The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

a reply to: Annee
No person is trust worthy enough to handle it, I would suspect. Nor would any one person be accepted ,that would mean war and death on a systematic global suppression to hold it.

a reply to: Annee
To the average dictator ENOUGH has no meaning,what would keep a Caligula reborn from taking over? We already see the sociopaths who run OUR country make a mess,and WE have the most progessive thinkers.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Problem being, we don't have the most progressive thinkers.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sorry, BW, but I haven't seen the video. His words I read are enough to make me shudder feeling the Dark Side.


The post-1980 ascendancy of the GOP by employing a block of (primarily Southern conservative religious) Christian Right and angry white male voters helped disseminate the ideas of NAR and Dominionism. This new Republican base would also make more powerful the Southern brand of elites and big money, versus the Northern brand that had held back the “plantation” vision for America.

Northern elites and big money

For most of our history, American economics, culture and politics have been dominated by a New England-based Yankee aristocracy that was rooted in Puritan communitarian values, educated at the Ivies and marinated in an ethic of noblesse oblige (the conviction that those who possess wealth and power are morally bound to use it for the betterment of society). While they've done their share of damage to the notion of democracy in the name of profit (as all financial elites inevitably do), this group has, for the most part, tempered its predatory instincts with a code that valued mass education and human rights; held up public service as both a duty and an honor...

Southern elites and big money

...that other great historical American nobility -- the plantation aristocracy of the lowland South, which has been notable throughout its 400-year history for its utter lack of civic interest, its hostility to the very ideas of democracy and human rights, its love of hierarchy, its fear of technology and progress, its reliance on brutality and violence to maintain “order,” and its outright celebration of inequality as an order divinely ordained by God.

Conservative Southern Values Revived: How a Brutal Strain of American Aristocrats Have Come to Rule America

The “Seven Mountains” (and the Dominionist world) would thus mirror Southern culture and economics.

By using the anti-abortion Right to Life, and now “personhood”, movement, the GOP was able to do the unthinkable, unite Northern conservative Catholics and Southern Baptists. Notice that the Greens of Hobby Lobby are not Catholic, but their case resonated with conservative Catholics (especially those on the Supreme Court).

Side note re Hobby Lobby owners Just as Osama bin Laden used his money from his father's business to help fund his jihad, American jihadists use their corporate money. Dominionism's Parallel Economy and Corporate Sponsors


The religiously conservative NAR/Dominionists are fighting their own Holy War/jihad/cosmic war, an overarching, very real war to them, a war of cosmic Good vs. Evil, where they become the ultimate cosmic warrior wrestler. God will be the ultimate private wealthy plantation owner. The Northern religious based public work ethic, care of a common good, and noblesse oblige will be defeated.

a reply to: desert

THANK YOU for those sources. I like both of the sites you linked...and check them regularly.

I hope you get applause for that post!!

Especially the description of the "Northern" vs "Southern" attitude. Perfectly described. And scary as a hornet's nest.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

it's not a north vs. south thing. it's ridiculous to assume that crossing an imaginary line on a continent causes people to lose brain cells, compassion, empathy and so on. for one, the largest population of blacks and other minorities are in the south. just look up the population of blacks, for example, in the usa.
www.censusscope.org...

the way you're looking at it, if someone nuked the south, you'd be thinking it was just rewards, but what it would really be is genocide of the majority of blacks in the country.

also, the right vs. left thing is getting REALLY old.

however, i agree that dominionism is not a good thing

Hey undo. What a breath of fresh air your posts always bring. Probably my favorite ats resident poster.

anyway, i am too busy to add my thoughts today.

Buzzy, i have some info for you. It will help tie your 2 threads together. The family is linked globally. Always follow the money. In fact they are tied to the wcc. I mentioned earlier in the thread that i remember the wcc being part of Share Int. And theosophists, or the luciferians. Maurice Strong and Matthew Fox are 2 of the ecumenical movements biggest players early on. The dominionists are financed by the same parties that finance the wcc.
www.newswithviews.com...

www.theoccidentalobserver.net...
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

a reply to: undo

it's not a north vs. south thing. it's ridiculous to assume that crossing an imaginary line on a continent causes people to lose brain cells, compassion, empathy and so on.

Of course it's ridiculous.

