Blog

Song Lyrics in Retrospect

School taught one and one is two.
But right now, that answer just ain't true.1

Now if 6 turned out to be 9,
I don't mind, I don't mind...2

Red is grey and yellow white,
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion.3

The west is the best
Get here, and we'll do the rest4
For the times they are a-changin'.5
Ev'rywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy
'Cause summer's here and the time is right for fighting
in the street boy6

We'll be fighting in the streets...
And the morals that they worship will be gone7

Your ballroom days are over, baby
Night is drawing near8

Your old road is
Rapidly agin'9

Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Why don't you all f-fade away (Talkin' 'bout my generation)
And don't try to dig what we all s-s-say (Talkin' 'bout my generation)10

Television children fed11

And all the children are insane
All the children are insane12

The order is
Rapidly fadin'13

The old get old
And the young get stronger...
Gonna win, yeah
We're takin' over
Come on!14

Hey! Think the time is right for a Palace Revolution
But where I live the game to play is Compromise Solution!
Hey! Said my name is called Disturbance
I'll shout and scream, I'll kill the King I'll rail at all his servants15

There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls...16
For the times they are a-changin'.17
I heard some of you got your families, living in
cages tall & cold,
And some just stay there and dust away, past the
age of old.18

Well I asked my friend where is that black smoke comin' from
He just coughed and changed the subject and
said oh wa I think it might snow some...
Look at the sky turn a hell fire red Lord
Somebody's house is burning down down, down down19

...and the smell of a world that has burned.20

I said the truth is straight ahead so don't burn yourself instead
Try to learn instead of burn, hear what I say, yeah, yeah.21

Blood in the streets in the town of Chicago22

Save our city, save our city
Right now23

They're going to destroy
Our casual joys
We shall go on playing
Or find a new town24
For the times they are a-changin'.25
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection26

The gate is straight
Deep and wide27

Bodies confused
Memories misused28

The future's uncertain, and the end is always near29

Save us!
Jesus!
Save us!30
For the times they are a-changin'.31
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall32

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution33

And I come back to find the stars misplaced34

Blood will be born in the birth of a nation35

Mother, should I trust the government?36

Its leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind37

Mother, should I run for president?38
When the music's over
Turn out the lights39

Reason has been raptured—we were forewarned!


https://www.allmusic.com/

http://www.mldb.org/


  1. “Ride My See Saw,” The Moody Blues, In Search of the Lost Chord, 1968. 

  2. “If 6 Was 9,” The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Axis: Bold as Love, 1967. 

  3. “Late Lament,” The Moody Blues, Days of Future Passed, 1967. 

  4. “The End,” The Doors, The Doors, 1967. 

  5. “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin’, 1964. 

  6. “Street Fighting Man,” The Rolling Stones, Beggar’s Banquet, 1968. 

  7. “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” The Who, Who’s Next, 1971. 

  8. “Five to One,” The Doors, Waiting for the Sun, 1968. 

  9. “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” Dylan. 

  10. “My Generation,” The Who, The Who Sings My Generation, 1965. 

  11. “Unknown Soldier,” Doors. 

  12. “The End,” Doors. 

  13. “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” Dylan. 

  14. “Five to One,” Doors. 

  15. “Street Fighting Man,” Stones. 

  16. “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” Dylan. 

  17. Ibid. 

  18. “Up from the Skies,” Hendrix. 

  19. “House Burning Down,” The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Electric Ladyland, 1968. 

  20. “Up from the Skies,” Hendrix. 

  21. “House Burning Down,” Hendrix. 

  22. “Peace Frog,” The Doors, Morrison Hotel, 1970. 

  23. “Roadhouse Blues,” Doors. 

  24. “Strange Days,” The Doors, Strange Days, 1967. 

  25. “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” Dylan. 

  26. “When the Music’s Over,” Doors. 

  27. “Break on Through (To the Other Side),” Doors. 

  28. “Strange Days,” Doors. 

  29. “Roadhouse Blues,” Doors. 

  30. “When the Music’s Over,” Doors. 

  31. “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” Dylan. 

  32. Ibid. 

  33. “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” The Who. 

  34. “Up from the Skies,” Hendrix. 

  35. “Peace Frog,” Doors. 

  36. “Mother,” Pink Floyd, The Wall, 1979. 

  37. “Monster,” Steppenwolf, Monster, 1969. 

  38. “Mother,” Pink Floyd. 

  39. “When the Music’s Over,” Doors. 

Election Season Obfuscations

An unlikely former FLOTUS recently proclaimed “Donald Trump is the wrong president for America…It is what it is” or is it…

According to the US Census bureau, about 2.5 million people die in the U.S. every year from all causes. So, where’s the outrage over that? Why don’t we lock down the entire country to keep people safe and to keep them from dying? Well, maybe it’s because the government doesn’t decide who lives and who dies…well, not yet at least. I wonder how many unsuspecting people died from walking on dry sand instead of wet sand in Los Angeles?

I posed a somewhat rhetorical question in a previous blog post that asked what the difference was between the H2N2 virus during the 1968-1969 flu season and today’s COVID-19 pandemic? Well the answer is simple, Lyndon B. Johnson was president and he wasn’t a republican. During the H2N2 outbreak, you either got the flu and lived or you got the flu and died. However now, during the current COVID-19 pandemic, if people test positive without even having any symptoms it’s a national crisis.

Even though I don’t have any documentary evidence to back up my position, nevertheless, I believe Dr. Anthony Fauci is a democrat at best and a fascist at worst. This guy is supposed to be an infectious disease expert and the best advice he can give is for us to wash our hands and social distance. My grandmother knew about those things a hundred years ago and she immigrated from Poland.

If Dr. Fauci had his way, everyone would be walking around like Scuba divers on dry land.

I remember long, long ago our family used to make many trips to the Jersey shore from our home in Bound Brook, NJ. On some occasions, my father would take Rt. 18 through New Brunswick instead of using the Garden State Parkway. While driving through Old Bridge during the coldest winter months, we would marvel at residents of a Jewish retirement home, many of whom were sitting outside in the sun all bundled up. They had the common sense of the Old World and understood that fresh air and sunshine were necessary for maintaining health which precluded wearing masks and being locked down in their rooms for months at a time.

Whenever I see Dr. Birx, an Obama nominee, on TV news videos, I think of white privilege.

The new Pandemic Lexicon for the New Normal: “harmful misinformation,” “stay safe and healthy,” “economic intercourse,” “core morbidities,” “lockdown,” “flatten the curve,” “stay at home,” “quarantine,” “social distancing,” “shelter in place.”

Wearing something other than a 3M 8511 N95 Respirator Mask around other people carrying the virus is analogous to having sex without a condom.

Every weather event is an historic event. This coming November, the perfect storm will be named Biden, Bernie, and Ocasio.

I remember seeing two ads on a news feed, one ad criticizing President Trump for wanting to open the economy and very close to it, a second ad showing the jobless claims.

Whenever I hear a certain section of the electorate, in particular suburban white educated women, say things like, “We need a leader who will unite the country,” I have to wonder if they really believe what they are saying. Do they mean we need a leader like Abraham Lincoln? Technically, Lincoln united the country through a civil war but did he really unite the people? I think not since unity = conformity and now as then, neither side has any desire to conform.

Treason <- Treachery <- Leaking.

Absentee Ballots ≠ Mail-in Ballots.

Electing Donald Trump to a second term would be like instituting a national lockdown to eradicate a virus pandemic; the only thing either would accomplish would be to postpone the inevitable.

Einstein once said, “If you want different results, do not do the same things.” Yet, we still see people who live in cities under siege by Bolshevik mobs continue to vote democratic candidates into office who not only condone but encourage the violence and lawlessness. Go figure. People get what they deserve and deserve what they get.

I’ve never seen a United States Congress in my lifetime fight so hard for the rights of foreigners at the expense of United States citizens.

It’s been said that “there’s no vaccine for stupidity,” however after listening to democrats for the past four years you could say that “there’s no vaccine for hypocrisy” either.

The fools who bow the knee to anarchists and insurgents so that they might be spared the wrath of the woke mob will surely bow the knee to the beast.

It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Rev. 13:7-8 NASB

South Korea is a surveillance state. They have over a million closed-circuit television cameras installed throughout the country. Not only that, there is a significant police presence especially in Seoul and other larger cities. In addition, many cars sold in South Korea have black boxes installed. Yet, for the most part, the Koreans are okay with being tracked by their government. I wonder why that is? Could it be that South Koreans have a sense of patriotism and respect for their culture? Or, maybe they have more trust in their government than we have in ours here in the U.S.

Recently, Biden chose Kamala Harris, a 4% candidate, for his running mate. Come on, man it’s pronounced Komma-la not Ko-mala. Okay, I got it. Now here we have a political party that despises old white men, picking an old white guy as their presidential candidate. And who does the old white guy pick as his running mate? He picks the person who cleaned his clock during the presidential debates. “I’m not joking.” “It was a debate!” You can’t make this stuff up. I don’t know about you, but when I see Biden and Harris together…the optics just don’t seem right.

Biden is the Trojan Horse and Kamala along with the entire Sanders camp are the Greeks. And if that’s the case, will you still vote the Harris-Biden ticket?

Speaking of candidates of color, until Herman Cain was convicted of committing the unpardonable sin during the 2012 presidential race, I was a “honky for Herman.”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo sent European Virus-positive patients back to nursing homes, effectively euthanizing over 6,000 elderly residents while the Navy hospital ship Comfort sat unused in New York City.

If Trump had only done [ fill in the blank ] then no one would have died from COVID-19 and no one would have lost their job.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is nothing more than penis envy.

There’s a conspiracy theory floating around that was conjured up by future Pulitzer Prize winning journalists that Donald Trump will not leave the White House voluntarily if he loses the 2020 election. One particularly unbiased commentator on a particularly unbiased network claimed that the military would need to be called in to remove Trump from office on Inauguration Day. Roger that…Hooah! But I have a better theory. I think Trump should leave the White House quietly without fanfare soon before the inauguration. Why give credibility to the incoming socialists. Then, sometime before the haters are sworn in and before the inauguration speech, Trump should hold a news conference with Melania from Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, FL to say goodbye and to thank all his supporters.

sarcasm
[ˈsärˌkazəm]
NOUN
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

P.S. I was pretty tough on Sen. Ted Cruz in many of my posts during the runup to the 2016 election. I admit I misjudged his character and I offer this apology. Sen. Cruz has since been a steadfast defender of the president’s agenda and conservative principles unlike many other so-called republicans. I suppose at the time I was as unacquainted with Sen. Cruz as he was of Trump.

