday existentialism is precisely what the German academy had been breeding in the hearts and minds of Germans for quite some time before the advent of National Socialism. Arendt herself was steeped in it. As such, she unwittingly gave an existentialist interpretation of the Holocaust — an existentialism that was just as much of part of the problem with regard to the Holocaust as was Nazi Social Darwinism and ‘scientific’ racial hygiene. Both complemented one another into an explosive holistic synthesis — the syncretistic mixture of which blew up all of Europe.

In the Deconstruction of Literature: Criticism after Auschwitz, Dr. David Hirsch warns, “It is misleading to disengage contemporary anti-humanism from Nazi dehumanization, for they share (the same) philosophical and cultural origins.” Hirsch has thus strongly argued that postmodernism should best be understood as post-Auschwitz. In short, postmodernism is existentialism after Auschwitz. Much more disturbing, according to Hirsch, the goal of postmodernism is to deconstruct the sober truth that the European academy, particularly in Germany, actually fed the intellectual beast which led to the Holocaust. Neither Europe nor the North American leftist academy have come to grips with the fact that the 20th century was a socialist slaughterhouse of epic proportions. Postmodernism thus moved in to save secular Europe from confronting its own intellectual catastrophe in the face of the apocalyptic abyss of World War.

Thanks to her own existentialism, Arendt never noticed Heidegger’s fascism that he taught her in the 1920s. Neither did Arendt ever acknowledge that her own educational background was deep-rooted in the exact same training that led to the destruction of her own people. Such was one of the “banal” dangers of being an assimilated Jew in Weimar Germany.

Existentialism does not enlighten about real life. It only obfuscates. This is the semi-fascist human condition that besets the postmodern academy in the West these days, particularly now at Evergreen State College, with no small thanks to the adulterous affair between Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger. Much of the dumbing down and mindlessness that is now at the heart of the modern university is rooted in existentialist philosophies of continental Europe, with the lion’s share of it imported particularly from Germany. Indeed, with regard to Jean Paul Sartre’s Existentialism (1905-80), Heidegger once quipped, “When the French want to think they have to think in German.”

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington. He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance. His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s that proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the Holocaust. Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, which is a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.



Source link

What I Saw at Evergreen State College


The student antics at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington have recently garnered some national media attention – but not nearly enough.  Tucker Carlson interviewed progressive biology professor Bret Weinstein, who had the moral dexterity to show up to teach his own class as contracted by the college in spite of the fact that students had decided to impose on the campus an anti-white imperialism day.  The point of the student protest was that any white person who came to the college on that particular day was demonstrating that he is not in alliance with their anti-racist crusade.  Blaming Trump’s election, such a proposal was a reversal of a long standing practice at the college where students gave themselves a day of absence to protest racism. 

Weinstein, who is Jewish, was alarmed.  In a lengthy interview, he pointed out that such demands have an echo of the fascism of yesteryear and characterized the situation on campus as a witch hunt.  Before showing up to his scheduled class, Weinstein wrote a careful and gracious letter explaining how ill advised such a proposal was to the students organizing the anti-white crusade.  Rather than listen to Weinstein’s wisdom, a mob of students confronted him when he arrived to teach his class.  Quickly spiraling out of control, students charged him with racism and demanded his resignation with many expletives.  Later, the protest erupted into campus anarchy as a student mob seized the library.  Yet the college president, George Bridges, told the police to stand down.  While Bridges has not yet fired Weinstein, as demanded by the students, he did congratulate their courage and proclaim himself appreciative of their activism.

Much more disturbing, it appears that Bridges is actually on the side of the students.  Outside firing Weinstein, Bridges has essentially capitulated.  Weinstein’s safety on campus is still a major concern.  His wife, who also teaches on campus, has also been threatened.  It appears that the president’s ploy is to allow the circumstances to become so unbearable that it will be unnecessary to fire Weinstein, as it will be easier for him to simply give up and leave on his own.  While Weinstein has received many positive emails supporting him privately, colleagues at Evergreen have for the most part been silent on the crisis.  So far, only Fox News has been willing to expose the crisis on national TV news.

Evergreeners are called “the Fighting Geoducks.”  Geoducks are clams.  Evergreen is an anti-traditional college that prides itself on its anti-capitalism, socialism, radical environmentalism, postmodernism, and Marxism, with a special emphasis upon indigenous values that convert the old American melting pot ideal into a subversive form of racist multi-tribalism under the guise of progressive multiculturalism. 

Evergreen professors do not grade students, but they do give them lengthy teacher evaluations.  The students are also required to write their own evaluations of themselves.  While everyone pretty much passes under such lax standards, one does have the freedom to put in as much work as he or she wishes.  Most coast through the college.  Tests are rare.  Yet Evergreen students do a tremendous amount of reading and writing that must also be collectively articulated and discussed with the professor and other students in what they call seminars.  