I think they're using the terms with a Historical reference, as re Southern Plantation Slavers vs "Yankees".


You do know that the roles have been reversed, right? It was the notherners who were Republicans before, and the south were Democrats. The PARTIES have changed. I think the "mindsets" remain.

They're just labelled with the "geographical origin" term in desert's linked article.

Still - the Bible Belt (the south) is far more "Republican/conservative/evangelical-minded" than say, the NE or northern parts of the US

I live right on the NW edge of the Bible Belt, in a neighborhood that is very integrated. I'm as likely to converse with a black or hispanic as I am a white person - all in the same grocery store. People say, "Thank you", "excuse me", "please", "how are you" and even simply a hello or nod or smile when passing one another in the aisles of shops.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm glad to hear that. I live in a neighborhood where the social balance is much as you describe it. And I very much appreciate the fact that I can walk by someone of a different ethnicity and know that they are perfectly fine with breathing the same air as me. Some places, that's all it takes to catch a bullet. And it saddens me.

a reply to: manna2

Manna, please, when you have the time, read the article that desert posted - it predates your links.

Dominionism's "parallel economy", Pt. 2: Dominionism's Corporate Sponsors

Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby may have the most egregrious links of all (aside from AmWay)--as we will see below, Hobby Lobby is a de facto funding front for one of the most infamous of dominionist denominations.

Hobby Lobby originally came under scrutiny because of things like playing only "Christian contemporary" music in its stores, closing on Sundays, and funding of some religious charities--these would be seen merely as "evangelical quirks" (similar to In-N-Out or Focus 21 putting Bible verses on their bags) were it not for some deeper investigation.

Firstly, Hobby Lobby actually has two divisions that deal with dominionist concerns:
* Mardel (a chain of Christian bookstores)
* Bearing Fruit Communications (an advertising and production company which deals heavily in promotion of dominionist media)

This is in addition to the other parts of a rather substantial empire:
* Hobby Lobby Creative Centers (the main craft store chain)
* Hemispheres (a home decor design company)
* Crafts Etc.! (an online and wholesale retailer of craft supplies)
* H. L. Construction (a construction company responsible for building Hobby Lobby stores)
* Hong Kong Connection (an import/export company dealing in Chinese goods)
* Greco Frame and Supply

There were already a few warning signs, though. Among other things, there had been a few reports of explicit religious discrimination, both against employees and against lesbian shoppers; previous research had also found that one of the "charities" being funded was none other than Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

And there is much, much more in the article. Dated 2007.
HL is a Dominionist pusher. Period.

originally posted by: rustyclutch
Corporate Theocracy? I find that hilarious. The men and women we send to kill in other countries arent even allowed to openly practice their religion anymore. People are being sued for not wanting to provide business services at gay weddings. You might have had a point 30 years ago. These are the politically correct days and it's open season on christians. Any fringe group that feels like they were bullied over the years because people didnt accept their lifestyle choices is trying to strike back. Logically people are pushing back. That health care law shouldn't even exist. All its doing is funneling a bunch of money to people who already have too much to begin with.

An overwhelming majority of people in this nation are Christian. There is no getting around that. Short of genocide there will be no getting around that. Maybe if people such as yourself would stop poking at people and trying to change their way of life people wouldnt be "on the march". At the rate we are going the U.S. is gonna be all rainbows and robots within the next decade.

Take a look at the documentary "Constantine's Sword", it will dispell this notion that serving members of the military can't practise their religons. They may not allow to proselytize though I am not knowledgeable on that.

Read the book "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" by Jeff Sharlet. It's the scariest book I've ever read.

What ever works for you is fine, I know many wonderful Christians (and Buddhists, Muslims, Athetists, Hindus, Wiiccans) and we share many of the same understanding about the world around us - most important being that everyone should be allowed to find their own path.

As we look for the wolf at the front door the fox enters from the back and devours the sheep

And the media and the very Christians the OP is talking about all want to convince the world of the menace of some Islamic shariah alone and not inform of the threat in our own country by Christian sectarians.

They have been screeching all over the country “shariah” shariah” referring to Muslim theocracy in America (a sure bogus fear) it appears it is the Christians of this ilk who are the ones who are doing a Shariah; the only thing is that it is NOT Islamic it is Christian, and has been that all along.