I was also justifiably tough on civil rights attorney Leo Terrell. Terrell, a frequent guest on Fox News talk shows, had the annoying habit of filibustering other guests with whom he disagreed. He also had a habit of talking over the host. But that was then, now Leo Terrell, known as “Leo 2.0” on Fox News, is an ardent supporter of republicans and Donald Trump. He is just as passionate now as he was then, but now he is respectful of other guests and hosts. If you don’t believe what I’m saying, watch any current interview with Terrell and then watch an interview with Christopher Hahn…the contrast couldn’t be more obvious.

GOD & the Gods: Runes

I first became interested in runes, and Stonehenge for that matter, after viewing the film, Curse of the Demon sometime during childhood. The film concerns a highly skeptical scientist portrayed by Dana Andrews who specializes in debunking claims of the supernatural who ironically finds himself confronted by a demonic death curse passed to him by an adept occultist on a parchment containing runic symbols.

The black and white film Curse of the Demon is a British production released in 1958 in the U.S. but was released in the U.K. in its original longer runtime in 1957 as Night of the Demon. This film may seem quaint to modern audiences who have been jaded after being exposed to years of TV watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Vampire Diaries, and of course Supernatural but I think this film is worth watching if for nothing else than to get a glimpse into the hidden risks associated with necromancy and demonolatry.

As might have been expected, none of the references I’ve chosen to use for this writing have even come close to mentioning the use of runes in offensive or demonic ways. To the contrary, Evelyn Green in hir Runes for Beginners book, promotes the “ethical and safe magic”1 that can be derived from runic practices while at the same time acknowledging that runes “were believed to be a good method to help communicate between us here on earth and the supernatural, and many times they were used in spells to provide success or protection.”2 And so, if there are ethical and safe rune uses, then it stands to reason that there are unethical and harmful uses as well.

The ethical and safe uses of runic divination and magic that Evelyn Green and other writers have advocated are to provide the [rune] reader or some other person with guidance or help in navigating life’s path, that is, to “gain insight into a situation or an answer to their questions.”3 Runes don’t provide direct answers to questions put to them, they merely provide hints leaving the reader holding the bag so to speak.4 In other words, runes aren’t used for fortune telling or predicting the future since the “future isn’t really fixed”5 or as it was carved on a wooden table, “No Fate.” The following excerpts from Green’s book explain it best:

Before you start to use these runes to help with divination, it is important to understand that what rune readings present to us is not going to be a prediction of fate that we can’t change at all. Instead, a successful type of divination, no matter what kind you use, will be able to provide us with a snapshot at the present moment. It will show us what unseen factors are going on in our situation and can point to the most likely outcome based on the course of action that we are currently on.

This makes them unique. They do not control your destiny, and you can always choose the path that you want to take rather than following this. There is still an element of free will that comes with these. And they are not seen as a form of fortune telling, so they are different from some of the other options that are out there.6

Occasionally though, the writers reveal, however subtly, what is really going on with runic divination practices when they make claims such as, “you can easily override any information about that rune if there is intuition that tells you the meaning should be something different. This is the other realm talking to you and trying to get your attention about what is right and what is not for your own experience.”7

In the context of the runes, the Norse concept of free will allows for actions in the present to affect outcomes in the future, that is, there is no hard and fast concept of a pre-determined destiny since people are capable of changing certain aspects of their fate.8 Do I detect a strain of Norse mythology hypocrisy? Doesn’t the Norse belief in the mythological Ragnarök contradict any notion of free will since not even the gods will be able to prevent it from happening?

On the other hand, Iva Kenaz writes that Odin’s wife Frigg “was naturally clairvoyant, could see beyond the surface of things, and foretell the future.”9 I believe Chamberlain may be incorrect in her assertion about free will and the Norse concept of fate since even the Roman historian Tacitus wrote that “the ancient Germanic peoples believed that there was something sacred in women and that they had a gift to foresee future events.”10

So, based on Norse mythology and Tacitus’ writings, are women more inclined to be adept runemasters? Well, according to Iva Kenaz, “women seem to access their unconscious better”11 which may coincide with the intuition that Green referenced. Chamberlain adds that in addition to having a “special aptitude for magical work,”12 the practitioner is required to dedicate themselves to a certain amount of “study and discipline.”13 Or, it may just be that women have been so predisposed since creation. (Gen. 3:6)

Free will and fortunetelling are mutually exclusive concepts because how can you foresee something that may or may not actually happen? The ability to foresee the future is only possible if that future is already pre-determined. Free will is the fortuneteller’s malpractice insurance. As Chamberlain has written, “when it comes to reading the runes—if there were no way to have any affect [sic] on future outcomes, then why bother with divination, or any other form of magic, in the first place?”14 I agree, why bother?

Divination is not exclusively relegated to the domain of the occult. A form of divination was used by the apostles when they cast lots to determine who would replace Judas. (Acts 1:26) The casting of lots is synonymous with the casting of runes according to Vivienne Grant’s book.15 As it was, the apostles called upon the name of the Lord before they cast lots. (Acts 1:24-25 NASB) I wonder who runemasters call upon?

This post on the runes is actually an addendum to my two previous posts on the Celts and Norsemen since the origins and uses of the runes have been traced back to both cultures.

While the exact origins of the runes are the subject of debate, the Norse people have no doubt as to their origin, they were a gift from the gods16 to “Alfadir, Alfadir, or Allfather, Odin.”17 Chamberlain even goes so far to say that “the runes are eternal—they have always existed.”18

On the other hand, historians seem to lean towards the theory that the runes originated with the “Goths, a race of East-Germanic people.”19

The common thread that runs through the translations of our English word rune in all cultures are the words: “secret,” “whisper,” and “mystery.”20 21 Chamberlain adds the words: “magic,” and even “spells or incantations” to the list of definitions.22

The occult nature of the runes precluded their use as a general writing system for communications in the vernacular but were instead used as “magical signs”23 and eventually as a “tool of divination.”24 Runes were used for magical purposes long before they were used as a writing system.25

The runes are a cipher and would be useless to anyone who didn’t possess the necessary decryption key.

Some scholars trace the word ‘rune’ back even further to the prehistoric Proto-Indo-European language, which is believed to be the ancestor of many later ancient languages. These linguistic roots pre-date the use of runic characters for writing, which tells us that runes belonged to the world of mystery and magic well before they became a system of writing. Indeed, as we will see throughout this guide, their role as a means of ordinary communication barely scratches the surface of what these ancient symbols were—and still are—capable of.26

While most people in today’s popular culture would associate the Celts or Celtic culture with Ireland, the Celts as a people occupied a significant portion of Western Europe including northern Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and France (Gaul) along with the United Kingdom. In fact, the Gallic people, as they were known to the Romans, actually referred to themselves as Celts according to Julius Caesar’s writings as early as the 1st century BC.27 According to scholars, what unified the “disparate ancestral tribal cultures”28 together was their written language—the Lepontic runes.29

Figure 1. Rune Stone, St. Paul’s Cathedral, London

We will see that it is language that reveals the modern notion of a uniquely characterized, fleshed out, and identifiable Celtic cultural identity, defined by shared similarities among languages, classical texts, works of art, tangible historic artifacts, and even social organization and mythology.30

According to various sources on Celtic spirituality, more than 700 Celtic gods have been identified from Gaul, and while these were local gods, they were not part of an official pantheon.31

As I discussed in my earlier post on the Celts, many of the gods and goddesses such as the Scottish goddess Brighid could “shift between various animal forms, such as snakes and cattle.”32 In addition, the theme of “triplicity”33 was prevalent in Celtic spirituality as some important deities would appear in sets of three.34

According to Thompson, “the earliest records of runes date back to 150AD”35 Thompson also claims that the runic alphabets were originally derived from “Old Italic”36 alphabets since their existence can be traced back several hundred years before the establishment of the Germanic runic alphabet.37

Runic script is composed of 24 letters divided into three groups of eight called aettir or families. The oldest script called the Elder Futhark was derived from the old Germanic alphabet.38 The first six letters of the alphabet “sounded like f, u, th, a, r, and k, giving the alphabet its distinct name: futhark.”39

Contrary to conventional wisdom, “Germanic tribes were peaceful, lived in harmony with nature, and had a special relationship with the dense, dark forests” according to the Roman historian Tacitus.40 The Germanic tribes connected with or worshiped local nature deities who were considered kindred spirits with the people unlike the Roman gods and goddesses who were part of an official ascendant pantheon.41

Kenaz writes that the runes belong to the geometry of creation:

The runic characters are made from crossing and triangular shapes, and they can all be derived from the six-fold pattern of the hexagon, hexagram, and the six-pointed star, also known as the snowflake pattern, which has actually been a common depiction of the Tree of Life throughout ancient history.42

Kenaz continues with hir claim that the Germanic and Norse peoples probably represented the Yggdrasil or Tree of Life as a six-pointed star which is derived from the Flower of Life—the blueprint of creation.43

Kenaz in hir book, Runes: Magical Codes of Nature provides a lengthy discussion of how the runes, frozen water molecules, DNA and other phenomenon are related to the Flower of Life geometrical pattern. An in-depth study of Sacred Geometry is beyond the scope of this post; however, I tried a simple experiment using the snowflake pattern in Figures 2 and 3. Note that I followed the rules for Germanic runes in that there are no horizonal lines, only vertical and diagonal strokes.44

Figure 2. Six-Pointed Star
Figure 3. Hooked Cross

A final thought concerning runes. Was Jesus writing on the ground in cipher when the scribes and Pharisees challenged Him to condemn the woman taken in adultery? (John 8:1-11) The Scripture doesn’t give us an explanation as to what Jesus was writing, to whom He was writing, or why He was writing what He was writing. Could it have been some form of ancient runic script? We just don’t know.

As the Scripture teaches, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God.” (Deut. 29:29)


  1. Green, Evelyn. Runes for Beginners: The Complete and Practical Guide to Read and Interpret Runes in Divination and Magic, and Discover the Meaning and Secrets of the Elder Futhark Alphabet. Kindle Edition. 

  2. Ibid. 

  3. Ibid. 

  4. Ibid. 

  5. Ibid. 

  6. Ibid. 

  7. Ibid. 

  8. Chamberlain, Lisa. Runes for Beginners: A Guide to Reading Runes in Divination, Rune Magic, and the Meaning of the Elder Futhark Runes (p. 16). Chamberlain Publications. Kindle Edition. 

  9. Kenaz, Iva. Runes: Magical Codes of Nature (p. 58). Kindle Edition. 

  10. Ibid., 66. 

  11. Ibid., 58. 

  12. Chamberlain, Runes for Beginners, 19. 

  13. Ibid. 

  14. Ibid., 16. 

  15. Grant, Vivienne. Runes for Beginners: Your Complete Beginner’s Guide to Reading Runes in Magic and Divination. Kindle Edition. 

  16. Thompson, Sarah. Runes: Learn Everything about: Runes, Celtic Religions and Celtic History (Viking History, Norse Mythology, Celtic, Wicca, Divination, Fortune Telling, Celtic Religions) (p. 14). Kindle Edition. 