Evergreen education is based on holism.  All credits are holistically integrated into one course.  For example, as an Evergreen graduate with a Bachelor of Arts (1985-89), I took a 32-credit course my freshman year entitled “Political Ecology” that was two quarters long.  While it was largely a nonstop attack on Christianity and capitalism for helping precipitate the ecological crisis of modern times, all of the credits were divided among ecological studies, agricultural studies, Native American studies, geography, evolutionary biology, and creative writing, among other credits.  In the spring, I took a course called “Thinking Straight” (16 credits) that consisted of credits in philosophy, English, creative writing, and logic.  My favorite course at Evergreen was “The Classical World,” which lasted my entire sophomore year (48 credits).  We began with the early Greeks in the fall and ended with early Christianity in the spring, reading through much of St. Augustine’s City of God.

My junior year was given over to “Political Economy” (32 credits) in the fall and winter, followed up by “Race, Class, and Gender” (16 credits) in the spring.  Such a year presaged many of the political convulsions now rocking America, with no small thanks to the Obama administration – but all of which is still rooted in the hippie radicalism of the ’60s, not to mention all of the social upheaval in Europe dating back to the 1800s that was largely a very German affair.  The content of these particular courses was loaded with a blending of socialism, Marxism, fascism, and postmodernism taught by true believers. 

While one of the professors seemed to enjoy his popularity with female students, another was actively involved in fomenting lunatic student protests against the college administration.  One particular memory stands out in sharp relief: at lunchtime on one beautiful spring day – while watching the student protest proceed – one wise Native American student said something along these lines, which I have never forgotten: “You know, we can all try to do good things to help bring about a better world by protesting the unfair and evil things we see around us, but the problem with all this is that people like that professor over there will be running things.”

This is precisely the crossroads that Evergreen has arrived at now, only worse, as the more fascist elements of liberalism so-called are now dominating the school.  Could this not be a wake-up call for the entire left as the radicals are poised to eat up their own?  Much of the history of Marxism and socialism is riddled with tragic outcomes that are always ignored by its proponents until it is too late.  My own days at Evergreen were a precursor to all that has transpired under Obama.  What about now?        

My final year at Evergreen, I took 32 credits of “Management in the Public Interest” that essentially taught students how to become an effective bureaucrat in the political economy of the modern world.  Rather than finish this course (48 credits all year), I switched to take “Liberation Theology” (16 credits) in the spring, as I had just decided that I wanted to go to seminary for postgraduate studies.  Popular in Latin and South America, Liberation Theology is a more spiritual blending of Marxism, socialism, and fascism with Christianity that was consistent with much of my previous education at Evergreen. 

Last but not least, it was Rockefeller Republican Dan Evans who was one of the primary founders of the Evergreen State College.  Without his political will as the governor of the State of Washington for 12 years (1965-1977), the Evergreen State College would not exist.  The very library that was taken over by the students is named after him.

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the Holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

The student antics at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington have recently garnered some national media attention – but not nearly enough.  Tucker Carlson interviewed progressive biology professor Bret Weinstein, who had the moral dexterity to show up to teach his own class as contracted by the college in spite of the fact that students had decided to impose on the campus an anti-white imperialism day.  The point of the student protest was that any white person who came to the college on that particular day was demonstrating that he is not in alliance with their anti-racist crusade.  Blaming Trump’s election, such a proposal was a reversal of a long standing practice at the college where students gave themselves a day of absence to protest racism. 

Weinstein, who is Jewish, was alarmed.  In a lengthy interview, he pointed out that such demands have an echo of the fascism of yesteryear and characterized the situation on campus as a witch hunt.  Before showing up to his scheduled class, Weinstein wrote a careful and gracious letter explaining how ill advised such a proposal was to the students organizing the anti-white crusade.  Rather than listen to Weinstein’s wisdom, a mob of students confronted him when he arrived to teach his class.  Quickly spiraling out of control, students charged him with racism and demanded his resignation with many expletives.  Later, the protest erupted into campus anarchy as a student mob seized the library.  Yet the college president, George Bridges, told the police to stand down.  While Bridges has not yet fired Weinstein, as demanded by the students, he did congratulate their courage and proclaim himself appreciative of their activism.

Much more disturbing, it appears that Bridges is actually on the side of the students.  Outside firing Weinstein, Bridges has essentially capitulated.  Weinstein’s safety on campus is still a major concern.  His wife, who also teaches on campus, has also been threatened.  It appears that the president’s ploy is to allow the circumstances to become so unbearable that it will be unnecessary to fire Weinstein, as it will be easier for him to simply give up and leave on his own.  While Weinstein has received many positive emails supporting him privately, colleagues at Evergreen have for the most part been silent on the crisis.  So far, only Fox News has been willing to expose the crisis on national TV news.

