Quotes & Commentary – Page 26

The Requirements For Effective Political Leadership

“But he had two qualities that disqualified him for political leadership — he saw both sides of every question and he was incapable of hate.”

Claude G. Bowers describing a US Congressman in his book
The Tragic Era — The Revolution After Lincoln

I found this quote interesting because I remembered reading a quote once on Woodrow Wilson that he was such a “good hater,” and in my mind I connected the two sentiments.

There is a certain amount of Machiavellian sense in the idea that in order for a politician to be successful he must be a good hater. It fits right in with Machiavelli’s advice that it is better for a Prince to be feared than loved.

Bertrand Russell & Bret McAtee on Education

‎“The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship….The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”

Russell concluded with a warning:

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Bertrand Russell
20th Century Cultural Marxist

Our government has been in charge of education for over one hundred years and it simply is the fact that most Americans have the convictions they have because of the propaganda swallowed in government schools. This is true of Christians as well, but with Christians the crime is doubled because Christians then baptize their pagan convictions with a thin coating of “Christianity.”

Government education from pre-schools to University is not about educating people. It is about controlling the populace. Government education is not about learning, it is about creating a citizenry that is shaped to think the way the state desires. Government education is not about disseminating intelligence, it is about creating cogs that will fit in the state determined culture — cogs that are smart enough to be an effective drone work force, but not smart enough to think critically and analytically for themselves. Government education is not about personal growth for the student, it is about Corporate America producing a generation that will be consumers for their products. Sadly, all that I’ve just said about Government education is also largely true of the agenda of even conservative Churches today.

The quote by Russell above could be re-produced repeatedly by people who are in the know. If you’ve been trained in Government Schools, you simply must acknowledge what they have done to you and determine that you are going to begin to think outside your previous thought patterns.

Take the blue pill. You’ll be glad you did.

Warfield On Atomistic Hyper-Individualism

“To Paul, the human race is made up of families, and every several organism — the church included — is composed of families, united together by this or that bond. The relation of the sexes in the family follow it therefore into the church. To the feminist movement the human race is made up of individuals; a woman is just another individual by the side of the man, and it can see no reason for any differences in dealing with the two. And, indeed, if we can ignore the great fundamental natural difference of sex and destroy the great fundamental social unit of the family in the interest of individualism, there does not seem any reason why we should not wipe out the differences established by Paul between the sexes in the church — except, of course, the authority of Paul.”

B. B. Warfield

Piggy backing off this Warfield quote it would be easy to suggest that this hyper-individualism that he locates has created more havoc in what was once Christendom then just the problem of Feminism. This hyper-individualism that is part and parcel of our philosophic egalitarianism has broken down all the formerly understood and embraced hierarchical structures of Biblical Christianity. Not only are the Biblically informed hierarchical structures and roles between women and men decimated but also the Biblically informed hierarchical structures between men and men and women and women have been destroyed. This is proven by the embrace of Sodomy and Lesbianism. If men and women are merely integers that are not Biblically defined in their meaning and hierarchical structures then why shouldn’t men go with men and women with women into the boudoir? Another example of this is the recent push for children’s rights. If humans are merely integers that are not Biblically defined in their meaning and hierarchical structures then why shouldn’t the differences between children and parents be eliminated?

And though we’ve been propagandized since the 1950’s not to probe this application, wouldn’t Warfield’s complaint against the human race being composed only of individuals be a cautionary word pertaining to the wisdom of not honoring historic distinctions between cultures and ethnicities? Is it really the case, as the Alienists and Cultural Marxists would have us believe, that just as women and men are undifferentiated cogs so it is the case that men of different nationalities are likewise merely undifferentiated cogs that can be swapped in and out of the Statist created cultural machine of the New World Order? If God has created men and women to be distinct is it so hard to think that He likewise hath made of one blood all nations of men (note the unity in diversity idea) and did determine the bounds of their habitation (note the idea that nations, and so nationalities are distinct)?

I am convinced that this idea of the human race as being comprised only of atomistic individuals — an idea that owes its origin more to the French Philosophes and their Revolution then it does to Biblical Christianity — is an idea that has effected us more negatively than we think or realize.