  17. Grant, Runes for Beginners. 

  18. Chamberlain, Runes for Beginners, 14. 

  19. Grant, Runes for Beginners. 

  20. Thompson, Runes: Learn Everything about, 14. 

  21. Chamberlain, Runes for Beginners, 5. 

  22. Ibid. 

  23. Green, Runes for Beginners. 

  24. Ibid. 

  25. Chamberlain, Runes for Beginners, 1. 

  26. Ibid., 5-6. 

  27. Thompson, Runes: Learn Everything about, 79. 

  28. Ibid., 80. 

  29. Ibid. 

  30. Ibid., 81. 

  31. Ibid., 123. 

  32. Ibid., 121. 

  33. Ibid., 117. 

  34. Ibid. 

  35. Ibid., 8. 

  36. Ibid., 15. 

  37. Ibid. 

  38. Green, Runes for Beginners. 

  39. Grant, Runes for Beginners. 

  40. Kenaz, Runes: Magical Codes of Nature, 14. 

  41. Ibid. 

  42. Ibid., 31. 

  43. Ibid., 34. 

  44. Thompson, Runes: Learn Everything about, 15-16. 

The Godhead as an Aggregate Class

Most Christians will, at one time or another, find themselves in a situation where they will be forced to defend their belief in the Godhead or Trinity. Their defense will most likely go something like this, “God is one God who exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” I’ve used this approach in the past myself because it’s the defense we’ve all heard from the pulpit thousands of times. However, to most non-Christians especially Jews and Muslims, this explanation is inadequate and sounds too scripted—i.e., just another pat answer.

The universally accepted notion of the Christian Godhead existing as one God in three persons doesn’t adequately represent the special and unique relationship between God as Father and Jesus as Son. In addition, the Trinity doesn’t address the problem of Melchizedek who was the first of a priestly Order that bears His name.

The foundational theory for this writing was initially presented in my “GOD & the Gods” series inaugural blog entry, “One God”. However, in this writing, I propose to refine and expand on the ideas presented in that former blog post by demonstrating that the notion of the Godhead can be expressed as an aggregate class.

I concede that any attempt to explain spiritual or religious beliefs using concepts derived from computer science and object-oriented programming and design is ambitious to say the least. Nevertheless, I believe it works since it makes sense to model the abstract using tools and techniques designed for that purpose namely the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and the Object Modeling Technique (OMT) developed and published by Rumbaugh, et. al.1

This blog post models the Godhead using the following four fundamental object-oriented terms and concepts: class, object, inheritance, and instantiation. In the context of this writing, class is the abstraction whereas object is the actual thing or in this context, the actual person. In computer programming parlance, instantiation means to create an instance of an object, in other words, the creation or realization of the abstraction or class.

This discussion on object-oriented terminology may seem too techy for some readers but these basic concepts are necessary in order to understand the primary focus of this writing which is aggregation. It’s important to remember that for the remainder of this blog post, the terms “object” and “person” are synonymous because the term “object” in this discussion will always refer to persons specifically, not things in general.

The main problem which needs to be addressed before a meaningful model of the Godhead can be developed is how to deal with Melchizedek. In Genesis, Melchizedek appears to Abram and offers him bread and wine and a blessing. Abram responds by offering Melchizedek a “tenth of all” (Gen. 14:20 NASB) or tithe. The parallels that can be drawn between Jesus and Melchizedek because of the offering of bread and wine are unmistakable which led most writers and theologians to classify Melchizedek as a Christophany—the visible and bodily manifestation of Christ before His incarnation.

I believe the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches that Melchizedek, king of Salem, was a person of the Godhead when he wrote, “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.” (Heb. 6:20) I also believe the writer of Hebrews deliberately, under inspiration, made a point to mention Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy so as to draw a distinction between Melchizedek and Jesus whose genealogy was well documented by Matthew and Luke. In addition, the phrase “made like the Son of God” clearly indicates that Melchizedek took on human form as did Jesus but unlike Jesus, he came into being without having been born of a human mother.

The Christophany interpretation fits right in with those who hold to a Trinitarian view of the Godhead because if Melchizedek was a person of Divine origin and not simply a manifestation of Christ then that would upset their entire belief system. This Trinitarian bias is evident in the NASB translator’s Hebrews Chapter 7 heading which is, “Melchizedek’s Priesthood Like Christ’s” which implies Melchizedek’s priesthood proceeded Christ’s earthly ministry when in fact it preceded Christ’s earthly ministry as the writer of Hebrews states: “where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb. 6:20) The reader should be aware that chapter and verse divisions in our Bible translations were not in the original autographs and are therefore not inspired.

Finally, according to the writer of Hebrews, both Melchizedek and Jesus remain priests forever and that Jesus’ genealogy was not of the tribe of Levi but of Judah, a tribe which Moses never spoke concerning priests (Heb. 7:14) therefore Jesus was made a priest forever by prophetic decree:

The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.’ (Ps. 110:4)

The special relationship that exists between the Father and the Son is documented in detail throughout the Gospel of John. The following are just a few examples that illustrate this special relationship:

Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me’ (John 8:42)

‘For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.’ (John 12:49)

‘Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.’ (John 14:10)

The traditional Trinitarian view of the Son as being co-equal with the Father and the Comforter as separate persons of the Godhead neglects to consider the obvious reciprocal relationship that exists between Father and Son.

‘All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.’ (Matt. 11:27)

The UML (Unified Modeling Language) diagram for the Trinitarian view of the Godhead is presented in Figure 1.

Trinitarian Godhead Model
Figure 1. Trinitarian Godhead Model

As illustrated in Figure 1 above, the three subclasses: Father, Son, and Comforter all inherit attributes from the Godhead superclass. Only four attributes are shown in the Godhead symbol because a detailed discussion of Divine attributes are beyond the scope of this writing.

As the Trinitarian model demonstrates, any instantiation (actualization) of one of the subclasses is not dependent on any of the other subclasses. In other words, God the Father can exist without God the Son existing or without God the Comforter existing. The actual instantiations of the three subclasses are not shown in Figure 1, however the implication is YHVH is instantiated from Father, Jesus is instantiated from Son, and the Holy Spirit is instantiated from Comforter where all three instantiations make up the traditional view of the Trinity.

Note that Melchizedek could not be instantiated from any subclass shown in Figure 1 since a Priest class had not been taken into consideration.

The Trinitarian model, as defended by Christianity—one God in three persons—is easily attacked by Jews and Muslims as being polytheistic since it would appear to allow multiple individual Gods to be instantiated from the Godhead superclass.

The UML diagram for the improved aggregate view of the Godhead is presented in Figure 2.

Aggregate Godhead Model
Figure 2. Aggregate Godhead Model

Figure 2 presents a more biblical representation of the Godhead since a Priest subclass is included along with the expected Father, Son, and Comforter subclasses. The model shows that the Godhead superclass shown in the first level of the model is an aggregate of the subclasses in the second level of the model. Aggregation says that if multiple objects “are tightly bound by a part-whole relationship, it is an aggregation.”2 Another way aggregation can be tested is by applying the phrase, “part of”3 or “a-part-of”4 to a relationship. So, in our model in Figure 2 we can say Son is a-part-of Father, and Father, Priest, and Comforter are collectively a-part-of Godhead.

Rumbaugh, et. al. further defines aggregation as an “and-relationship”5 so that given the model in Figure 2 we can say that Godhead is made up of {Father and Son}, and Priest, and Comforter—a class trinity.

I chose to name the Holy Spirit’s subclass “Comforter” which is the rendering of “paraklêtos” in the King James Version of the Bible. I could have also used “Helper” as rendered from the Greek in the New American Standard Bible and other newer translations. However, I believe “Comforter” adds a compassionate dimension to “Helper.”

In addition, I’ve extended the UML notation by adding instantiation to the model. Instantiation is shown by dotted lines with open arrowheads pointing to each of the four person symbols labeled with each person’s actual name.

As demonstrated in this blog post, the notion of One God who exists in three persons is not as simple and straightforward a concept as many would have you believe. There is a reason the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible.


  1. Rumbaugh, James, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy, W. Lorensen, Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1991), 16-17. 

  2. Ibid., 58. 

  3. Ibid. 

  4. Ibid., 59. 

  5. Ibid. 

The New Communism—Without Religion or God

Bob Avakian in all his talks and writings continues to promote the new communism as the emancipator of humanity. Without religion or God, Avakian attempts to persuade the masses to put their faith in the scientific method and dialectical materialism for their salvation, not in the hereafter but in the here and now.

In his book entitled, Away with All Gods! Avakian argues that God, as revealed in the Bible, doesn’t exist because how can a loving, all powerful god allow tragedies and suffering to afflict mankind? Avakian also states that if such a god existed, “it would be a cruel, vicious, sick, twisted, and truly monstrous god”1 [emphasis added] that no “sane and decent”2 person would want to follow or worship. This is the age-old argument that every atheist and agnostic has used to attack God and the People of the Book.

On the other hand, Christians of all denominations have struggled with the problem of how to reconcile the fact that God seems to allow human suffering while at the same time professing to love His creation. Apologetics, as a branch of theology, has attempted to reconcile these two apparent mutually exclusive aspects of God’s character. However, what most pundits fail to factor into the equation is the holiness of God. It’s not surprising since we, as the Church, have largely fallen away from realizing God’s holiness because we are too caught up by the world system; we are more of the world than we are in the world.

Even so, Avakian is clever enough to use an obscure incident from the Old Testament book of 2 Samuel 24 to convince his readers of how monstrous God really is.3 Avakian was obviously aware that most people, including Christians, wouldn’t be familiar with the particular verses in 2 Samuel which would make it easier for him to catch his readers off guard. The incident that Avakian is pointing out is where David was incited to conduct a census because of God’s anger against Israel in order to force God’s hand. The back reference for 2 Samuel 24 is in Exodus.

The LORD also spoke to Moses, saying,

When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them. (Exod. 30:11-12, NASB)

Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD.

The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves. (Exod. 30:14-15)

David was fully aware that if he conducted the census without collecting the required ransom or contribution from the people as God commanded in Exodus, God would be forced to send a plague as a judgement upon Israel.

In 1966, John Lennon made the following remark concerning the Beatles, “We’re more popular than Jesus…” Lennon wasn’t being idealistic when he made that remark, he was basing it more on dialectical materialism. However, in today’s political climate, Hitler has replaced Jesus in popularity. In this respect, Avakian was ahead of the curve because in his book published in 2008, he wasted no time accusing Christian fundamentalists as being Christian fascists and associating them with Hitler.4

It’s interesting that whenever a left-wing extremist accuses someone or something as being fascist, they always bring up Hitler, not Mussolini—the father of fascism. I wonder why that is? Could it be that it would be embarrassing if people knew that Charles Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy, among others were fascist sympathizers,5 and that Columbia University’s Casa Italiana was once controlled by Mussolini supporters?6 Fascism is statism, and communism is emancipation. Fascist economic systems are corporatist, but in communist society, there are no classes in that the proletariat owns everything which really means no one owns anything.