The fact of the matter is that intolerant religion where you have people bent on ruling the world for God has always been here and it raises its ugly fangs from time to time to try to strangle that which it can reach…


Great OP Buzzy!

a reply to: desert

I wanted to share another quote or two from that wonderful article you referenced:

www.alternet.org... e=0%2C1

The difference in Liberty, the definition thereof by Northern Puritan Elites and Southern "2nd and lessor sons of European" Elites. Great Article.

Northern Puritan (Christian - did I say that - eeek) take on Liberty:

Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.

And the Southern Elite take:

In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I don't like the 'Puritan Ethic', but I would much rather live under that regime then the feudal regime engendered by the Traditional Southern Ethic.

Great Source - Muchos Gras.....

Oh I have to add another - still reading. And it's the mind set (north/south) not the physical location.

They countered Yankee hegemony by building their own universities, grooming their own leaders and creating their own media. By the 1990s, they were staging the RINO hunts that drove the last Republican moderates (almost all of them Yankees, by either geography or cultural background) and the meritocratic order they represented to total extinction within the GOP. A decade later, the Tea Party became the voice of (I love this...) the unleashed id of the old Southern order , bringing it forward into the 21st century with its full measure of selfishness, racism, superstition, and brutality intact.

fands BW
IMHO:
the Christian states have been traditionally been used even now as in the past, as the alCIAduh and ISIS etc are being used today:
highly funded controlled opposition to destabilize and conquer from within
www.abovetopsecret.com...
for example a thread I authored re Christian invasions of Scandinavian lands in medieval times.

usually its a case of follow the money trail to see who is using the ( fill in the blank) tool of the day

haha, *(sic), like the Mexican immigrant invasion is being used right now as we speak on the southern US border:
deliberate economic, criminal, medical, and political destabilization curtesy of the PTB
BTW it is possible to be a gang banging seventeen year old " child" beheader/mule/money laundering tool and a Christian at the same time...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

well my family were all democrats most of my younger to mid life years. also, every single one of them is a christian. every single one. but we never owned slaves, and don't believe in forcing religion on people. however, if i prefer a candidate that isn't democrat in an election, i get called an idiot, with a low iq, who owned slaves and the cause for all the trouble in the world. that is just so much nonsense, i don't even know where to begin. that thinking logical people pull that out of their butts every time the whole left v. right thing starts, makes me wonder what in the sam hill is going on.


a.whole.family.all.democrats.reduced.to.blathering.racist.slave-owning.idiots.for.voting.

voting.

sigh.

p.s. i think the usa needs to open its doors to refugees from europe - christians, jews and muslims, specifically, because that place is about to make hitler look like a school girl.

When i get the time i will tie in the wcc to luciferians and the dominionists to the wcc through early funding.
like hoe the jehovas witnesses and mormons got their start and funding from the same oligarch banking families.
i guess if i simply point out this is the marxist dialectic i will get ensconched by reproof that tic-tac-toe is a dialectic exercise...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

a reply to: FyreByrd

De nada. Here's my take on another word.

Another word with different meaning to different people is “compromise”. This nation was birthed after much Compromise, in the sense that people come together to solve a problem by finding and agreeing upon commonalities. Politics usually involves legal persuasion to find compromise, thus any expectation of “purity” is misguided and unreasonable in our form of government. The other meaning to some is used in abusive situations, situations of dominance (tyranny or authoritarianism if you will), where compromise means “you compromise by doing what I say must be done”. Also for some today of the plantation (authoritarian) mentality, there is no compromise.

“Haha” we laugh at countries where leaders have a 99% vote, but that is precisely the political or religious ideology of some today. The test of political purity that has been given and continues in the GOP is not healthy for a Democracy to survive. The strain of religion that compels one to disregard another out of religious purity is not healthy for religion. Overlay this test of religious purity onto political purity is the death of a Democracy. Benjamin Franklin was right to warn us of having a Republic “if you can keep it”.

Speaking of words, one other idea I would like to interject here is that racism and supremacy are not the same. Racism deals with stereotypes of another, and everyone can be guilty of racism. Some racism is relatively benign (for example, when I grew up, Japanese were always portrayed wearing thick glasses), or more sinister as a few years ago when, during the first Tea Party Weekend one July, people stood alongside Highway 101 waving posters of Obama’s picture with the N-Word printed alongside.