Evergreeners are called “the Fighting Geoducks.”  Geoducks are clams.  Evergreen is an anti-traditional college that prides itself on its anti-capitalism, socialism, radical environmentalism, postmodernism, and Marxism, with a special emphasis upon indigenous values that convert the old American melting pot ideal into a subversive form of racist multi-tribalism under the guise of progressive multiculturalism. 

Evergreen professors do not grade students, but they do give them lengthy teacher evaluations.  The students are also required to write their own evaluations of themselves.  While everyone pretty much passes under such lax standards, one does have the freedom to put in as much work as he or she wishes.  Most coast through the college.  Tests are rare.  Yet Evergreen students do a tremendous amount of reading and writing that must also be collectively articulated and discussed with the professor and other students in what they call seminars.  

Evergreen education is based on holism.  All credits are holistically integrated into one course.  For example, as an Evergreen graduate with a Bachelor of Arts (1985-89), I took a 32-credit course my freshman year entitled “Political Ecology” that was two quarters long.  While it was largely a nonstop attack on Christianity and capitalism for helping precipitate the ecological crisis of modern times, all of the credits were divided among ecological studies, agricultural studies, Native American studies, geography, evolutionary biology, and creative writing, among other credits.  In the spring, I took a course called “Thinking Straight” (16 credits) that consisted of credits in philosophy, English, creative writing, and logic.  My favorite course at Evergreen was “The Classical World,” which lasted my entire sophomore year (48 credits).  We began with the early Greeks in the fall and ended with early Christianity in the spring, reading through much of St. Augustine’s City of God.

My junior year was given over to “Political Economy” (32 credits) in the fall and winter, followed up by “Race, Class, and Gender” (16 credits) in the spring.  Such a year presaged many of the political convulsions now rocking America, with no small thanks to the Obama administration – but all of which is still rooted in the hippie radicalism of the ’60s, not to mention all of the social upheaval in Europe dating back to the 1800s that was largely a very German affair.  The content of these particular courses was loaded with a blending of socialism, Marxism, fascism, and postmodernism taught by true believers. 

While one of the professors seemed to enjoy his popularity with female students, another was actively involved in fomenting lunatic student protests against the college administration.  One particular memory stands out in sharp relief: at lunchtime on one beautiful spring day – while watching the student protest proceed – one wise Native American student said something along these lines, which I have never forgotten: “You know, we can all try to do good things to help bring about a better world by protesting the unfair and evil things we see around us, but the problem with all this is that people like that professor over there will be running things.”

This is precisely the crossroads that Evergreen has arrived at now, only worse, as the more fascist elements of liberalism so-called are now dominating the school.  Could this not be a wake-up call for the entire left as the radicals are poised to eat up their own?  Much of the history of Marxism and socialism is riddled with tragic outcomes that are always ignored by its proponents until it is too late.  My own days at Evergreen were a precursor to all that has transpired under Obama.  What about now?        

My final year at Evergreen, I took 32 credits of “Management in the Public Interest” that essentially taught students how to become an effective bureaucrat in the political economy of the modern world.  Rather than finish this course (48 credits all year), I switched to take “Liberation Theology” (16 credits) in the spring, as I had just decided that I wanted to go to seminary for postgraduate studies.  Popular in Latin and South America, Liberation Theology is a more spiritual blending of Marxism, socialism, and fascism with Christianity that was consistent with much of my previous education at Evergreen. 

Last but not least, it was Rockefeller Republican Dan Evans who was one of the primary founders of the Evergreen State College.  Without his political will as the governor of the State of Washington for 12 years (1965-1977), the Evergreen State College would not exist.  The very library that was taken over by the students is named after him.

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the Holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.



Source link

Rex Tillerson: Dark Knight of the Hoax


As Trump agonizes over the Paris Accord, self-imposed deadlines sail by.  Escaping the accord requires action.  Delays increasingly resemble a decision to remain.

Inside the palace, rival camps intrigue.  Those advocating ditching Paris rally around EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and controversial presidential adviser Steve Bannon.  Their adversaries follow Princess Ivanka, national economic adviser Gary Cohn, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Of the two dozen mandarins with audible input into the decision-making process, the following seven have previously expressed skepticism about the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis: Trump, Pruitt, Bannon, Tillerson, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Vice President Mike Pence.  Only the haughty Ivanka seems silly enough to believe such bunk.

So the deliberations aren’t about the science.  This is a no-nonsense debate about America’s national interest as it pertains to the unique circumstances of the Paris Accord.  Little quarter is given to wider ethical or ideological, let alone aeromantic, contemplation.

Let’s cut to the chase.  The coal lobby and the natural gas lobby are dueling over the captain’s share of the U.S. electricity-generating market.  As The Donald would say, “The stakes are yuge.”  Americans spend almost $400 billion a year on electricity.

Recent figures have natural gas fueling 34% of this market and coal 31%.  Percentages fluctuate monthly.  Twenty-sixteen was the year natural gas surpassed coal.  When the climate caper gained traction, in the late 1980s, coal enjoyed a near-60% market share, while natural gas held only 10%.  With this in mind, one plotter around Trump’s table looms ominous.