Avakian makes a valid point when he accuses hypocritical fundamentalist Christian fascists of insisting that people obey the Ten Commandments while otherwise ignoring other aspects of the Mosaic Law. Avakian labels this tendency as “Salad Bar”7 Christianity. Rightly so, since not only are the Ten Commandments still in effect, but the entire Law as given in the Old Testament of the Bible is still in effect—forever.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29) [emphasis added]

Jesus Himself affirms the Law, as given in the Old Testament, is still in effect.

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matt. 5:17-18)

As a “Salad Bar” Christian myself, I usually pass on the salad and go straight for the strong meat. (Heb. 5:12 GenevaBible)

Avakian deviates from his tactic of misinterpreting obscure Scripture verses such as 2 Samuel to attack God and Christianity directly using Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific method. Avakian repeats all the typical progressive talking points used to defend evolution such as, “evolution has for some time been a settled question.”8 Evolution is a settled question like the Big Bang theory is a settled question. Like it or not, organic evolution like the Big Bang theory are examples of historical science, not operational science.9

In his book, Away with All Gods! Avakian bases a significant portion of his objections to the Bible by presenting the viewpoints of Bart D. Ehrman, Chairman of the Religious Studies Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.10 Avakian is quick to point out Ehrman’s authoritative credentials since Ehrman is himself a former evangelical fundamentalist.11

Ehrman zeroes in on many accusations and criticisms of the Bible but I’ve decided not to address each of those criticisms and accusations individually, but instead, I’ve provided excerpts from Tom V. Taylor’s class handouts from a Bible history course I took at Biblical Theological Seminary in 1991. The following excerpts provide answers, either directly or in some cases indirectly, for many of the questions people have concerning our English Bible.

None of the original manuscripts survive and if they did men would worship them instead of the Lord. We feel the Lord has been pleased to give us very good copies…it is a technical study, but very good copies.

The work of translation is hard work because no two languages have identical vocabularies…and few even have identical alphabets…In addition many languages did not have some of the word ideas that are in the Bible (like redemption) and translators had to assess what speech idiom in a language would make this meaningful to the people of that place.

(Note: we do not change the Bible we change the translation of it…the rendering of it…to meet new concepts and societies.)

That is the beauty of the Bible. God gave us a book of truth that retains its character and meaning for life in spite of the many translations…these helping to make the biblical message relevant and meaningful from age to age.

The Word of God is the inscripturated message, not the individual translation. We may apply the term to any translation in a general sense because it contains the inscripturated message but if someone says well…’Did God actually write these words?’ the answer is ‘No, these are the words into which the God breathed message has been put by men for the people of their language and culture.’ They should be careful, of course, but they were not working under inspiration (technical inspiration of 2 Timothy 3:16) and are simply doing the best they can to serve God and His people.

It is also true that some heretics have translated the Bible and changed its basic thrust at some points to support their teachings. Naturally we are not going to endorse any such works but it is surprising that even in some of these books the inscripturated message of salvation and grace can still be seen.

The bottom line is that only the original manuscripts were “inspired” or God breathed. But what about “inerrancy,” i.e., nothing contrary to fact and “infallibility,” i.e., incapable of teaching error. If there are any errors in a Bible translation, they are due to “translation or an insufficient current body of knowledge,”12 as Taylor’s class handouts have implied. And according to the Ligonier Ministries’ website, “We can have inerrancy without infallibility, but we cannot have infallibility without inerrancy.”13

Practically speaking, whether or not our current Bible translations are infallible or incapable of teaching error, is dependent on whether or not the translators were working from an agenda. That is, if the translators were faithful to the best available manuscripts then the results of their efforts would be infallible but still not technically inerrant, again, as Taylor seems to imply from his class handouts. Nevertheless, “through the process of textual criticism, we can recover the original wording of the manuscripts with a high degree of certainty.”14

Slavery was abolished in the United States on December 18, 1865, but if you listen to Avakian you would think that slavery is still being practiced in America and that God, the Bible, and Christianity are responsible. Contrary to the nonsense that Avakian is peddling, nowhere in the Bible is slavery encouraged or promoted. The Bible references slavery because the practice was widespread during the times in which the books of the Bible were written. As a matter of fact, the Bible gives strict guidance on how masters were to treat their slaves and how slaves where to behave towards their masters. Slaves were not without rights in the Scripture as revealed in the following verses: Exod. 21:2, 21:20, 21:27, 23:12; Deut. 23:15-16; and Prov. 30:10.

In Matt. 8:9, Jesus heals the centurion’s servant or slave.

And then there’s the story of the runaway slave Onesimus who was ministering to Paul in prison and whom Paul sent back to his master with a letter. In the letter, Paul writes:

For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever,

no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. (Philem. 1:15-17 NASB)

Jesus makes frequent use of the master/slave relationship in many of His parables as an analogy for the type of relationship He desires between Himself and His followers. (Matt. 24-25)

Since Avakian has irrefutably discredited God, the Bible, and Christianity, there is no reason to debate unchangeable human nature since it doesn’t exist according to Avakian.15 He further asserts that all the conflicts, tragedies, and injustices that have occurred in human history are all a result of the “system.”16 If you remove the spiritual dimension from human beings, then humans are no more than cogs in the machine. Okay, so were John Mauchly and Presper Eckert, the actual inventors of the world’s first digital electronic computer, cogs in the machine? Or how about William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Houser Brattain, the inventors of the transistor, were they just cogs in a machine? I could go on but you see my point. The capitalist system, which communists hate so much, is responsible for bringing about all the major innovations that the world now takes for granted. Would these innovations been possible under a system that promotes a “do as you’re told” work ethic?

Avakian, along with all other good communists, would like you to believe that God, the Bible, and Christians are all against science. Well, I doubt that Avakian is familiar with Donald E. Knuth, computer scientist, mathematician, and professor emeritus at Stanford University who is most famous for his The Art of Computer Programming multi-volume book series. In addition to his computer science and mathematics writings, Knuth is also a student and teacher of the Scriptures. He has written a book, 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated that is the result of his unique Bible study approach which he describes as “stratified sampling.”17 By using this mathematical principle, Knuth believed that “A large body of information can be comprehended reasonably well by studying more or less random portions of the data.”18

As a result, Knuth ‘randomly’ decided on Chapter 3, verse 16 from each book of the Bible given that John 3:16 is so well known and because he felt it would be easier for his class to remember.19 After allowing for books that don’t have 16 verses in Chapter 3 and for books that don’t even have a Chapter 3, Knuth arrived at 59 instances of the 3:16 rule.20 In addition, Knuth decided to provide his own translation for each of the selected verses even though he isn’t a Greek or Hebrew scholar.21 Considering the translations, commentary, and calligraphy, I think the results were impressive, particularly John 3:16 as follows (minus the calligraphic flourish):

Yes, God loved the world so much that He gave His only child, so that all people with faith in Him can escape destruction and live forever.22

 


  1. Bob Avakian, Away with All Gods!, (Insight Press, Chicago, 2008), 6. 

  2. Ibid., 6. 

  3. Ibid., 4-5. 

  4. Ibid., 16. 

  5. Gerard Sczepura, “American Fascism,” Theological Ruminations (blog), August 21, 2017,  https://gerardsczepura.com/myblog/american-fascism/

  6. Ibid. 

  7. Avakian, Away With all Gods!, 32. 

  8. Ibid., 44. 

  9. “’Evolution Is a Fact.’ Argument 1,” Answers In Genesis, October 17, 2017, https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-is-a-fact/

  10. Avakian, Away With all Gods!, 61. 

  11. Ibid. 

  12. “Inerrancy vs Infallibility: A Theological Primer,” We Talk of Holy Things, accessed April 02, 2020, http://www.wetalkofholythings.com/2013/03/inerrancy-vs-infallibility-theological.html

  13. “Infallibility and Inerrancy,” Ligonier Ministries, accessed April 02, 2020, https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/infallibility-and-inerrancy/

  14. Ibid. 

  15. Avakian, Away With all Gods!, 226. 

  16. Ibid. 

  17. Donald E. Knuth, 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated, (Madison, Wisconsin, A-R Editions, Inc., 1991), 3. 

  18. Ibid. 

  19. Ibid., 5. 

  20. Ibid., 7. 

  21. Ibid., 8. 

  22. Ibid., 171. 

The New Communism—The Architect

You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism…

Nikita Khrushchev

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

Karl Marx

In the late Twenties, when I was a sophomore at USC, I was a socialist myself—but not when I left. The average college kid idealistically wishes everybody could have ice cream and cake for every meal. But as he gets older and gives more thought to his and his fellow man’s responsibilities, he finds that it can’t work out that way—that some people just won’t carry their load…

John Wayne

Well, this is my third installment in a series on “The New Communism,” but I haven’t really given a definition of the subject so here is my short answer, it’s just more of the same ol’ same ol’ but my long answer is in the remainder of this installment.

This concept of a new communism is the result of the efforts of Bob Avakian to arrive at a new synthesis of communist theory. The New Communism, also known as Avakian Communism, is a new synthesis grounded in the scientific method of understanding reality known as dialectical materialism.

In communist philosophy, all understanding of the world is based on objective reality or material reality. Therefore, it follows that communists believe “that all of reality, all of existence, is made up of material reality and nothing else.”1 [emphasis added] But Avakian has abridged Marx and Engel’s dialectical materialism by removing any relationship with the spiritual or dependence on faith. In other words, there is no room whatsoever for God or any of the other gods in Avakian’s new communist utopia. Avakian continues arguing for communism as a science based on the understanding that “reality is not static”2 and that “Reality is made up of contradiction.”3

It is not ‘totalitarian’ to say that there is objective reality, that we can engage it and we can transform it. We can learn about it, and, yes, keep on learning, and keep on refining what we’ve learned, and maybe even discard some things. But there is an accumulation of knowledge by proceeding in this kind of way, with this kind of method and approach.4

It’s interesting to point out that the favorite catch phrase climate alarmists use to defend their position against “climate doubters” is that the “science is settled” which, in fact, contradicts the scientific method. Avakian is clever enough to avoid using the term, “climate” outright in his diatribe against capitalism but he nevertheless insinuates capitalism is the cause of climate change when he argues that the current economic system needs to be “transformed”5 so that we don’t “further destroy the potential for human life.“6

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

Progressives, socialists, communists…Avakian believe society can’t advance (progress) under the current economic system. Avakian tries to convince the reader that “socialist society is a dynamic society, in transition, that has to go forward to the complete achievement of communism…”7 Okay, let’s experiment a little and try to apply the scientific method to the discussion of communism as put forward by Avakian in his statement on objective reality above. Given that socialist society is constantly changing and evolving, how does Avakian know that communism would be the ultimate goal? What if the progression towards socialism, then communism, eventually takes you back to capitalism? Hasn’t this outcome already been demonstrated? And, if somehow you do happen to arrive at the “complete achievement of communism,”8 what then?