What is worse is supremacy, the idea that one is better than another. I posit that in the 1860s Northerners and Southerners were guilty of racism, but only in the South did racism against “colored” become institutionalized into White Supremacy. By the 1960s and later, White Supremacy had found home far outside the South; in the 1970s I happened to be at a shop in a suburb of Los Angeles where I was shocked to look across the street and find a house surrounded by fencing, with a man in full Nazi regalia standing on the porch, German Shepherd at his feet and Nazi flag flying above. Around that same time I moved to another part of California, where Klu Klux Klan members in their regalia proudly held a march in town, and whites new to town were taken aside and offered membership in the Klan.

Some religions didn't accept non-whites as full participants until early 1980s, and one private religious Southern university did away with their mixed race dating ban in 2000. Religions can be unreasonable at times, but still some believe as Jerry Falwell said in the 1970s, "The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil" ...and he meant literally the Devil.

a reply to: manna2

i guess if i simply point out this is the marxist dialectic i will get ensconched by reproof that tic-tac-toe is a dialectic exercise...

Now WHY did you have to bring that up again, manna?

Dialectic is simply discussing two opposing viewpoints and finding a common ground that balances the two.
It's simple.

And again, I don't care who's used it in the past. It's how our own government was set up, as well - or we would have a "one-party" system.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: desert

I wanted to share another quote or two from that wonderful article you referenced:

www.alternet.org... e=0%2C1

The difference in Liberty, the definition thereof by Northern Puritan Elites and Southern "2nd and lessor sons of European" Elites. Great Article.

Northern Puritan (Christian - did I say that - eeek) take on Liberty:

Individuals were expected to balance their personal needs and desires against the greater good of the collective -- and, occasionally, to make sacrifices for the betterment of everyone. (This is why the Puritan wealthy tended to dutifully pay their taxes, tithe in their churches and donate generously to create hospitals, parks and universities.) In return, the community had a solemn and inescapable moral duty to care for its sick, educate its young and provide for its needy -- the kind of support that maximizes each person's liberty to live in dignity and achieve his or her potential. A Yankee community that failed to provide such support brought shame upon itself. To this day, our progressive politics are deeply informed by this Puritan view of ordered liberty.

And the Southern Elite take:

In the old South, on the other hand, the degree of liberty you enjoyed was a direct function of your God-given place in the social hierarchy. The higher your status, the more authority you had, and the more "liberty" you could exercise -- which meant, in practical terms, that you had the right to take more "liberties" with the lives, rights and property of other people. Like an English lord unfettered from the Magna Carta, nobody had the authority to tell a Southern gentleman what to do with resources under his control. In this model, that's what liberty is. If you don't have the freedom to rape, beat, torture, kill, enslave, or exploit your underlings (including your wife and children) with impunity -- or abuse the land, or enforce rules on others that you will never have to answer to yourself -- then you can't really call yourself a free man.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I don't like the 'Puritan Ethic', but I would much rather live under that regime then the feudal regime engendered by the Traditional Southern Ethic.

Great Source - Muchos Gras.....

Oh I have to add another - still reading. And it's the mind set (north/south) not the physical location.

They countered Yankee hegemony by building their own universities, grooming their own leaders and creating their own media. By the 1990s, they were staging the RINO hunts that drove the last Republican moderates (almost all of them Yankees, by either geography or cultural background) and the meritocratic order they represented to total extinction within the GOP. A decade later, the Tea Party became the voice of (I love this...) the unleashed id of the old Southern order , bringing it forward into the 21st century with its full measure of selfishness, racism, superstition, and brutality intact.

The article is a bit overly simplistic and misses quite a bit and leaves out a lot. It also seems to have quite a bit of bias. The puritans were essentially a theocracy who punished any who strayed form their ridged an ordered society quite severely. The initial puritans actually did own slaves and abused them just as any slave owner down south and then did the same when slavery was abolished in the north but the institution of "indentured servitude" which was essentially contract slavery was utilized. In puritan society, the church could take your land and your property for various heresies. Consider the land grab that was utilized under the excuse of "Witch Trials" where the religious authorities and secular authorities were one and the same and used their authority and the superstition of the people to steal land form their fellow man.