Rex Tillerson was born unto middle-class parents in 1952 in Wichita Falls, Texas.  After graduating with a civil engineering degree from the University of Texas in 1975, Rex immediately commenced employment with Exxon.  Aside from part-time jobs while a student, Exxon (ExxonMobil after 1999) is the only employer Rex ever had.  He remained a loyal company man for 42 years, severing ties only after his appointment as secretary of state appeared certain.   

Tillerson became ExxonMobil’s chief executive and chairman in 2006.  His annual pay package, stock and salary, over the last decade averaged around $30 million.  Upon assuming the secretary of state portfolio, he cashed in his ExxonMobil shares and options.  His net worth is $300 million.

During his eleven-year reign, Tillerson transformed ExxonMobil in two overlapping ways, both germane to the Paris Accord debate.  Pre-Tillerson, ExxonMobil was vilified by environmentalists for questioning climate science orthodoxy and for funding climate-skeptical groups.  These practices ended under Tillerson; however, both he and the company remain unforgiven.  In fact, environmentalists now exploit Tillerson’s mea culpa in a campaign called “Exxon knew,” the premise of which is that Exxon is even more reprehensible because it knew about the alleged harm caused by its carbon dioxide emissions.

The second transformation occurred in 2010 with ExxonMobil’s $31-billion merger-acquisition of XTO Energy Inc, then the USA’s largest independent natural gas producer.  In a stroke, ExxonMobil went from being a minor player in the natural gas business to vying with Shell for the title of world’s largest privately owned natural gas company.  In engineering this merger (and in endorsing climate change), Tillerson followed a path beaten by BP and Shell decades earlier.

When Margaret Thatcher embraced “global warming” during the 1984-5 coal miners’ strike, many presumed that nuclear power would replace coal-fired electricity.  Alternatively, the Germans, with a monocle toward energy independence and industrial supremacy, championed renewables.  Few outside BP’s and Shell’s boardrooms grasped natural gas’s potential for gaming the climate hoax.

As the pitchmen from the 250,000-member Texans for Natural Gas, or from Europe’s GasNaturally meta-coalition, never tire of telling us, gas-generated electricity emits about half the carbon dioxide per watt than does coal-generated electricity.  Wielding this fact, BP and Shell emerged, by the early 1990s, as the most effective and deep-pocketed climate crusaders.  Until Tillerson, ExxonMobil was the major Big Oil climate holdout.

Tillerson’s “Letter to Our Shareholders” in ExxonMobil’s 2015 Annual Report provides a cellophane-clear view on the company’s transformation.  He states frankly, “ExxonMobil views climate change as a serious risk” and follows this a few lines down with “Products we produce, such as cleaner-burning natural gas, also help reduce global emissions.” 

Natural gas is the Climate Industrial Complex’s dark horse.  The Climate Change Business Journal does not even recognize natural gas, per se, as a climate industry.  The authors discuss only the gas industry’s efforts at reducing fugitive methane emissions and at carbon capture and storage.  To purists, the $1.5-trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex consists only of the makers and mongers of solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, bio-fuels, etc.  There is no room in their inn for a “fossil fuel” industry whose existence predates the climate campaign.

While environmentalists resist acknowledging an alliance with multinational oil corporations, there is no denying that one exists.  BP, Shell, and now ExxonMobil cavalierly demonize carbon dioxide as a pollutant as they promote compliance with the Paris Accord.  They fervently contend that their cannibalization of coal-generated electricity is essential to achieving compliance.  Conversely, they also at times claim that the coal-to-gas switchover is entirely market-driven.

During the Cold War, Eastern Bloc planners joked that, come the global socialist revolution, they would keep one capitalist economy going so they could ascertain the real prices of things.  We confront a similar dilemma.  The coal, natural gas, and electricity industries are so distorted by regulation, from extraction to invoice, that any real cost-benefit analysis seems practically impossible.  Insights into this conundrum can be garnered in a February 2017 quote from a discernably anxious U.S. Energy Information Administration: “Without the Clean Power Plan, there is less incentive to switch from carbon-intensive coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas or carbon-free fuels such as wind and solar. In the scenario where the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, coal again becomes the leading source of electricity generation by 2019.”  In other words, absent climate activism, American electricity generation quickly reverts to coal.

Ultimately, we need a more laissez-faire and transparent energy market where consumers (which are often governments) can make informed decisions.  The amount of carbon dioxide a generating station emits should be irrelevant.  Such a state of affairs now seems almost utopian.

As for Tillerson, available evidence pegs him as a cynical, dishonest man more taken with power than truth.  He has a kindred spirit in Ivanka, whose consuming aspiration is ascendance unto the trans-Atlantic plutocracy.  Tillerson’s opportunistic, misanthropic adoption of political correctness has already alienated social conservatives.  He spearheaded the imposition of homosexuals onto the Boy Scouts of America, and he lavished funds onto Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills.