Okay, so what is the bottom line here with this new synthesis of communism? I believe what Avakian has tried to do in his 424-page book is to say that the scientific method as applied to communism is the realization that reality is comprised of contradiction and motion9 along with the acceptance of the new leadership that has brought this about, i.e., Avakian himself. I believe everyone understands the concept of reality in motion, but what are the contradictions?

Avakian is dogmatic in his insistence that in order for anyone to be a real communist, that person must be a Maoist, “You’re a communist, you’re with Mao. That’s it, baby.”10 Avakian is adamant in his belief that in order for anyone to call themselves a communist they need to follow Mao.11 He defends his position by applying the principles of material reality to Mao’s understanding of communism. That is, Mao believed that since socialist society is a dynamic society, in transition, there will continue to be class struggle, that is, the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoise; and between capitalism and socialism;” and that this “assumed a concentrated expression within the communist party itself…”12 Mao recognized that within the communist party there will be revisionist elements and those desiring to go back down the capitalist road. Mao considered Deng Xiaoping a “capitalist roader.”

In Avakian’s mind, the United States is a capitalist-imperialist society. I use the term “society” because Avakian doesn’t believe in sovereign nations or nation states. Avakian’s Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) is targeting the entire world not just the U.S. for revolution, but the revolution needs to start here, in the U.S.

Was it a coincidence that American essayist, poet, and philosopher Henry David Thoreau published his essay “Civil Disobedience” only one year after Marx and Engels published their Communist Manifesto in 1848?

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation…A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things…

Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

I’ve read Thoreau in college but I don’t remember being taught or told that Thoreau was a revolutionary, but the above quote has a very Marxian ring to it. Thoreau used the phrase “mass of men” and Marx used the term “people” or “masses.” The notion that the mass of men are leading lives of quiet desperation seems to imply that they are being oppressed, a theme not overlooked by Avakian. For Marx, the oppressors were the bourgeois owners of the means of production and for Thoreau the oppressor was or could be the government.

Things do not change; we change.

Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Thoreau breaks with Marxian philosophy and dialectical materialism which proposes that reality is only material and in a constant state of transition. Thoreau, being a New England Transcendentalist, conformed to an idealistic system of thought that rejects the notion that all existence is made up of only material reality.

Avakian is a revolutionary communist, so what is his strategy for achieving the revolution? Avakian’s strategy for revolution is based on Mao’s strategy for resisting the Japanese during their occupation of China during World War II which is “hastening while awaiting.”13

The hastening involves the preparation of the vanguard for revolution. The vanguard being the ones who will be making the sacrifices, i.e., the ones who will be doing the dying. The vanguard is easy to identify, it consists of the members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter along with radicalized college students and those in the Me Too and feminist movements. Let’s not forget those individuals and companies supporting The Resistance, those within the Never Trump movement, and the evangelists for the revolution in the mainstream media and their enablers in the Democratic Party who are spewing out propaganda 24/7. I’m being overly polite here.

So, what about the awaiting? Avakian says that “You have to have the right conditions, the necessary conditions,”14 in order for the revolution to be successful. But what are these conditions? Well, I have a few theories. First of all, the masses need to be convinced that any form of socialism is preferred over free-market capitalism. The second is through a breakdown in law and order so that society starts to go adrift. And thirdly, last but not least, is the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. Do you really think that the 16 million AR-15s and AKs that could be confiscated in the U.S. would be sent to the crusher? No, I believe that a Federal government firearms confiscation initiative would be nothing more than a redistribution of armaments from those that don’t or won’t support the revolution to those that do.

I have the hardcover version of Bob Avakian’s book, The New Communism, but I also downloaded a PDF version from the REVCOM.US website and I discovered that the word “exploitation” appears 133 times in the text and that the word “oppression” appears 56 times, and “emancipation” appears 51 times. So, what does humanity need to be emancipated from? According to Avakian, it’s capitalism and America’s Christian heritage—a topic which I’ll address in Part 4 of this series.

But what is the nature of all the “horrors”15 and “horrendous outrages”16 that the masses are forced to endure according to Avakian? While he doesn’t really elaborate on those things, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to infer what they might be.

Avakian’s Revolutionary Communist Party seems to believe that all of humanity needs to be emancipated from the following:

  • Capitalism
  • Religions
  • Police/Military
  • Private Property
  • Free Speech
  • Individualism
  • Sovereign States
  • Traditional Family and Social Structures
  • Currency

You get the picture. Of course, none of this is really new, all these things have been under attack by the progressives since the 1960s at least. Back then, the radicals were all for free speech because political correctness and revisionist history weren’t being taught in colleges and universities, but that has been completely reversed on today’s college campuses.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” The current COVID-19 pandemic panic is a perfect example. I’ve lived through many flu outbreaks and pandemics in my lifetime: H2N2, Influenza A/B, H3N2, H5N1, and H1N1. During the H2N2 outbreak during the 1968-1969 flu season there were approximately 100,000 deaths in the U.S. I graduated high-school in 1968 and I don’t remember anyone really being concerned at all; life went on as usual. But today, there have been 276 deaths from COVID-19 and the entire country is shut down. What’s different?

Don’t be deceived. The last thing The Resistance wants is for the economy to recover before the 2020 Presidential Election. Let’s hope that Remdesivir, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, and other drugs don’t prove to be effective treatments for COVID-19 so that the panic continues, the country stays in lockdown, and the economy continues to tank. Otherwise…well you know what will happen.

Maybe The New York Times is correct, maybe this really is the “Trumpvirus.”


  1. Bob Avakian, The New Communism, (Insight Press, Chicago, 2016), 40. 

  2. Ibid., 45. 

  3. Ibid. 

  4. Ibid., 95. 

  5. Ibid., 156. 

  6. Ibid., 90. 

  7. Ibid., 86. 

  8. Ibid. 

  9. Ibid., 92. 

  10. Ibid., 87. 

  11. Ibid. 

  12. Ibid., 86. 

  13. Ibid., 193. 

  14. Ibid., 198. 

  15. Ibid., 9. 

  16. Ibid. 

The New Communism—The Influencers

This morning while starting to write this post, I happened to notice the following news headline on my iPhone:

AOC pushes ‘democratic socialist’ foreign policy: More ‘decolonization,’ less ‘exploitation’

AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) goes on to say in the article that the U.S. needs to “ramp up its climate efforts” and leave behind its legacy of imperialism, colonialism, exploitation, & ‘security state.’ She emphatically declares that “TRADE POLICY IS CLIMATE POLICY.”

Unless I’m missing the point here, AOC wants the U.S. to abandon its imperialistic approach to foreign policy and at the same time, dictate how sovereign nations should conform to ‘climate benchmarks’ imposed on them through their trade agreements with the U.S.

Sounds contradictory but this is exactly how the new communists want to expand their revolution globally by using the United States as a role model for the rest of the world. But in order for that to happen in a moral and material way, the “system,” meaning our society, must be totally transformed, not reformed, from a capitalist society into a communist society.

Lately, many of the commentators and contributors on Fox News opinion/news shows on the Web, particularly Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Tucker Carlson, have been at a loss to explain why the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates are endorsing such extreme policies. Many have stated that the current Democratic Party is unrecognizable from the party of JFK, Clinton, and even BHO. In reality, the Democratic Party has become the New Socialist Democratic Party. Many blame the influence of AOC and the other members of The Squad but I believe these new mainstream democrats are a product of the ideology espoused by radicals from the 1960s and are being influenced today by the New Communism and its architect, Bob Avakian.

Bob Avakian
Bob Avakian
https://revcom.us

So, who the heck is Bob Avakian? I never heard of him until recently when I stumbled upon the REVCOM.US (REVolutionary COMmunist?) website. What particularly struck me on the site was the introduction to a writing by Avakian, “Hope For Humanity On A Scientific Basis Breaking with Individualism, Parasitism and American Chauvinism.” It was enough to get me interested, so I clicked around and found a video of a dialog between Cornel West and Bob Avakian that took place in 2014 at the Riverside Church in NYC. I was familiar with Cornel West from his somewhat infrequent appearances on both Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity episodes on Fox News. Needless to say, Avakian’s 2-hour screed was laced with total and complete hatred for God, the United States, and Israel.

BREAKING NEWS: Vladimir Putin successful in changing the minds of thousands of voters and caucus goers in the early democratic primaries to vote against Joe Biden in an unprecedented bid to solidify Donald Trump’s re-election chances in 2020.

Does that headline sound outrageous? Not really, since this is the news ticker that CNN and MSDNC are dying to run. Let’s face it, if Putin, did in fact, attempt to influence our elections in Donald Trump’s favor then Russia would be America’s best friend.

Ever wonder where Antifa got its inspiration from? Well, my guess is that it was from Avakian and from the extreme content headlines on the REVCOM.us website. Many headlines on their website declare that America is Fascist and is ruled by a Fascist Regime. In the Avakian article, “Fascists and Communists: Completely Opposed and Worlds Apart,” Avakian provides his version of what fascism means through what he calls the “5 Stops.” I’ll take his “5 Stops” all of which are don’ts and give my interpretation of what Avakian is really saying in the form of do’s:

STOP #1: Release all incarcerated people of color, particularly black and brown people, restrain the police from stopping and interrogating any person of color, and avoid prosecution of same.

STOP #2: Prevent all biological males, particularly Caucasian Christian males, from holding any position of authority.

STOP #3: Downsize the military with the ultimate goal of eliminating the service branches altogether.

STOP #4: Eliminate all immigration enforcement agencies and open the borders to anyone and everyone.

STOP #5: Discontinue all forms of human activity that produces CO2 with the ultimate goal of eliminating human activity altogether.

In order to support my aforementioned conclusions, I’ve gleaned the following notes from viewing the film, REVOLUTION AND RELIGION: The Fight for Emancipation and the Role of Religion; A Dialogue Between CORNEL WEST & BOB AVAKIAN.

  • Morality is a human creation
  • Bible supports slavery
  • God is a bloodthirsty tyrant
  • The “system” i.e., capitalism, is the problem
  • Israel conducts genocide against the Palestinians
  • There is no such thing as immigrants
  • No need for police or the military
  • Reality is evolution, creation is a myth
  • Evolution is science
  • Science can put an end to suffering
  • Police are murderers
  • Majority of the world are suffering
  • Thomas Jefferson was not moral
  • The United States is an empire
  • The CIA is an organization of mass murderers
  • Communism is an international movement
  • America doesn’t come first
  • Capitalism is the cause of climate change
  • People in the streets can bring about change (mob rule?)

The above points are just a sampling of Avakian’s 2-hour rant from the Riverside Church in NYC. Bob Avakian was billed as a Revolutionary Communist and Cornel West as a Revolutionary Christian. After Avakian spoke he introduced Cornel West and both men embraced in a show of solidarity.