Tillerson personally donated to every Republican presidential candidate before Trump – but not to Trump.  He was shoehorned into Trump’s inner circle by the deft maneuverings of those exemplary RINOs, Bob Gates and Condi Rice.

Forget “Exxon knew.”  How about an “Exxon knows” campaign?  The company’s controllers, following Chairman Tillerson, know full well that “global warming” is a hoax, yet they exploit this Big Lie to forcibly capture customers for their surplus natural gas.

As Trump agonizes over the Paris Accord, self-imposed deadlines sail by.  Escaping the accord requires action.  Delays increasingly resemble a decision to remain.

Inside the palace, rival camps intrigue.  Those advocating ditching Paris rally around EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and controversial presidential adviser Steve Bannon.  Their adversaries follow Princess Ivanka, national economic adviser Gary Cohn, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Of the two dozen mandarins with audible input into the decision-making process, the following seven have previously expressed skepticism about the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis: Trump, Pruitt, Bannon, Tillerson, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Vice President Mike Pence.  Only the haughty Ivanka seems silly enough to believe such bunk.

So the deliberations aren’t about the science.  This is a no-nonsense debate about America’s national interest as it pertains to the unique circumstances of the Paris Accord.  Little quarter is given to wider ethical or ideological, let alone aeromantic, contemplation.

Let’s cut to the chase.  The coal lobby and the natural gas lobby are dueling over the captain’s share of the U.S. electricity-generating market.  As The Donald would say, “The stakes are yuge.”  Americans spend almost $400 billion a year on electricity.

Recent figures have natural gas fueling 34% of this market and coal 31%.  Percentages fluctuate monthly.  Twenty-sixteen was the year natural gas surpassed coal.  When the climate caper gained traction, in the late 1980s, coal enjoyed a near-60% market share, while natural gas held only 10%.  With this in mind, one plotter around Trump’s table looms ominous.

Rex Tillerson was born unto middle-class parents in 1952 in Wichita Falls, Texas.  After graduating with a civil engineering degree from the University of Texas in 1975, Rex immediately commenced employment with Exxon.  Aside from part-time jobs while a student, Exxon (ExxonMobil after 1999) is the only employer Rex ever had.  He remained a loyal company man for 42 years, severing ties only after his appointment as secretary of state appeared certain.   

Tillerson became ExxonMobil’s chief executive and chairman in 2006.  His annual pay package, stock and salary, over the last decade averaged around $30 million.  Upon assuming the secretary of state portfolio, he cashed in his ExxonMobil shares and options.  His net worth is $300 million.

During his eleven-year reign, Tillerson transformed ExxonMobil in two overlapping ways, both germane to the Paris Accord debate.  Pre-Tillerson, ExxonMobil was vilified by environmentalists for questioning climate science orthodoxy and for funding climate-skeptical groups.  These practices ended under Tillerson; however, both he and the company remain unforgiven.  In fact, environmentalists now exploit Tillerson’s mea culpa in a campaign called “Exxon knew,” the premise of which is that Exxon is even more reprehensible because it knew about the alleged harm caused by its carbon dioxide emissions.

The second transformation occurred in 2010 with ExxonMobil’s $31-billion merger-acquisition of XTO Energy Inc, then the USA’s largest independent natural gas producer.  In a stroke, ExxonMobil went from being a minor player in the natural gas business to vying with Shell for the title of world’s largest privately owned natural gas company.  In engineering this merger (and in endorsing climate change), Tillerson followed a path beaten by BP and Shell decades earlier.

When Margaret Thatcher embraced “global warming” during the 1984-5 coal miners’ strike, many presumed that nuclear power would replace coal-fired electricity.  Alternatively, the Germans, with a monocle toward energy independence and industrial supremacy, championed renewables.  Few outside BP’s and Shell’s boardrooms grasped natural gas’s potential for gaming the climate hoax.

As the pitchmen from the 250,000-member Texans for Natural Gas, or from Europe’s GasNaturally meta-coalition, never tire of telling us, gas-generated electricity emits about half the carbon dioxide per watt than does coal-generated electricity.  Wielding this fact, BP and Shell emerged, by the early 1990s, as the most effective and deep-pocketed climate crusaders.  Until Tillerson, ExxonMobil was the major Big Oil climate holdout.

Tillerson’s “Letter to Our Shareholders” in ExxonMobil’s 2015 Annual Report provides a cellophane-clear view on the company’s transformation.  He states frankly, “ExxonMobil views climate change as a serious risk” and follows this a few lines down with “Products we produce, such as cleaner-burning natural gas, also help reduce global emissions.” 

Natural gas is the Climate Industrial Complex’s dark horse.  The Climate Change Business Journal does not even recognize natural gas, per se, as a climate industry.  The authors discuss only the gas industry’s efforts at reducing fugitive methane emissions and at carbon capture and storage.  To purists, the $1.5-trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex consists only of the makers and mongers of solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, bio-fuels, etc.  There is no room in their inn for a “fossil fuel” industry whose existence predates the climate campaign.