Dr. Cornel West
Dr. Cornel West
http://cornelwest.com

During Dr. West’s time at the podium, he recognized Harry Belafonte in the audience who he introduced as a freedom fighter with 60 years of participation in the struggle. Of course, most people would accredit Harry Belafonte as being “One of the most successful Jamaican-American pop stars in history,” being “dubbed the ‘King of Calypso’ for popularizing the Caribbean musical style with an international audience in the 1950s.” I guess he did all right for himself considering all the exploitation and oppression he had to overcome.

Dr. West’s 30-minute discourse was nothing like Avakian’s 2-hour rant, it was very academic and high-minded while staying within the democratic socialist framework of course. Even so, Dr. West regurgitated much of Avakian’s rhetoric on capitalism, the police, internationalism, oppression, exploitation, and so on and so forth. Even though both men agreed on many economic, social, and political issues, they seemed to disagree strongly on religion and theology. Dr. West is a revolutionary Christian and Avakian is an atheist. Dr. West believes Christians can “work together” with the leaders of the New Communism in order to achieve emancipation for the oppressed in America and the rest of the world.

Dr. West appeared as a guest on The Sean Hannity Show February 20th along with Dan Bongino and Geraldo Rivera. Hannity almost immediately fired out the accusation that Bernie Sanders is “pro-soviet” and a “Bolshevik” but Dr. West defended Bernie by saying that he is “like me,” implying Bernie is a democratic socialist not a “Soviet communist.”

Nevertheless, many are accusing Bernie Sanders of being a communist and if Bernie gets the Democratic nomination, he is going to be in the fight of his political life when he is forced to go up against President Trump. And now, as in 2016, the Democratic establishment is working against Bernie’s nomination because you know it’s getting worrisome when James Carville, a prominent Democratic Party consultant, makes comments like, “I’m a political hack! At least I’m not a communist.”

The New Communism—The Ideologues

Welcome to the first installment of a new Crosshairs series on the 2020 United States presidential election. Unlike the 2016 election where there were 17 Republican candidates, this time the Democrats came out of the woodwork seemingly en masse all vying for the nomination—29 in all. But only one candidate has even the remotest chance to beat Donald Trump, and that candidate isn’t even a Democrat.

With the possible exception of Tulsi Gabbard, the rest of the field are unfortunately members of the lunatic fringe. But this installment doesn’t concern the congresswomen from Hawaii, it concerns the other person who also beat HRC in 2016 and that person is Bernie Sanders.

Okay, so you don’t like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, but what other choice do you have? Well, you might like the candidate with the unpronounceable last name who was the former mayor of one of the most dangerous cities to live in who looks and sounds too perfect, kind of like a 3D printed automaton.

In this field of Democrat candidates, 28 ≠ 1. Yes, some have dropped out of the race, but the inequality will still remain true even when 1 ≠ 1.

It’s hard to believe that five years have gone by since I wrote my first Crosshairs post in a series on the 2016 election. We are now less than a year away from the 2020 election and the only somewhat traditional Democrat running is the previous administration’s vice-president who hasn’t even been able to get his former boss’s endorsement.

Bernie Sanders
Bernie Sanders
mark reinstein/Shutterstock.com

In 2016, Bernie helped Hillary clinch the nomination when he made the stunning yet sympathetic statement, “Americans are sick of hearing about your damn emails!” during one of the debates. Bernie needs to take the old adage, “nice guys finish last” to heart if he wants to go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump.

But this installment isn’t necessarily exclusively about the socialist senator from Vermont, it’s about his ideological underpinnings which I believe are firmly communistic. After all, was it not Vladimir Lenin who said, “The goal of socialism is communism?” But do Bernie Sanders’ supporters really understand the consequences of adopting a socialistic political/economic system in the United States?

Bernie Sanders and most every Democrat, claim to be democratic socialists not socialists. Democratic socialists believe in bringing about change through “fair” elections and not through revolution. That’s why you hear talk about abolishing the Electoral College as a way to achieve “fair” elections along with policies of unrestricted immigration from Mexico and Central America. After all, isn’t it true that under socialism all people are equal? Democracy in a socialist state necessarily leads to the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Okay, just so you know, the Orlando Sentinel is nothing more than a left-wing propaganda rag for the Democratic Party or simply, The Party. Don’t believe it, then check out this biased, hate filled, factually inaccurate, criminally stupid article written by Barbara Fowler asserting that the Russian’s are using President Trump to “destroy America from within.” Yea, but wasn’t Bernie Sanders the one who honeymooned in the former Soviet Union during the 1980s?

The coordination of the media is pervasive, not only nationally but locally as well.

Propaganda won the day for the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution in 1917, and it will win the day again for the Democrats in 2024. As Lenin agitated for revolution among the masses, so it is with certain Hollywood types, academia, and the lamestream (mainstream) media today. Then, the masses were the workers, but today the masses are the sanctioned perpetual victims of systemic racism, white-supremacism, patriarchalism, and Christianism.

Communism…socialism…what’s the difference? I think those socioeconomic systems can be summed up in the following doctrine:

The State gave and the State took away, blessed be the name of the State.

A socialist’s worst nightmare is when a country and its people are prosperous. How can you agitate for revolution when things are going well? The way you agitate for revolution is to create a boogeyman, something to make the gullible and uninformed public seek salvation in the government. And that boogeyman in 2020 is [man-made] climate change. Back in 2007, a politician turned environmental scientist, won the Nobel Peace Prize for promoting the man-made climate change hoax along with the IPCC. Today, we have another potential Nobel Laureate in Greta Thunberg, a teenage Swedish climate activist.

At this point you may be asking yourself, “what does all this climate change stuff have to do with communism?” Well, the answer is it has everything to do with communism, all you need to do to convince yourself is to read H. Res. 109, 2019 which was originally sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Edward Markey. The Green New Deal proposes to achieve “net-zero global emissions by 2050” through a radical transformation of the United States economy. Note that the language states “global emissions” a point that will be revisited in a future post.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
JStone/Shutterstock.com

AOC’s message to the congress and to the voters as laid out in the H. Res. 109 is “It has become necessary to destroy the economy in order to save it.”

Until recently, the American character has been one of self-reliance and individualism but is rapidly becoming one of collectivism and conformity.

If you’re like me and like to watch news and opinion debates particularly on Fox News then you probably noticed how some program guests like to talk-over other guests holding opposing views. Without fail, the guests who like to play this game are always the ones representing radical left-wing positions.

For example, every time Candace Owens, a conservative activist, appears on Laura Ingraham’s show opposite Leo Terrell, a civil rights attorney, Terrell does his best to talk-over Candice so as to prevent the audience from hearing any of her arguments. I noticed the same behavior exhibited by Tim Kaine during the 2016 Pence/Kaine Vice-Presidential debate. Intolerance is a trademark of the socialist Left.

So, what does Bernie Sanders, and most every other Democrat in the presidential race, really believe? I’ve taken just a few examples of where Bernie stands on select issues directly from his campaign’s website.

Live up to our ideals as a nation and welcome refugees and those seeking asylum, including those displaced by climate change.

Create a Medicare for All, single-payer, national health insurance program to provide everyone in America with comprehensive health care coverage, free at the point of service.

Transform our energy system to 100 percent renewable energy and create 20 million jobs needed to solve the climate crisis.

Ensure justice for frontline communities, especially under-resourced groups, communities of color, Native Americans, people with disabilities, children and the elderly.

Double union membership within Bernie’s first term.

Will raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade and cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

Create a nation in which all people are treated equally.

Honor Native American tribal treaty rights and sovereignty, moving away from a relationship of paternalism and control toward one of deference and support.

Enact a federal jobs guarantee, to ensure that everyone is guaranteed a stable job that pays a living wage.

As can be seen from just the above list, Bernie makes liberal use of the climate change boogeyman to justify unrestricted immigration. Notice he doesn’t explicitly say “unrestricted” immigration but how else would you describe a system that proposes “breaking up ICE and CBP” federal law enforcement agencies?

Bernie hits a double when he calls out Native Americans (a class of sanctioned perpetual victims) and “paternalism” in the same sentence.
Progressives like to accuse conservatives of inserting “dog whistles” in their communications but the socialists also have their own trigger words which Bernie uses frequently such as “union,” “class,” “justice,” and “equality” or “equally.”

Too bad the Constitution prohibits anyone under the age of 35 from becoming president otherwise AOC would be leading the Democratic ticket. Likewise, the Electoral College prevents elections from being decided by the vote of only two or three states. The Constitution…a major stumbling block for the progressives.

In this initial entry in my series on the 2020 election, I’ve chosen to present “truth over facts” because it is much better to be “morally right” than to be “precisely, factually, and semantically correct.” Agreed? Besides, anyone who can make statements like that with a straight face deserves to be President.

 

Marilyn Manson: Satan’s Disciple?

Satanic and occult influences can be found everywhere especially in contemporary music. Don’t believe it, then just try playing your favorite records backwards and you’ll hear all the occultic and satanic messages. Oh, I forgot…nobody buys records anymore, they just download MP3s.

I’ve been listening to music a long time from various sources including radio, 45 and 33 1/3 RPM vinyl records, cassette tape, reel-to-reel tape, and CDs. I never considered playing the songs backwards; I never even thought to try. That was back in the 1970s, now if you want to learn how to play your media backwards, all you need to do is watch a video on YouTube.

Of course, not even Mr. Ed was exempted from the 1980s Satanic Panic hysteria since the notion of a talking horse must be satanic after all. Since Satan is cunning and deceptive, his followers needed to find a clever covert way to get his messages across to the masses and that was through backward masking. A clear example is in the theme song to the Mr. Ed TV show played backwards includes the phrase, “the source is Satan.”1 Shocking! I watched the Mr. Ed show when I was a kid and I don’t remember the theme song ever being played backwards and I don’t remember hearing any satanic messages either.

I guess those folks who are determined to find Satan will find him wherever and whenever they choose.

Many of those folks were pastors and evangelists along with a few politicians, namely Tipper Gore, who along with other Senators’ wives, created the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC).2 I never realized there were so many pastors and evangelists who liked to play their heavy metal records backwards. On the other hand, most politicians naturally hear everything backwards anyway.

As a result of the PMRC getting its way with forcing the record industry to affix parental warning labels on album covers containing objectionable material, the sales of heavy metal records surged.3 If you want people to touch your freshly painted doorways or handrails, all you need to do is display “Wet Paint!” signs. It’s in our nature to want to do the things we are told not to do. Remember the biblical story of Adam and Eve? (I know there’s a heavy theological implication in that last question.)

So, heavy metal music that instigated the Satanic Panic which gripped the nation during the 1980s and threatened to destroy Western civilization is still alive and well today primarily due to the fact that most current heavy metal artists and those from the 1980s have become mainstream. And then there’s Marilyn Manson…

Brian Hugh Warner was born on January 5, 1969 in Canton, Ohio into a seemingly normal family and according to photos provided in his book, The Long Hard Road Out of Hell, he was someone who appeared to be your typical all-American, midwestern, innocent looking, clean-cut high-school student— the kind of guy who would have the prettiest girls lining up to sign his yearbook.

Brian’s parents insisted he attend Heritage Christian School instead of public school through his first year of high-school. Brian’s family was Episcopalian, not exactly a fundamentalist, evangelical faith. So, why did they insist on sending him there? Could it be that they were fully aware of the grandfather’s depraved behavior4 and wanted to prevent their son from following in his grandfather’s footsteps?

Based on Brian’s recollections, I’d say the Friday assemblies at Heritage Christian School resembled the alter call at Billy Graham crusades. The young Brian Warner knew he should have gone forward but the embarrassment was too much for him.5 Brian writes that he realized he was “morally, spiritually and religiously behind everyone else.”6 Again, this where most unbelievers get it wrong. You can’t compare yourself to other people because you will either feel unworthy or worse, superior to others as the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and publican. (Luke 18:9-14 NASB).

So, did Brian’s first year of attendance at a Christian high-school contribute to his low self-esteem, feelings of isolation, frequent nightmares, and sexual frustrations as he strongly infers in his book?7 Probably so. But, contrary to what some may believe, Christianity doesn’t just rub off on you because you attend Christian school, have Christian friends, listen to Christian radio, or attend church. If Christianity actually spread that way, everyone in the United States would be a Christian.

Nevertheless, Brian found no “safe spaces” during his time at Heritage Christian School. For Brian, everything he was allegedly taught about Christianity concerned the antichrist, the beast rising from the ground, 666, and the rapture.8 These apocalyptic teachings can be terrifying to mature believers let alone to a troubled teenager who apparently didn’t have parents who could explain the doctrines he was being taught at school.

As it turned out, his Heritage Christian School teachers’ obsession with the imminent return of Christ and the end of the world had the opposite effect on Brian. Instead of driving him toward Christianity, it drove him away…permanently.9 Cry wolf too many times and after a while people won’t take you seriously.

In the end, Brian convinced his parents to transfer him to public school in his sophomore year, but the damage was already done.

During one of Marilyn Manson’s meetings with Anton Szandor LaVey, LaVey made Marilyn a minister in the Church of Satan.10 So, M. Manson became a card-carrying11 member of LaVey’s satanic church. This was quite an honor for Brian (LaVey never called him Marilyn),12 but was it deserved?

I’ve never even heard a Marilyn Manson (MM) song until I landed on a music video of him covering the Doors song “The End” while researching material for this writing. While I never particularly cared for the Doors song at first, I thought it was too long and boring, nevertheless I started to get into it again after I heard it in the movie Apocalypse Now. Quite to the contrary, MM’s cover is anything but boring; it is loud and aggressive while still retaining the dark feeling and imagery of the Doors original. This is not what I was expecting from MM.

Marilyn Manson’s music videos are not your usual MTV garden variety. I would describe MM’s videos as an amalgamation of images resembling those seen in movies like Saw, Insidious, and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Depraved and disturbing are also adjectives I’d use to describe MM’s videos but does that qualify them as satanic? Sometimes, the most satanic lyrics in music recordings and TV/movie dialog and situations are the ones that portray good as evil and evil as good.13

No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. (2 Cor. 11:14-15)

Anton Szandor LaVey never believed in a literal Satan, so by extension he also didn’t believe in God. How is it possible for a person to so vehemently hate someone or something they don’t believe exists as LaVey had hated God and Christianity? This is a contradiction. As MM has said, “it’s a lot easier to hate someone you’ve cared about than someone you never have.”14

I like to tell people who are afraid to watch horror movies that you can’t be afraid of something you don’t believe is real. But maybe, just maybe…deep down inside they entertain the possibility that it could be real. And so, I believe it is with LaVey and Manson, particularly Manson.

Marilyn Manson’s song catalog is extensive which precluded me from being able to analyze most of the lyrics but one song in particular stood out to me and that was “Terrible Lie.” I’ve reproduced snippets of the song lyrics here from the AllTheLyrics.com website. (Since MM is male, I’ve decided to use masculine pronouns.)

Hey God, I really don’t know what you mean.
Seems like salvation comes only in our dreams.
I feel my hatred grow all the more extreme.
Hey God, can this world really be as sad as it seems?

In the preceding verse, the author claims ignorance of God’s plan of salvation and is angry that he can’t make it real for himself. The author again levels an accusation against God for allowing all the suffering in the world. I provided a somewhat terse explanation for why God allows suffering in my “GOD & the Gods: LaVeyan Satanism” blog post.

Don’t take it away from me.
I need someone to hold on to.
Don’t take it away from me.
I need you to hold on to.
Don’t take it away from me.
I need someone to hold on to.

This verse closely resembles the plea the biblical David directed to God in Psalm 51.

Hey God, there’s nothing left for me to hide.
I lost my ignorance, my security and pride.
I’m all alone in this f***king world you must despise.
Hey God, I believed your promises. Your promises were lies.

Again, this verse illustrates the reaction of someone trying to approach God on their own terms instead of on God’s terms and then blaming God for rejecting their overtures. Again, more accusations. Does God really owe anyone anything?

How many you betray.
You’ve taken everything.

These lines from a verse imply that because God has placed constraints on human behavior, the author’s life was ruined because he didn’t receive the reward he was expecting at the end.

I’m on my hands and knees.
I want so much to believe.

The author wants God to accept him but only if it’s on his (author’s) own terms as was the case with the biblical Esau. (Heb. 12)

As mentioned earlier, Anton bestowed Brian with a great honor by naming him a minister of LaVey’s Church of Satan. But what was the one thing that endeared Brian to Anton so strongly. I believe that one thing could have been the evocative quality of Brian’s music. As I wrote in a previous blog post, LaVey wasn’t a fan of rock music, he was a musician who played “The lyrical, romantic tunes of the ’30s and ’40s,”15 quite unlike any of the music being played by heavy metal groups at the time or now for that matter. According to LaVey, true “occult” music is music that is unique, forgotten, neglected.16 17 Hardly the type of music that could inspire the Satanic Panic of the 1980s.

And…I’m beginning to like Marilyn Manson’s music.

I think the Stones got it right in the song “Sympathy for the Devil” with the lyrics, “Please allow me to introduce myself I’m a man of wealth and taste.” Can these lyrics which describe some of the Devil’s characteristics be applied to either MM or LaVey considering the words, “wealth and taste” imply sophistication? Probably not.

It cracks me up that LaVey, an avowed atheist, was the technical advisor on the movie, The Devil’s Rain, a film about literal Devil worship.

In LaVeyan Satanism, the person of Satan is an archetype or an imitation and if it is an imitation, then what is it an imitation of? The archetype of Satan opposes God who also doesn’t exist so He must also be an archetype. So, in LaVeyan Satanism, we have an archetype in opposition to another archetype. The bottom line is that LaVeyan Satanism is guilty of the same error it accuses Christianity of and that is it is all man-made. Anton LaVey used his Devil shtick18 to attract attention to himself and to shock the Christian community, an angle which MM adopted with great success.

While researching Anton LaVey and his Church of Satan, I found myself in agreement with many of his so-called satanic positions. I consider myself to be fairly individualistic and out of the mainstream. I am also no fan of organized religion. I find myself to be “old-school” on a lot of things. I’m also somewhat of an introvert and I do prefer animals and things to people19 So, does all this make me a Satanist of the LaVeyan variety? Probably not, since I don’t harbor any hatred towards God. Yes, I believe Christians can legitimately question God’s motives and sometimes feel anger and disappointment towards God, but not the vehement hatred that LaVey expressed.

I’m sure many would argue that I’m hypocritical because I haven’t passed judgment on MM as other more “spiritual” Christians might have done given Manson’s membership in LaVey’s pseudo-church. Remember Jesus’ teaching on not trying to remove a splinter in someone else’s eye when you yourself have a log in your own eye. (Matt. 7:2-5) Oh yea…they also say the Bible is humorless.

M. Manson believes the Bible is outdated; a book written for a “culture long since defunct.”20 Is that really true? Can anyone argue that any society at any time in history wouldn’t have benefited from the stability provided by the Ten Commandments. Without them, chaos and lawlessness would prevail.

MM also claims to be the Antichrist.21 I would disagree since the Bible teaches there are many antichrists (1 John 2:18). In addition, the spirit of the antichrist was already in the world when the Apostle John wrote his gospel. (1 John 4:3) Was he (John) describing Marilyn Manson? I think not since MM can’t lay blame on a God whom he doesn’t believe exists and he certainly isn’t trying to deceive anyone either since his song lyrics speak for themselves.

In the Acknowledgements section of his Long Hard Road book, Marilyn Manson includes the dedication, “to the memory of Anton Szander [sic] LaVey”

When I visited the Marilyn Manson website, I watched the “God’s Gonna Cut You Down” music video and really liked it. I did some research and learned that Johnny Cash also recorded the song for his American V album. I like Cash’s rendition also, but Manson’s version is more urgent with the usual sonic overload placed in just the right spots that Manson is noted for. And you don’t even have to play it backwards to hear all the lyrics. I liked the song so much that I ordered the limited-edition vinyl picture disc from a link on Manson’s website.


  1. “SATAN TAKING MR. ED ALONG FOR THE RIDE?” Justin Mitchell, Chicago Tribune, May 8, 1986, https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-05-08-8602020267-story.html

  2. “6.66 Hot Points Of The ’80s Heavy Metal Satanic Panic,” Mike McPadden, VH1 News, February 11, 2015, http://www.vh1.com/news/54726/remembering-the-80s-heavy-metal-satanic-panic/

  3. Ibid. 

  4. Marilyn Manson with Neil Strauss, The Long Hard Road Out of Hell, (Dey Street, New York, 1999), 15-16. 

  5. Ibid., 20. 

  6. Ibid. 

  7. Ibid., 19. 

  8. Ibid., 18-19. 

  9. Ibid., 22. 

  10. Ibid., 170. 

  11. Ibid. 

  12. Ibid., 168. 

  13. Gerard Sczepura, “GOD & the Gods: LaVeyan Satanism,” Theological Ruminations (blog), February 17, 2019, https://gerardsczepura.com/god-the-gods-laveyan-satanism/

  14. Manson, Long Hard Road, 126. 

  15. Barton, Blanche. The Secret Life of a Satanist: The Authorized Biography of Anton Szandor LaVey (p. 130). Feral House. Kindle Edition. 