While environmentalists resist acknowledging an alliance with multinational oil corporations, there is no denying that one exists.  BP, Shell, and now ExxonMobil cavalierly demonize carbon dioxide as a pollutant as they promote compliance with the Paris Accord.  They fervently contend that their cannibalization of coal-generated electricity is essential to achieving compliance.  Conversely, they also at times claim that the coal-to-gas switchover is entirely market-driven.

During the Cold War, Eastern Bloc planners joked that, come the global socialist revolution, they would keep one capitalist economy going so they could ascertain the real prices of things.  We confront a similar dilemma.  The coal, natural gas, and electricity industries are so distorted by regulation, from extraction to invoice, that any real cost-benefit analysis seems practically impossible.  Insights into this conundrum can be garnered in a February 2017 quote from a discernably anxious U.S. Energy Information Administration: “Without the Clean Power Plan, there is less incentive to switch from carbon-intensive coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas or carbon-free fuels such as wind and solar. In the scenario where the Clean Power Plan is not implemented, coal again becomes the leading source of electricity generation by 2019.”  In other words, absent climate activism, American electricity generation quickly reverts to coal.

Ultimately, we need a more laissez-faire and transparent energy market where consumers (which are often governments) can make informed decisions.  The amount of carbon dioxide a generating station emits should be irrelevant.  Such a state of affairs now seems almost utopian.

As for Tillerson, available evidence pegs him as a cynical, dishonest man more taken with power than truth.  He has a kindred spirit in Ivanka, whose consuming aspiration is ascendance unto the trans-Atlantic plutocracy.  Tillerson’s opportunistic, misanthropic adoption of political correctness has already alienated social conservatives.  He spearheaded the imposition of homosexuals onto the Boy Scouts of America, and he lavished funds onto Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills.

Tillerson personally donated to every Republican presidential candidate before Trump – but not to Trump.  He was shoehorned into Trump’s inner circle by the deft maneuverings of those exemplary RINOs, Bob Gates and Condi Rice.

Forget “Exxon knew.”  How about an “Exxon knows” campaign?  The company’s controllers, following Chairman Tillerson, know full well that “global warming” is a hoax, yet they exploit this Big Lie to forcibly capture customers for their surplus natural gas.



Source link

George Soros and German Media


While Russian political tampering concerns dominate news headlines, one area of concern that has been overlooked for many decades is Germany’s mounting influential power over media, academia, and/or book publishing, something which Dr. Robert E. Kaplan of Jerusalem calls “soft power” in his illuminating book titled The Soros Connection, where he demonstrates the very real possibility that George Soros is a political and economic wrecking ball working as a foreign agent for the German state. Dr. Kaplan received his Ph.D. in history from Cornell University. He was heavily influenced by historian Edward Whiting Fox.  

Around 2000, Kaplan began noticing that Germany and German based trusts, foundations, and publishers, etc. seemed to have developed a habit of sending grants to Holocaust research projects. While some of this was most certainly done to help ease the problem of Holocaust guilt, there was too much altruism to be credible. The more Kaplan investigated, the more skeptical he became of Germany’s philanthropy — all with a seemingly limitless supply of money. Kaplan then noticed that similar German funding and/or gifting had been a longstanding practice for well over 100 years, including strong ties to yellow journalism together with the meteoric rise of both the Hearst and Newhouse media empires in New York. Further, Kaplan submits evidence of strong German financial connections to the Rockefellers, Carnegies, J.P. Morgan, and the Ford Foundation. All this strongly suggested to Kaplan a coordinated effort of German government policy. Worse, German media has a very poor historical record relative to the freedom of the press precisely because of its close ties to the state going all the way back to the beginning of the Second Reich in 1871, when Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) exerted authoritarian control over what was printed. While the interwar years was concerned with whitewashing German war guilt from World War I, the aftermath of World War II was preoccupied with saving face following the terrors of the Holocaust.

In an article titled, “The German Problem,” the late syndicated columnist William Safire wrote, “I bridle at German book publishing hegemony. Few Americans realize that two German Gesellschaften are gaining stranglehold on US books.” Thus, the German media influences Kaplan writes about is also tied up with book publishing as well. Holtzbrinck Publishers and Bertelsmann control most of the big name publishing houses and a sizable market share of all the books produced in the United States. Bertelsmann is a media colossus that has been described as a “state within a state.” Bertelsmann played no small role in the dramatic rise of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  

Kaplan writes that in the past 20-25 years, both Bertelsmann and Holztzbrinck have done an admirable job of publishing any number of different books that share Holocaustic blame and guilt with other players and participants in different countries in order to help launder Germany’s history. Both Bertelsmann and Holtzbrinck also have substantial Nazi pedigrees in their past. Bertelsmann is controlled by the Mohn family, who had a strong pro-Nazi history in the 1930s and 40s. Today the Mohns are active environmentalists who belong to the ultra-green Club of Rome. Scientific American and Nature magazines are owned by Holtzbrinck.