  16. Ibid. 

  17. Sczepura, “LaVeyan Satanism.” 

  18. Ibid. 

  19. Barton, The Secret Life of a Satanist, 121. 

  20. Manson, Long Hard Road, 176. 

  21. Ibid., 213. 

GOD & the Gods: Catholicism

My previous entry in this series GOD & the Gods was on the topic of LaVeyan Satanism. I concluded that writing with the statement that LaVey had “appropriated the spiritual into an extreme atheistic and carnal belief system”1 because LaVey never believed in a literal Satan. In a way you could say that LaVey’s Church of Satan consisted primarily of philosophies espoused by its founder and not necessarily those of its namesake. In the same way, it can be argued that Catholicism appropriated spiritual concepts into an outward form of Christianity that embraces tradition and ritual over sound biblical teaching.

Not many readers will disagree with my observation concerning ritual, but my statement on tradition (human customs) is sure to ruffle some feathers. However, my intent is not to ruffle feathers, but to encourage the reader to re-examine their belief system.

Let’s set the record straight, I’m not someone who was always on the outside looking in; I was raised a Catholic and received my First Holy Communion at St. Mary of Czestochowa R.C. Church in Bound Brook, NJ. By the way, I’m the expressionless communicant highlighted in the photo in Figure 1. Most all my close relatives on both my father’s and mother’s side were Catholic—what would you expect from Polish-Americans and those of Polish descent? I am also a godparent to my niece.

St. Mary's Communion Class
Figure 1. St. Mary’s Communion Class

St. Mary’s Church uses the “R.C.” designation in its name indicating that it associates with the Roman or Latin rite in Catholicism. The designation also signifies that the church recognizes the authority of the Pope in Rome. In this writing however, the focus is primarily on doctrine not liturgy. Some readers may choose to split hairs over my use of the term Roman Catholic to describe the Catholic Church, but be that as it may. I understand the academic term for the Church and all its rites is simply Church of Rome.

For the practicing catholic who happens upon this blog post, there is no need to be overly concerned because you will not find the usual rantings that can be found on other protestant-oriented sites. My position is to confront not condemn by adhering to the charge given by Timothy in the following scripture:

…preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. (2 Tim. 4:2 NASB)

Nevertheless, why include an installment on Catholicism in a series GOD & the Gods which implies there are other gods other than the one God? Doesn’t the Catholic Church believe in the one true God just as other Christian churches believe? Well…that’s the whole point of this installment. The premise being put forth here is that the worship of other gods in the Catholic Church is shrouded in doctrine and tradition.

Unfortunately, Catholic doctrine is not derived from Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) but from Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church. The Catechism teaches that these sources of Revelation are co-dependent, meaning all three sources have equal authority.2 The Catechism goes on to teach that Sacred Scripture is inspired by God and is God’s Word3 which is all well and good. That being true then why has Catholic doctrine undermined God’s authority by elevating human tradition and church bureaucracy (office-holders) to the level of Deity. If God is God, wouldn’t His inspired Word as given in the Bible be sufficient, complete, and final?

The Catholic Church distinguishes between Holy Tradition with a capital “T” and human tradition. Tradition (capital “T”) is what the Catholic Church believes has been passed down from the apostles. If I remember correctly, there is an entire book in the Bible called Acts which records the Acts of the Apostles. The Tradition that Catholics hold in such high regard is redundant at best and irreverent at worst since God has already provided us with all the information we need in His written Word.

Before continuing on and in order to avoid confusion, a definition of the word “worship” needs to be established. Wikipedia defines worship as an “act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity.” [emphasis added] Also, it’s important to remember the following synonyms: reverence, veneration, adoration, praise, devotion, and glorification.

So then, in the context of this discussion, who are the “other gods?” Certainly not the mythological gods: Zeus, Odin, Apollo, Thor, etc., as they would be too obvious. But what happens when a church officially sanctions the use of iconography in its liturgy, that is, its worship, even though the images are representations of biblical characters or even God himself? The answer is the religious icons used in worship have become idols in violation of God’s specific command:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God… (Exod. 20:4-5)

These two verses are taken directly from the Ten Commandments. What other interpretation of these two verses can be argued except that which is obvious. This is why Bible-based, evangelical protestant churches never display or possess statuary and images in their sanctuaries, only empty crosses.

Evangelical Christians have many issues with Catholic doctrine, but this writing is primarily focused on Marian Veneration with only a passing mention of Apostolic Succession and Sacramentalism.

Consider the words of the Hail Mary (Traditional) Catholic prayer:

Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

The first four lines of the prayer are scriptural but the remaining lines of the prayer go off the rails. In Luke 1:35, Mary calls herself a bondslave and she goes on to declare what God has done for her and that “holy is His name.” Mary puts the focus rightly on God, yet somehow the Church of Rome elevated her with the title, Mother of God. Fact is, Mary is the mother of Jesus. Since Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the Mother of God. Does this line of reasoning make sense? Obviously, it does to the Church of Rome.4

As an adolescent, Jesus willingly submitted Himself to his parents until He entered His ministry.

Then His mother and His brothers *arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.
A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.”
Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?”
Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!
“For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35)

The event described in these verses demonstrate that Jesus afforded no special privileges to His mother or to any of His brothers. If Mary didn’t get any special consideration while on earth, what evidence is there that she has special privileges in Heaven? Not even the angels in Heaven are worthy of our worship as John records in Revelation:

Then I [John] fell at his feet to worship him. But he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God…” (Rev. 19:10)

Jesus had to be conceived without the intervention of any earthly father so that Adam’s sin wouldn’t be imputed to Him, therefore He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Can the same be said of Mary? In order for Mary to have been conceived without original sin, as the Catechism teaches, she would have to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit just as Jesus had been. In order for Mary to be born without original sin, the same would also be true for Mary’s mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on, all the way back to Eve. Were all these women without original sin and were all these women eternal virgins? I think not since if it were true, then all women in Mary’s lineage would be placed on at least an equal plane as Jesus, guiltless and perfect.5 This doctrine is not derived from Scripture but from the Magisterium, that being the Pope and the bishops. The Catechism also teaches in no uncertain terms that Mary lived her entire life without sin,6 just as Jesus had done.

I remember during one of our vacations at Cape May, NJ while strolling through the Washington Street Mall, I noticed something interesting over the entrance to Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church which I had never noticed before during any of our previous visits to the area. What I noticed over the entrance to the church was an image of Mary surrounded by the Latin words, “Ad Jesum per Mariam” which is translated, “To Jesus through Mary.” So ingrained in Catholic theology is the worship of Mary!

Let us also not forget that the Church of Rome teaches that Mary precedes Jesus in the order of salvation. What else would the saying, “Ad Jesum per Mariam” infer? I wonder how many practicing Catholics realize that their Church teaches this error.

In addition, Catholic doctrine places Mary as the Mother of the Church7 and since she was without sin, she holds the office of advocate for sinners seeking forgiveness from Jesus as there is no salvation (forgiveness) outside of the Church.8 According to Catholic doctrine, one must receive the sacraments administered by the Church in order to be saved. Since the sacraments can only be administered by the Church, which is Christ’s instrument on earth, there can be no salvation outside of the Church.

Philip C. L. Gray, from a reprint of his Lay Witness article, puts an interesting spin on this no salvation outside of the Church doctrine claiming that this teaching doesn’t necessarily apply to those who through no fault of their own, were never offered the truth, that being the Gospel.9 For the most part, Gray quotes the appropriate Scripture verses to make his point along with examples of Old Testament saints who were not baptized yet were saved. He explains this situation with a quote from the Catechism, “God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.”10 In other words, God has given, to the Church, unnecessary and non-binding commands. Of course, it is no surprise that the Church teaches that those who willingly reject the authority of the Church of Rome, the Pope, and the sacraments are lost.11

Getting back to my discussion on Mary, if, as the Church believes, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium are co-dependent and co-equal, you would expect that one wouldn’t contradict any of the others but that is not the case. How is it that both Tradition and Magisterium are in contradiction with Scripture concerning “Ad Jesum per Mariam” as illustrated by the following verse:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; (1 John 2:1)

Let’s see how this would work; Mary advocates for sinners with Jesus, then Jesus advocates for Mary with the Father? Since Mary is the Mother of God and the Father is God, and Jesus is God, then Mary is really the one dispensing salvation to the Church. This may make sense in Rome but nowhere else. Interestingly, if Mary is as indispensable for the economy of salvation as the Church of Rome contends, then why is her name only mentioned once in the Book of Acts?

Coincidentally, or perhaps by design, the Church of Rome consists of an earthly trinity: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. However, the notion of a trinity is not unique to Christianity. You can find many instances of trinitarianism in the belief system of Hinduism and the Celtics in particular. Alexander Hislop, in his book The Two Babylons, points out that the worship of the first person of the Hindu Trinity, Brahma, is almost never worshiped, even in India.12 He goes on to say that even in Europe, the worship of a Father God, first person of the Christian Trinity, has been replaced with the worship of the Mother and Child.13 Hislop’s contention is that the Catholic images of the Virgin Mary holding her child originated in ancient Babylon, “The Babylonians, in their popular religion, supremely worshipped a Goddess Mother and a Son, who was represented in pictures and in images as an infant or child in his mother’s arms.”14

Just as Hislop’s premise that the Mother and Son originated in Babylon, he also claims that the statues of Peter, who is claimed to be the first Pope, which are found in Rome are really statues of the Roman god Jupiter; and likewise, Peter’s keys15 are those of the Roman god and goddess Janus and Cybele.16

Hislop’s book, The Two Babylons, is probably one of or the most thoroughly researched book on the subject of the origins of the Catholic belief system. I challenge anyone to dispute Hislop’s academic rigor, though many will certainly dispute his findings, but not on the merits of his arguments.

This concludes my discussion on Catholicism as it relates to the GOD & the Gods series. I plan another writing on the Church of Rome by evaluating some books written by Catholic apologists which will hopefully provide the opportunity for me to expand on the Apostolic Succession doctrine and the Magisterium. In addition, I plan to examine the history and beliefs of the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) headquartered in Scranton, PA. I doubt many people have ever heard of this church but nevertheless I believe it deserves consideration.


  1. Gerard Sczepura, “GOD & the Gods: LaVeyan Satanism,” Theological Ruminations (blog), February 17, 2019, https://gerardsczepura.com/god-the-gods-laveyan-satanism/

  2. U. S. Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Complete and Updated, (Image, New York, 1995), 34. 

  3. Ibid., 36. 

  4. Ibid., 139. 

  5. Ibid., 138. 

  6. Ibid., 140. 

  7. Ibid., 273. 

  8. Ibid., 244. 

  9. “Without the Church There Is No Salvation,” Philip C. L. Gray, Catholic Education Resource Center, accessed April 1, 2019, https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/without-the-church-there-is-no-salvation.html

  10. Ibid. 

  11. Ibid. 

  12. Hislop, Alexander. The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife (p. 18). Kindle Edition. 

  13. Ibid. 

  14. Ibid. 

  15. U. S. Catholic Church, Catechism, 178-179. 

  16. Hislop, The Two Babylons, 188.