Kaplan then goes on to show how George Soros parrots virtually the same agenda that Germany and its media allies have been peddling for years. In particular, Soros mimicked Germany’s desire to break up Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Initially, only Germany wanted to break up the Balkans. President Clinton followed suit. The U.S. and Europe thus sided with the Albanian Muslims in both Bosnia and Kosovo. While Milosevich was no saint, the Bosnian/Albanian Muslims were/are not much better. During World War II, they fought on the same side as the SS and were Nazi collaborators. Kaplan is also convinced that the Balkanization of Yugoslavia was the first salvo of what is today called the Arab Spring, in order to help resurrect some form of the old Ottoman Empire. Germany and Turkey were allies in World War I. After Serbia was bombed in the Bosnian War, the USA then lost Russia, which is at the very heart of the crisis now fomenting in Ukraine. Is it not possible that much of the vitriol over Russia right now in the media is being largely promoted by German concerns?

 

 

Soros was infamously known for being the man who broke the bank of England in the early 1990s. According to Kaplan, Soros had inside information from the German government as he used the mark to make a killing involvong deliberate currency manipulation that hit England particularly hard. Soros has since used that incredible haul to make even more money, usually at the hefty expense of other nations. He then uses his profits to heavily influence and manipulate politics worldwide, particularly in America.

The first time we hear of Soros was in 1944 Budapest, Hungary. Thanks to the protective efforts of his father, Tivadar, Soros worked with a Nazi godfather to help locate and shake down fellow Jews of their belongings before they were shipped off to Auschwitz. Soros alleges his father put him in that position to shield him from the Nazis, but it becomes very difficult not to presume that Tivadar had strong connections with the Judenrat in Budapest. The Judenrat were Jewish councils that the Nazis set up all over Europe to force them to do their dirty work for them. The Judenrat were placed in charge of the ghettos that housed the Jews in horrific conditions. While many of the Judenrat tried to serve the best they could with what was forced upon them, some actually enjoyed the virtual godlike powers that were granted. How Soros’s father related to all this is unknown. What is known is that Soros himself, though a Jew and a free man, constantly works against Zionism and pro-Jewish policies today.

According to Pamela Geller, there is a dossier on Soros that alleges previous strong connections between Soros and Francois Genoud (1915-1996), the Swiss Nazi banker who helped bankroll the Third Reich and was later flush with Holocaust cash after the war. Genoud used Nazi money to lay the foundation stones for Islamic terrorism during the early 1970s. Many also believe Genoud was the very founder of the international Al Taqwa Bank in Switzerland that was directed by a neo-Nazi Islamicist by the name of Ahmad Huber, originally Albert Huber, who was a Swiss convert to Islam. This bank supposedly helped sponsor Osama bin Laden and was shut down after the 9/11 terrorist attacks for aiding and abetting both Al Qaeda and Hamas. Italian security dubbed it, “The Bank of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Many today complain of the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into various branches of the U.S. government.

While more than a few will look at Dr. Robert Kaplan’s assessment of Soros with incredulity, it is highly unlikely that even a rich, powerful man like Soros could have such a dominating influence over world affairs without state sponsorship of his activities. Even Bill O’Reilly once called Soros, “Blofeld.” In the original Ian Fleming James Bond series, Blofeld was in charge of an underground, but very rich and powerful semi-fascist terrorist organization of sorts called Spectre.

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington. He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance. His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s that proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust. Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest which is a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

While Russian political tampering concerns dominate news headlines, one area of concern that has been overlooked for many decades is Germany’s mounting influential power over media, academia, and/or book publishing, something which Dr. Robert E. Kaplan of Jerusalem calls “soft power” in his illuminating book titled The Soros Connection, where he demonstrates the very real possibility that George Soros is a political and economic wrecking ball working as a foreign agent for the German state. Dr. Kaplan received his Ph.D. in history from Cornell University. He was heavily influenced by historian Edward Whiting Fox.  

Around 2000, Kaplan began noticing that Germany and German based trusts, foundations, and publishers, etc. seemed to have developed a habit of sending grants to Holocaust research projects. While some of this was most certainly done to help ease the problem of Holocaust guilt, there was too much altruism to be credible. The more Kaplan investigated, the more skeptical he became of Germany’s philanthropy — all with a seemingly limitless supply of money. Kaplan then noticed that similar German funding and/or gifting had been a longstanding practice for well over 100 years, including strong ties to yellow journalism together with the meteoric rise of both the Hearst and Newhouse media empires in New York. Further, Kaplan submits evidence of strong German financial connections to the Rockefellers, Carnegies, J.P. Morgan, and the Ford Foundation. All this strongly suggested to Kaplan a coordinated effort of German government policy. Worse, German media has a very poor historical record relative to the freedom of the press precisely because of its close ties to the state going all the way back to the beginning of the Second Reich in 1871, when Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) exerted authoritarian control over what was printed. While the interwar years was concerned with whitewashing German war guilt from World War I, the aftermath of World War II was preoccupied with saving face following the terrors of the Holocaust.

In an article titled, “The German Problem,” the late syndicated columnist William Safire wrote, “I bridle at German book publishing hegemony. Few Americans realize that two German Gesellschaften are gaining stranglehold on US books.” Thus, the German media influences Kaplan writes about is also tied up with book publishing as well. Holtzbrinck Publishers and Bertelsmann control most of the big name publishing houses and a sizable market share of all the books produced in the United States. Bertelsmann is a media colossus that has been described as a “state within a state.” Bertelsmann played no small role in the dramatic rise of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  

Kaplan writes that in the past 20-25 years, both Bertelsmann and Holztzbrinck have done an admirable job of publishing any number of different books that share Holocaustic blame and guilt with other players and participants in different countries in order to help launder Germany’s history. Both Bertelsmann and Holtzbrinck also have substantial Nazi pedigrees in their past. Bertelsmann is controlled by the Mohn family, who had a strong pro-Nazi history in the 1930s and 40s. Today the Mohns are active environmentalists who belong to the ultra-green Club of Rome. Scientific American and Nature magazines are owned by Holtzbrinck.

Kaplan then goes on to show how George Soros parrots virtually the same agenda that Germany and its media allies have been peddling for years. In particular, Soros mimicked Germany’s desire to break up Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Initially, only Germany wanted to break up the Balkans. President Clinton followed suit. The U.S. and Europe thus sided with the Albanian Muslims in both Bosnia and Kosovo. While Milosevich was no saint, the Bosnian/Albanian Muslims were/are not much better. During World War II, they fought on the same side as the SS and were Nazi collaborators. Kaplan is also convinced that the Balkanization of Yugoslavia was the first salvo of what is today called the Arab Spring, in order to help resurrect some form of the old Ottoman Empire. Germany and Turkey were allies in World War I. After Serbia was bombed in the Bosnian War, the USA then lost Russia, which is at the very heart of the crisis now fomenting in Ukraine. Is it not possible that much of the vitriol over Russia right now in the media is being largely promoted by German concerns?

 

 

Soros was infamously known for being the man who broke the bank of England in the early 1990s. According to Kaplan, Soros had inside information from the German government as he used the mark to make a killing involvong deliberate currency manipulation that hit England particularly hard. Soros has since used that incredible haul to make even more money, usually at the hefty expense of other nations. He then uses his profits to heavily influence and manipulate politics worldwide, particularly in America.

The first time we hear of Soros was in 1944 Budapest, Hungary. Thanks to the protective efforts of his father, Tivadar, Soros worked with a Nazi godfather to help locate and shake down fellow Jews of their belongings before they were shipped off to Auschwitz. Soros alleges his father put him in that position to shield him from the Nazis, but it becomes very difficult not to presume that Tivadar had strong connections with the Judenrat in Budapest. The Judenrat were Jewish councils that the Nazis set up all over Europe to force them to do their dirty work for them. The Judenrat were placed in charge of the ghettos that housed the Jews in horrific conditions. While many of the Judenrat tried to serve the best they could with what was forced upon them, some actually enjoyed the virtual godlike powers that were granted. How Soros’s father related to all this is unknown. What is known is that Soros himself, though a Jew and a free man, constantly works against Zionism and pro-Jewish policies today.

According to Pamela Geller, there is a dossier on Soros that alleges previous strong connections between Soros and Francois Genoud (1915-1996), the Swiss Nazi banker who helped bankroll the Third Reich and was later flush with Holocaust cash after the war. Genoud used Nazi money to lay the foundation stones for Islamic terrorism during the early 1970s. Many also believe Genoud was the very founder of the international Al Taqwa Bank in Switzerland that was directed by a neo-Nazi Islamicist by the name of Ahmad Huber, originally Albert Huber, who was a Swiss convert to Islam. This bank supposedly helped sponsor Osama bin Laden and was shut down after the 9/11 terrorist attacks for aiding and abetting both Al Qaeda and Hamas. Italian security dubbed it, “The Bank of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Many today complain of the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into various branches of the U.S. government.

While more than a few will look at Dr. Robert Kaplan’s assessment of Soros with incredulity, it is highly unlikely that even a rich, powerful man like Soros could have such a dominating influence over world affairs without state sponsorship of his activities. Even Bill O’Reilly once called Soros, “Blofeld.” In the original Ian Fleming James Bond series, Blofeld was in charge of an underground, but very rich and powerful semi-fascist terrorist organization of sorts called Spectre.

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington. He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance. His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s that proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust. Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest which is a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.



Source link